G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Playtest it and see for yourself. Maybe you will have a different experience than me. My experience has been that the unit works perfectly with a cost of 5.

As far as artillery support is concerned, either the unit has it or the unit doesn’t have it. Because of XML limitations, you can’t have artillery support selectively in some situations and not others. And, honestly, when you start to draw rules distinctions that finely, you risk getting lost in the weeds a little bit.

The way I have it set up in the mod is that the unit gets transported on both cruisers and battleships. I haven’t integrated paradropping, so I don’t know what impact it would have.

As far as having the unit blitz with tanks, again, I don’t understand why this is necessary? What exactly are you trying to simulate?

@regularkid:

Playtest it and see for yourself. Maybe you will have a different experience than me. My experience has been that the unit works perfectly with a cost of 5.

The way I have it set up in the mod is that the unit gets transported on both cruisers and battleships.

What was exactly the combat value of the Marines you play-tested, Kid?
Was it this?
Marines
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1
Cost 5
1 unit can be loaded on 1 Battleship or Cruiser.
Gets +1A during amphibious assault, but cannot be supported by Artillery
Cannot combine with +1A Artillery bonus in any other situation.

If it is the case, the unit is weaker than regular infantry.
The high cost come from is combined arms with cruiser and nothing else.
It should be revised.

The comparative calculations I made between such Cruiser and Escorted TPs showed that it is always better to built Cruiser with Marines.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1470463#msg1470463

On next play-test only use Battleship to carry 4 IPCs Marines, I believe it is far less OP.

That’s it exactly.

The mod is attached as a SavedGame if u’d like to try it. Game Notes explain all revisions. Would be interested to hear your playtest experience :)

G40BalanceMod (VichyFranceandMarines).tsvg

@regularkid:

As far as having the unit blitz with tanks, again, I don’t understand why this is necessary? What exactly are you trying to simulate?

@Baron:

@regularkid:

Barney:

Just had a Eureka moment! Forget marines traveling 3 to a transport (which u seem lukewarm on anyhow). And forget the 3-capacity transport, while were at it. Just muddies the waters, and there is already a lot there that needs to be tested.

Here is the epiphany:  in addition to attacking at 2 during amphibious attacks, Marines are the only units that can be transported on battleships and/or cruisers (1 to a ship)!

Can be accomplished in XML by giving transports 11 carrying points, and giving battleships and cruisers 4 carrying points. Marines have 4 carrying cost, Infantry 5, other units 6.

U like?

Interesting idea which should be tested, regularKid.
For both Cruiser and Battleship units.

This additional transportation move could also fit into my
universal Elite/Marines/Paratrooper unit:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Cruiser or 1 Battleship.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.

Air movement bonus: Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.

Land movement bonus: Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry (only).

No other combined arms.

On amphibious assault, this unit imply a +1 extra-punch per TP carrying Tank on offense:
A2+A3 = A5 compared to Inf + Art, A2+A2 / Inf + Tk, A1+A3.
And 1 Inf + 1 Elite Inf gives A1+A2 in all circumstances, less than 1 Inf + 1 Art, A2+A2,
but better than 1 Inf + 1 usual Marines outside beachlanding A1+A1.

This higher attack factor for Marines/Elite unit with Tank can be explained by the use of amphibious specialized mechanized weapons, such as LVTs / Amtraks, landing crafts, etc.

It won’t be spammed because 1 Inf + 1 Art cost 7 IPCs and gives the same Attack factor @4 than 1 Marines and 1 Art, or 2 Marines which would cost 8 IPCs, 1 IPC more.

---

Giving extra +1 move paired with Tank would be too strong compared to 1 MI +1 Tk combination (A4 D5 M2 C10) vs previous idea 1 Marines + 1 Tk (A5 D5 C10).
However, a +1 bonus move with MI is quite distinctive.

This Elite Infantry at 4 IPCs gets :

1. the basic attack factor of an improved Infantry combined with Artillery (A2) without the need of combined arms, which is far below any @3 value,
2. on amphibious assault, gives the same attack factor than a usual Pacific Marines without the OP combined arms with Artillery attack @3, but you keep the higher A5 combo with Tank,
3. some special combined arms movement features on Sea, Air and Land, a kind of SEAL unit before the letter.

At A&A Strategic level, this Elite Infantry unit could represent all kinds of special forces with extra training which can do more with less logistics than Regular army men.

Here is where on this thread I started talking Elite Infantry:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1458486#msg1458486

Elite unit represent all kind of special forces: highly motivated, intensive training, less logistic to deploy but able to do more with less compared to regular infantry unit.
It should work like a SEAL unit.
So, it becomes interesting to build some not for amphibious or airdrop but for land attack.
I want something which could work as Marines, US Rangers, paratrooper or SS trooper.

Here is a weaker and less complex bonus for Land movement

Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper/Rangers:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1 in CM, 2 in NCM
Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Battleship.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.

Air movement bonus:
Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.
Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 in Non-Combat Move only.

No other combined arms.

I think thats maybe where we’re getting hung up. In my opinion, marines should be their own unit, rather than part of an “all purpose elite” unit. And since mechanized infantry (infantry that travels 2) is already a unit, I guess I don’t see the need to graft that ability onto foot soldiers. That’s not to say you couldn’t. I just don’t think the game needs it.

The only reason I added marines at all is because I was digging through the “units” folder for the G40 map,  and found unused png images for “marine” units. Then I got to thinking how having a Marines unit (capable of traveling on warships) might improve the game, and make it more fun, particularly in the Pacific.

I’d also be open to the idea of having dedicated airborne infantry, since this is a significant aspect of the war that isn’t represented at all in OOB game (except through tech, which no one uses). Obviously, there’s no “right” answer here. Its just a matter of opinion.

Actually, I wanted a universal improved infantry unit.
I wanted a wider range of usefulness, not just something which mainly works only for Marines, with a single purpose which becomes obsolete once moving inland because no different or worse than Infantry.
@Baron:

Elite units figures all kind of special forces: highly motivated, intensive training, less logistic to deploy but able to do more with less compared to regular infantry unit.
It should work like a SEAL unit.
So, it becomes interesting to build some not for amphibious or airdrop but for land attack.
I want something which could work as Marines, US Rangers, paratrooper or SS trooper.

Here is a weaker and less complex bonus for Land movement

Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper/Rangers:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1 in Combat Move, 2 in Non-Combat Move
Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Battleship.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.

Air movement bonus:
Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.
Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 in Non-Combat Move only.

No other combined arms.

---

My last Elite A2 D2 CM1-NCM2 C4 gets the same  impact in amphibious than Marines unit you play-tested but its role is not limited to this situation.
It can figure for Marines during amphibious assault with Tank or from BB.
It can figure the advantageous surprise effect given to paratrooper attack.
It can figure Rangers, Waffen-SS, Royal Marines and UK commandos, and USSR Red guard (IDK about them), which were better than ordinary soldiers.

@regularkid:

I think thats maybe where we’re getting hung up. In my opinion, marines should be their own unit, rather than part of an “all purpose elite” unit. And since mechanized infantry (infantry that travels 2) is already a unit, I guess I don’t see the need to graft that ability onto foot soldiers. That’s not to say you couldn’t. I just don’t think the game needs it.

@regularkid:

**As far as artillery support is concerned, either the unit has it or the unit doesn’t have it.

As far as having the unit blitz with tanks, again, I don’t understand why this is necessary? What exactly are you trying to simulate?**

You are right. Blitz with Tank was too much and too near MI specific capacity.
However, giving NCM2 to Elite Infantry unit with no pairing bonus at all gives them autonomy and figures the higher mobility and independancy of special forces (and less combined arms, is simpler).
Also, buying this unit will not directly announce what your intent are, since they can move faster than Arty, it allows for instance Germany to either use them for Sea-Lion or Barbarossa or UK to either airdropping them or making them part of amphibious assault.

This 4 IPCs unit is very different than MI or Artillery.

MI keeps the higher mobility CM2 or NCM2, can blitz with Tank and still can get A2 too, paired with Arty.
Artillery is more powerful because of the +1A bonus to MI or Inf (for 7 IPCs, only) the best mix for your buck on TP, but move 1 CM and 1 NCM.
Elite takes less room on TP than Mech Inf or Artillery, so you can put a unique Elite+Tank A5 D5 10 IPCs worth on TP.
Elite Infantry have same attack than Artillery in itself and have the same Combat move 1,
but an higher Non-Combat Move 2, which is the same NCM than MI, but MI stay the best mobile infantry in Combat Move.

I believe this is an interesting unit between MI and Arty due to its operational flexibility.
It can follow MI and Tank in friendly TTs near battle front.
It can add more punch with an airdrop.
It can be fastly deployed with Battleship.
And it stays within A2 + D2 = 4 IPCs usual ground unit cost calculation parameter.

The 4 IPCs Elite unit is on narrow spot which gives its specific and balanced niche compared to all other ground units combos:
MI + Inf =     A2 D4 M2/M1  7 IPCs
MI + MI =     A2 D4 M2          8 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.

Art + Inf =    A4 D4 M1          7 IPCs
Art + MI =    A4 D4 M1/M2   8 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.
2 Artys =      A4 D4 M1          8 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.

Elite + Inf =  A3 D4 CM1-NCM2/M1  7 IPCs
Elite + MI = A3 D4 CM1-NCM2/M2  8 IPCs
Elite + Art = A4 D4 CM1-NCM2/M1  8 IPCs
2 Elites =     A4 D4 CM1-NCM2          8 IPCs

Tnk + Inf =   A4 D5 M2/M1   9 IPCs
Tnk + MI =   A4 D5 M2, blitz 10 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.
Tnk + Art =  A5 D5 M2/M1 10 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.
Tnk + Elite= A5 D5 M2/CM1-NCM2 10 IPCs
Tnk + Tnk = A6 D6 M2, blitz 12 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.

So, I still believe it should be limited to Battleship only, but cost must remain 4 IPCs.

Also, they should only be produced in Major IC.

Just found this idea from Larry Harris, maybe Marines on TP get the possibility to unload in a different TT than the other unit on board. I don’t think it can be implement on TripleA though.

@Baron:

I must add this  suggestion just to have a more complete idea about the wide range of Marines abilities:

Suggestion made on dec 02, 2010 by Larry Harris
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4062

Marines…(and not just US Marines but the Marines of all the powers)
These units could look something like this:
Cost: 4
Attack: Normal attacks 1, Amphibious Assaults 2. In both cases they are, like infantry, promoted up one number when supported by artillery … That’s right … Marines conducting an amphibious assault and receiving Artillery support, can attack at 3.
Defense 2
Movement 1.

Special note: Marines, on one transport, can attack two different objectives at the same time.
LH-i

The question is: is there many sea-zone which boarded 2 territories in 1940, 1942.1 and 1942.2?

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

As far as combat units go, I would set out these chief goals for fixing busted units in the current (ideally the solutions for the “problem units” should interrelated.)

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

Make the Cruiser a worthwhile purchase.
**Fix AAAguns once and for all.

Last things first, AAguns suck. This is pretty universally acknowledged. It blows that the unit sculpt is pretty cool, but it just has no good role to play in the game for most players. For me the single most annoying thing about AAguns is how they are restricted the non-combat phase. This makes them an all around headache in addition to being overpriced and underpowered. So lets fix them.**

As for Cruisers, granting them some sort of AA shot on the water, would fulfill the dual purpose of giving them a unique role to play in the naval game, while also helping to mitigate the overwhelming power of Bombers vs Navies. Does anyone object? Or see this as a non-issue? I would love to find a way to make the AAAgun into a normal combat unit, that moves during the normal combat phase, and can load and unload from transports in the same way all the other transportable units can.
If no one objects to a tweak then I would suggest that we find a way to adapt the AAAgun and the Cruiser (oerhaps in a way that doesn’t violate the current battle board core info) perhaps by granting them some special or expanded abilities?

Cruiser anti air capalities have been discussed before.
Flak that can move during combat has also been discussed.
I think it’d be nice if we took a look at some of those discussions and settled on something we can all get behind.

Not saying we need to iron out all the details right now, but just to looking for some agreement in general principle.  :-D

About AA guns, here is the link to a thread which explains my most recent idea and showed many quotes from other people in various thread. Food for thought. :)
Two simpler and balanced ways to handle AAA unit (Antiaircraft artillery)?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36277.msg1433338#msg1433338

I just found that Larry suggested a similar AAA unit on Alpha+.1 brainstorm.
I believe anything similar should be tried to solve AAA issue.

Let me be the first one to post on this “Theorycrafting” site.

Flak guns… Just a fancy name for AA-Guns. Flak guns are a new unit. Each would be based on the historical weapon used by the different powers (TBD for sure). Hey, in other words its a new unit that has its own Attack/Defense numbers. Its own cost. It’s own capabilities and use. For example the numbers may look something like this:

Cost 5

Attacks: No attack power

Defense: Only aircraft that are attacking land units in which the Flak gun is located can be shot at. Flak guns can only roll 1 die but can roll for each round of combat, just like other units. Each Flak gun in a territory can roll up to 2 dice per round if under attack by at least 2 aircraft or more. They can be chosen as a casualty. They scores hits by rolling 1s.

Movement 1

Special notes: A player may have as many Flak guns per territory as he wishes.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4062

My own idea on AAA wasn’t that far.

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

As far as combat units go, I would set out these chief goals for fixing busted units in the current (ideally the solutions for the “problem units” should interrelated.)

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

Make the Cruiser a worthwhile purchase.

Fix AAAguns once and for all.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY A0 D1 M1 Cost 4, 1 hit,
Each round, up to 1 preemptive defense @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser, works similar to OOB AAA but can defend each combat round.
Stop any blitz, and defend itself @1 against enemy’s ground units, if no attacking air unit is present.
Can move during combat move phase, can be taken as casualty (owner’s choice).

Interesting bit about the AAguns and marines. If AA fires every round I’d say only 1 shot. I’ve always found AA units that fire every round to be too strong but that’s just my opinion. It would definitely promote people buying AAguns. Speaking of, what do you want the AAtransport to cost Baron ? Provided I can get it to work that is :)

Anyway the elite units have been reformed. A2, D2, M1 C4. No arty boost. BB can transport 1. I’ll probably make a 5 dollar version too. They’ve also finished jump school and are ready for action. The question is how should they be transported into battle ?

Currently  there is a A0, D0, M4 +1 w/AB, may transport 1 elite into battle or ncm, C6 air transport. Which means you can’t transport them any farther by sea then you already can, although the Air can land with a land army, so you wouldn’t need a navy to protect it. UK/US will probably attack Normandy and Holland forcing Germany to defend, trade or in the case of Normandy leave it French. I know some peole do that already, which probably needs some sort of solution as it’s not really ideal. Italy could get some Med islands and canopen for Germany. ANZAC/US could use them against DNG. Japan could hit the Far East and Siberia as well hammer China. Germany out of Romania will force Russia to defend Caucasus and trade/defend Rostov, Ukraine. Russia can hit Romania, Bulgaria and Greece. Could even canopen for UK/US.

If you go with the traditional drop from bombers The added range will put Stalingrad at risk of an Italian canopener. It will also allow Scotland and Norway to be hit along with several Pacific islands. The whole Med will be pretty much be reachable. I find them to be too powerful dropped from a bomber. It definitely promotes spamming. Being dropped from a transport with 6 range and then needing a bomber escort if the TT is defended seems better to me.

You could also use the current 2 units can M3 from a AB. Would reduce spam. You’d still have the problem of Italian canopeners in the Black Sea with a AB in Romania. Right now you need a factory, NB and protection for your transports to do it. Only needing a AB would probably make it pretty standard.

I think paratroopers are a lot of fun, but they are a gamechanger :)  What do y’all think ?

Map probably isn’t big enough to accommodate paratroopers (other than in the very limited way seen in the OOB tech version). My hunch is that it would be game breaking.

@barney:

Interesting bit about the AAguns and marines. If AA fires every round I’d say only 1 shot. I’ve always found AA units that fire every round to be too strong but that’s just my opinion. It would definitely promote people buying AAguns.

Speaking of, what do you want the AAtransport to cost Baron ? Provided I can get it to work that is :)

IMO, to really compete AAA C5 vs Infantry or Artillery defending @2, with offensive capacity or 2 AAAs vs 1 Fighter defending @4, A3, able to move 4, C10, it is necessary to have at least similar defensive values because AAA is an half unit with its no offense capacity, and NCM1 only.
The single instance you get these defense value is by giving up to 2 rolls @1 vs up to 2 planes each round, and even then, when only a single plane attacks, AAA defense odds is halfed.
Inf A1 D2 C3 defends like AAA D1 up to 2 planes C4 or 5…
A3 D4 C10 defends like 2 AAA D1 up to 2 planes C8-10 (if there is at least 4 attacking planes), no offense, no mobility like plane can provide.

On cost of TP A0 D0 AAreg 1, 1hit, I suggest 8 IPCs (same price as Classic TP) to be able to easily differenciate in play-test from defenseless TP7. If you are able to gear up such unit, it could increase action in water (warships will be better to destroy TP at no risk), with no auto-die results  and would change Axis bias toward Allies bias

@barney:

Anyway the elite units have been reformed. A2, D2, M1 C4. No arty boost. BB can transport 1. I’ll probably make a 5 dollar version too. They’ve also finished jump school and are ready for action.

Good news. Both 4 and 5 IPCs should be tested on play.

@barney:

Currently  there is a A0, D0, M4 +1 w/AB, may transport 1 elite into battle or ncm, C6 air transport. Which means you can’t transport them any farther by sea then you already can, although the Air can land with a land army, so you wouldn’t need a navy to protect it. UK/US will probably attack Normandy and Holland forcing Germany to defend, trade or in the case of Normandy leave it French. I know some peole do that already, which probably needs some sort of solution as it’s not really ideal. Italy could get some Med islands and canopen for Germany. ANZAC/US could use them against DNG. Japan could hit the Far East and Siberia as well hammer China. Germany out of Romania will force Russia to defend Caucasus and trade/defend Rostov, Ukraine. Russia can hit Romania, Bulgaria and Greece. Could even canopen for UK/US.

If you go with the traditional drop from bombers The added range will put Stalingrad at risk of an Italian canopener. It will also allow Scotland and Norway to be hit along with several Pacific islands. The whole Med will be pretty much be reachable. I find them to be too powerful dropped from a bomber. It definitely promotes spamming. Being dropped from a transport with 6 range and then needing a bomber escort if the TT is defended seems better to me.

You could also use the current 2 units can M3 from a AB. Would reduce spam. You’d still have the problem of Italian canopeners in the Black Sea with a AB in Romania. Right now you need a factory, NB and protection for your transports to do it. Only needing a AB would probably make it pretty standard.

I think paratroopers are a lot of fun, but they are a gamechanger :)  What do y’all think ?

Difficult matter.
I still believe Air TP should be same cost as TP and able to carry only 1 paratrooper at 4 IPCs.
The issue is NCM at no risk, so AirTP becomes a way to rapidly bring more Infantry at the center.
Air TP A0 D0 M4+1 with AB seems a way to slow it down.

I agree, bombers drop is OP.
But first  enemy TT is good limitation on Paratrooper drop.

First play-tests should probably stay with Air Base drop based on Tech.

@barney:

I find them to be too powerful dropped from a bomber. It definitely promotes spamming. Being dropped from a transport with 6 range and then needing a bomber escort if the TT is defended seems better to me. […] I think paratroopers are a lot of fun, but they are a gamechanger

To me, the basic problem with paratroopers is that, to be realistic, the rules would have to ensure that they could only be used in situations in which ground troops could reach and reinforce them quickly; otherwise, the whole paratrooper force would be declared lost.  Paratroopers were tricky to use: they could carry out operations of great importance that were impossible for conventional troops (like seizing vital bridges behind enemy lines), but they didn’t have a lot of staying power because they were too lightly armed and carried too few supplies.  They were considered elite forces – in part because it takes a lot of nerve to jump out of airplane in the middle of the night over enemy territory, in part because they would initially operate without ground support, and in part because the ever-present possibility of scattered landings meant that they had to be able to function alone or in small groups if they couldn’t connect with the other men in their unit – but they weren’t indestructible and they didn’t have the firepower of a regular infantry division.  So using them was always a gamble.  Used correctly and relieved quickly by ground forces (as in D-Day), they could be a game-changer.  Used incorrectly (as at Arnhem), they were toast.

Good point as always Marc.
At A&A strategic level of play, I find that First enemy TT drop and 3 TTs away drop from ABs seems more realistic.

Do you know if US para units were shipped in UK by transport only or if some divisions were making the trip by airflight?

If no WWII army division were moved by plane in fact, it seems gamey to allow Air Transport to load and unload units in Non-Combat Move.

@Baron:

Do you know if US para units were shipped in UK by transport only or if some divisions were making the trip by airflight?

If no WWII army division were moved by plane in fact, it seems gamey to allow Air Transport to load and unload units in Non-Combat Move.

I’m not sure, but my guess is that in WWII the US 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions probably crossed the Atlantic to the UK by ship rather than by plane.  They were in no hurry (since the D-Day buildup took about two years), and plane range and capacity in those days isn’t what it is today.  (There was a documentary made in the 1980s that showed the modern 82nd Airborne taking part in a NATO exercise in Europe, with the 82nd taking off from its base in the US, crossing the Atlantic nonstop, and parachuting directly into its zone of operations, but that was beyond the capabilities of WWII.)  Transport planes in WWII were great if you wanted to get small payloads (including human ones) somewhere in a hurry, provided that cost was no objection, but in general practice ships and trains and trucks were cheaper (but slower) ways to move large loads over long distances.  I don’t know if regular infantrymen were much transported by plane in WWII, but on the flip side the 1949 movie Battleground shows men of the 101st Airborne being deployed to Bastogne by truck.

The only air transport of troops that comes to mind was Franco’s being packed across the med in their civil war. When the Germans conquered Crete I believe they were initially reinforced by air as well.

I’ve used paratroopers a few times in the past and found them to be overpowered at the end. Once your air is built you’re basically only limited by the number of Paras you can produce. I’ve also used limits which seemed to work ok. If you don’t want limits you need to find the right price combination to make them worth buying but not spammable. People already spam bombers so obviously it’s hard to do. Just have to try some different combinations and see if you can make it work.

Perhaps a general solution that could be applied to all elite-type units (not just to paratroops) to keep them from being overpowered would be to give them combat values (including some sort of casualty-determination modifier to the combat procedure) which would combine two features.  One feature would the advantage that elite forces tend to have, and one would be the disadvantage the elite forces tend to have:

• The advantage: elite units “punch above their weight”, in the sense that they are more effective than normal troops at doing certain things.  For example, Marines are better than regular infantry at making amphibious assaults.

• The disadvantage: elite units (for example Marines, Rangers, paratroopers, and units that are used as “shock troops”) tend to suffer much higher casualty rates than regular infantry because of the jobs they are given are often exceptionally difficult and dangerous.  Examples include the Marines at Iwo Jima, the Rangers at Pointe-du-Hoc on D-Day, and the D-Day paratroopers.  When Eisenhower visited the paras prior to the departure, he’s reported to have been quite emotional when he watched some of their planes taking off because it had been predicted that (if I recall correctly) they would suffer casualties on the order of 60% – which is about 6 times the percentage of casualties that a normal infantry units might be expected to take before cracking and retreating.  One of the things that characterizes elite units, however, is that they are actually prepared to take those levels of casualties yet keep functioning.  For example, the paras who were visited by Eisenhower were actually the ones who gave him a pep talk (“Don’t worry, General, we’ll take care of this thing for you”) rather than the more traditional situation of a commander giving a pep talk to his subordinates.  And if I’m not mistaken, the USMC’s combat doctrine has recognized for a long time that Marines can expect to be given very tough objectives to tackle, and that taking these objectives may involve high casualties and may imply trading lives for time.  (Incidentally, Japan’s WWII-era Special Naval Landing Forces, or SNLF, were sometimes described as “Japanese Imperial Marines,” but in actual fact they were basically just Navy personnel armed with Army weapons.  They were apparently less capable than regular infantrymen, not more capable).

So as far as house rules go, the upshot could be that elite forces cost more than regular troops, have more fighting punch than regular troops (or have specialized kinds of fighting bonuses, depending on the type of elite force involved) and therefore can potentially bring special advantages to a combat situation…but they have a built-in casualty rate probability range that’s very high.  This high casualty rate would keep them from becoming overpowered (because they’re always getting killed off in large numbers), so such elite forces would definitely come with a sizable cost/benefit trade-off that would make a player think twice about buying them in large numbers.  After all, elite forces by definition are always a small (and expensive) subset of a country’s armed forces; otherwise they’d be called standard forces.

@Baron:

Good point as always Marc.
At A&A strategic level of play, I find that First enemy TT drop and 3 TTs away drop from ABs seems more realistic.

Do you know if US para units were shipped in UK by transport only or if some divisions were making the trip by airflight?
If no WWII army division were moved by plane in fact, it seems gamey to allow Air Transport to load and unload units in Non-Combat Move.

One way to limit Air TP spam is to limit them to move CM or NCM Elite unit only, no reg Infantry.
I believe this can be easily done in TripleA.

Barney, do you know if it is possible to limit Elite production to 1 unit per major IC per turn?

A similar defense factor than Infantry but higher cost maybe can be enough to simulate the higher casualty rate of Elite, shock troops.
Whether it will be 4 or 5 IPCs, it remains a unit with Defense 2.

@Baron:

higher cost maybe can be enough to simulate the higher casualty rate of Elite, shock troops.

Elite forces have a double-barrelled problem, and this kind of cost-based simulation would only reflect one-half of this double-barrelled problem: the fact that they cost more than regular troops.  I think it would make the player’s decision to buy elite troops too easy.  In my opinion, the decision to buy elite troops would be a much tougher (and more realistic) judgement call if the house rule simulated both halves of the double-barrelled problem with elite forces: the fact that they’d cost more than regular troops and the fact that the player would be guaranteed to lose a lot of them in combat.  Seeing your forces getting killed off in large numbers is not fun – especially if they’re expensive forces – but that’s the psychological price that a player ought to have to pay in order to gain the benefits of using elite forces that deliver much more performance per man than a standard infantry unit.  Elite forces shouldn’t be “lots of gain for very little pain” because that would make them too attractive; if there’s no significant downside to buying and using elite forces, then there wouldn’t be much point in buying regular troops.

(That’s the potential problem, by the way, with adjusting the combat value of any unit, regardless of its type, in order to make it a more attractive purchase.  If one or more of its values is boosted, the logical question that follows is: what’s the downside of this boost?  What trade-off was made to give the unit this boost?  If the answer is “The cost went up,” that’s fair enough. If the answer is “One of its other combat values was weakened,” that’s fine too.  If the answer, however, is “There is no trade-off;  everything else stays the same,” then that’s a problem because it’s unrealistic to achieve a pure gain at no cost; it lets the player have his cake and eat it too.  WWII tank designs illustrated this principle well: at that time, boosting one or two tank capabilities [like armour protection and firepower] meant weakening another capability [like mobility] because the technology of those days couldn’t produce a tank design that excelled in all three areas.)

Good Points CWO. when I use marines hitting at 3 w/arty and have a build restriction I find the marines take the most casualties. Unless it’s a big invasion there usually aren’t infantry along. If there in normal land combat, say in China, I’d kill them off so they could be rebuilt next to a transport. They were only 3 bucks though so with no build restriction IDK that that would be the case with a more expensive/unlimited unit. I think unless they’re part of a large invasion paras and marines should suffer pretty high casualties since they’ll probably be the only units attacking other than air/bombards.

Yea Baron the AT only packs elites. Right now I’m trying them at C4 M5 with ATs at C7. This forces you to have a AB to get a roundtrip range of 3. While Russia will need to defend in depth more in the Black sea, Germany will have to do the same for Norway, Normandy and Holland. We’ll see how it works out.

@Baron:

A similar defense factor than Infantry but higher cost maybe can be enough to simulate the higher casualty rate of Elite, shock troops.
Whether it will be 4 or 5 IPCs, it remains a unit with Defense 2.

To see what I meant in numbers:
12 IPCs basis, on defense
3 Elite D2 C4 vs 4 Infantry D2 C3
19% vs 78 % odds of survival against Elite.

On offense,
3 Elite A2 C4 vs 4 A1 C3 Infantry
57% vs 40% odds for Elite.

15 IPCs basis
3 Elite D2 C5 vs 5 Infantry D2 C3
5% vs 94% against Elite.
3 Elite A2 C5 vs 4 A1 C3 Infantry
33% vs 65% against Elite

IDK which 4 or 5 IPCs will be prefered.
But, in both cases, Elite infantry on defense is never the optimized choice.

On offense, 4 IPCs Elite is better than regular Infantry.
But 5 IPCs Elite is 2 times worth for the same IPCs investment.
So, just wanted to note that both cost and combat value must be taken in account.
A similar defense for a single unit doesn’t consider the effect on hit taken due to higher or lower cost.

Even Elite vs Inf+ Artilery gives interesting  results.
7 Elite A2 C4 vs 4 (Inf A2 + Art A2) C7
23% vs 70% against Elite units.

7 Elite A2 C5 vs 5 (Inf A2 + Art A2) C7
5% vs 95% against Elite units.

@CWO:

@Baron:

higher cost maybe can be enough to simulate the higher casualty rate of Elite, shock troops.

(That’s the potential problem, by the way, with adjusting the combat value of any unit, regardless of its type, in order to make it a more attractive purchase.  If one or more of its values is boosted, the logical question that follows is: what’s the downside of this boost?  What trade-off was made to give the unit this boost?  If the answer is “The cost went up,” that’s fair enough. If the answer is “One of its other combat values was weakened,” that’s fine too. If the answer, however, is “There is no trade-off;  everything else stays the same,” then that’s a problem because it’s unrealistic to achieve a pure gain at no cost; it lets the player have his cake and eat it too.  WWII tank designs illustrated this principle well: at that time, boosting one or two tank capabilities [like armour protection and firepower] meant weakening another capability [like mobility] because the technology of those days couldn’t produce a tank design that excelled in all three areas.)

Based on what you said Marc,
I’m opened to even reduced defense factor of Elite if 5 IPCs seems to be more balanced to keep such Infantry unit at 4 IPCs.
So, if actual Elite A2 D2 C4 is too OP,
I would rather prefer a more historical units, than costlier one:

Elite Infantry (reduced sustainability)
Attack 2
Defense 1
Cost 4
Move CM1-NCM2
Load 1 on AirTP or 1 on Battleship.
Can load 2 on TP, or 1 with any other ground unit.
No combined arms, such as with Artillery.

To see what I meant in numbers:
12 IPCs basis, on defense
3 Elite D1 C4 vs 4 Infantry D2 C3
4% vs 96% odds of survival against Elite Infantry (reduced sustainability).

On offense,
3 Elite A2 C4 vs 4 A1 C3 Infantry
57% vs 40% odds for Elite Infantry.