G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@regularkid:

@barney:

I would vote for letting BBs pack them around, but if you add CAs and CVs I think you’d end up with fleets of elites and no transports. Maybe a transport shuck to feed the fleet but IDK like anything you’d just have to try it.

It is precisely for this reason that 5 is the correct cost for these units. And there’s no reason not to allow cruisers to transport them as well. Have play tested this scores of times with many different players. The cost of 5, with transport ability by cruisers and battleships results in exactly the type gameplay one would hope to see with these units–for island hopping and as a compliment to larger landing forces comprised of conventional units. If you’re going to lump all of the “elite” abilities into a single unit, then arguably the price should be even higher.

I believe you.
But still I find 5 IPCs is a high price for light infantry footman.

Also, Marc insisted on these points:
@CWO:

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.

@CWO:

Based on actual WWII USMC practice, I’d say that Marine detachments should be limited to aircraft carriers and battleships and perhaps also to cruisers, and they should be restricted to one Marine per ship maximum.   Minor warships didn’t carry Marine detachments, and the major warships which did carry them only carried them in small numbers.  The only ships that should be allowed to carry more than one Marine should be the transport ships, and that’s because the Marines on trannies aren’t shipboard detachment, they’re the payload of an amphibious assault force.  
Landing a full-sized, fully-fledged Marine division from amphibious assault transport ships is very different from putting ashore an improvised landing party composed of the Marine detachments of a handful of major warships.  Such an improvised landing party would have several disadvantages over a proper amphibious assault force: it would be much smaller; its men would not have trained together as a unit (since they’re from different ships); its men would not have gone through months of intense preparation aimed at seizing a specific objective (amphibious assaults require lengthy, careful planning and training to be successful); and Marine contingents on warships don’t have access to large numbers of landing craft and AMTRAC vehicles (which are crucial to full-blown amphibious landings).

If Elite/Marines unit is realistically weaker than Infantry unit most of the time, but cost 1 IPC higher to pay for special loading capacity on warship and airdropping via Air Base, do you believe it could work at 4 IPCs?

I’m thinking something like:
Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper/Shock troop:
Cost 4
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1-2

Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.
No combat bonus when making an amphibious assault.

Air movement bonus:
Up to 3 Elite Infantry can start from an active Air Base to make a paratrooper attack drop up to 3 TTs away in an enemy territory which does need to be attacked by other ground units.
Must submit to pre-emptive AAA fire first.
No combat bonus when airdropped.

Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry or Tank (blitz along with Tank, too).

Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery.
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry.
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Tank.
Maximum attack value stays 2.
No limit number on Elite units.

That way, in an amphibious assault Marines will be first casualty compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor with a lesser defense factor (A1 D2 C3 vs A1 D1 C4), unless you need to move them at all cost on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply.
Their ability to be moved with warships is outweight by the fact they get a weak attack factor at 1, the same as a single regular Infantry, so on a 1 Marines vs 1 Infantry, it stays a risky A1 vs D2.
And keeps realistic odds of survival 25% for Marines vs 63% for defending Infantry.
Instead of 40-40-20% when A2 vs D2.

But, they are much more able than regular Infantry when they get access to heavier weaponry, hence +1A with Art, MI, Tank.

I really see this unit more like raiders than garrison troops.
They don’t have enough number, support and logistics to defend with the same value as regular Infantry.
@CWO:

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.
…
One of the things that characterizes elite units, however, is that they are actually prepared to take those levels of casualties yet keep functioning.  …
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.

With carrying capacity for both CA and BB, both units have less distinctive features but Marines clearly becomes soldier on board warships giving an identity to this Elite unit vs Infantry.
Cruiser is a gunboat which have more range and AA capacity.
Battleship is a gunboat with heavier armor.
Destroyer is a cheap warship meant for escort duty and for Anti-Sub Warfare.

Cruiser
Cost 12
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry

Battleship
Cost 20
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry

As far as I understand Elite Infantry/Marines comparison with Infantry issue, I see two opposite directions as a way to give such and such combat values.

One way is more symbolic and iconic manner. It gives abilities and combat values based on a few comparison between regular army soldier and Marines soldier.

The other way, still impressionistic, try to be more accurate at strategic and unit level to figure how 1 army group/division is different from a Marines group/division in combat value.

The first makes me think about some tough kind of Elite A2 D2 M1-2 vs Inf A1-2 D2 M1.
The other makes me introduced a weaker Elite A1-2 D1 M1-2 vs Inf A1-2 D2 M1.

In the first, I was thinking at an individual level of comparison.
On the second, I was thinking at strategic level when the number of men and types of weapons available to them is the main factor to assess unit strength. And this much more prevail over individual differences, good or bad.

Any criteria to assess combat values one way or the other?

@Baron:

The other way, still impressionistic, try to be more accurate at strategic and unit level to figure how 1 army group/division is different from a Marines group/division in combat value.

First, the army group is equipped with heavy infantry weapons like field artillery, grenade launchers, mortars, heavy machineguns etc etc that delivers a heavy punch, while the Marines and Paratroopers only have their rifles and must gamble on surprise and tactics.

Second, the army group got trucks and horses to supply them with ammo and stuff so they keep a good combat perseverance over long time, while the Marines and Paras only have food and ammo for 2 days of fighting.

To not ruin this very abstract game, I figure that Marines and Paras can only have special abilities in the combat move and first round of combat. After that they act like regular infantry.

About the Marines, I think they should roll 2 or less as standard during amphibious assaults, but shore bombardment from a Battleship or Cruiser can boost a matching Marine to a 3 or less as hit. Field artillery should of course not be allowed to boost any unit during amphibious assaults, since it takes a lot of time to move them ashore and get them working. Its not like a tank that just drive ashore and start shooting. Anyway I strongly believe in the A&A 1914 rules that let defending artillery fire one pre-emptive round at the landing party when they are swimming defenseless to the beach. Amphibious assaults against defended shores are actually very weak attacks, and it strongly favors the dug-in defenders in the bunker line. Its the Panzer blitzkrieg attack against surprised defenders in plain fields that are true strong attacks.

It looks like you can’t consistently boost the attack for the elites. If you have +1A with armor or mech any excess armor/mech will boost marines an additional +1A. Boosting +1A from AB boosts all units. So if you have no boost from AB and there are armor/mech that aren’t already paired up in the battle they will  give the airborne units +1A. However, if there are marines attacking as well they will receive the extra boost before the airborne will.

So a A1 D2 elite could have the marines get the +1A and be able to ride on other ships. Airborne gets it’s 3M from AB and 3 per since they only hit at 1 ? Rangers could get +1M from mechs and tanks and be allowed to blitz with tanks ? So you could have a armor, mech, elite blitz together.

You could have a separate marine unit but that would make for 3 infantry units, 4 if you use militia. Probably would clutter things up too much.

Or you could allow tanks to give +1A in this order: Ranger, marine, airborne. The marine would get boosted to 3 only if there were more tanks than rangers present. If there is more armor than marines airborne would get the boost. All units would attack at 1 if there is no armor and they are not in marine mode. 2 units with A3 on amphib is pretty powerful though. You could make the tank -1 on the amphib attack. That should help.

It might be best to give a standard A2 and have no attack bonuses only movement. Mechs could give +1M, mech and tank would allow blitzing, ships other than transports can transport. 2 Airborne get to move 3 from AB.

Number wise having mechs boost attack and tanks movement would probably work best. Kinda the opposite of what one might initially think. For a land battle I could see mech’s mobility improving a elite’s attack and obviously infantry riding on tanks could justify the movement. Mech boosting a amphib attack is a little harder to see, but if you blend the strategic with the tactical it makes sense. Mechs boosting airborne makes sense with the mech units being able to reinforce them sooner.

Without getting into any details about actual combat value numbers (since that’s never been been my strong suit), my suggestion would be this: to have a small number of distinct types of elite forces, each with a distinct type of bonus that would apply only to a special kind of situation.

I agree that it’s not a good idea to have a single all-purpose “generic elite” unit.  This would be awkward for several reasons.  First, we would lose the attractive element of being able to use specific names.  To me, words like “Marine” or “Ranger” are a lot more fun to use than just “elite.”  Second, the “generic elite” unit concept would inaccurately blend together multiple types of military forces that had little or nothing in common with each other.  (For example, an illustration of the fact that a Marine isn’t the same as a paratrooper is that, in WWII, the US Marine Corps had its own paratrooper unit, the Paramarines.  This was a specialized unit; normally, Marines aren’t jump-qualified.)  Third and lastly – and on a lighter note – keep in mind that all military units (and some more so than others) can be very touchy about being confused with other military units.  To see this principle in operation (and I really advise against doing this in real life), just try walking up to a US Marine and saying, “Hi, Soldier!”

On the other hand, it would also not be a good idea to have dozens and dozens of types of elite forces, all with their own distinct combat value.  This would get hopelessly out of hand, and it wouldn’t bring anything useful to the game.

A happy medium would be to identify a few basic types of elite forces, each one built around certain clear concepts.  I’ll use just two examples below, but a few other types could be added. Note that under each “general” type of elite unit, you could have nationally distinct groups of those units.  Those nationally distinct groups would all have the same combat values (to keep things simple); the only different thing about them would be their names.

Marines: This unit would be built around some kind of amphibious-assault bonus, with suitable cost/benefit trade-offs to make sure that their bonuses are balanced by some sort of penalty.  The unit type would apply to forces like the United States Marine Corps, the UK’s Royal Marines, France’s “fusilliers marins”, and so forth.

Paratroopers: This unit would be built around some kind of airborne-assault bonus, with suitable cost/benefit trade-offs to make sure that their bonuses are balanced by some sort of penalty.  The unit type would apply to forces like the US 82nd and 101st Airborne, the German Fallschirmjaeger units and so forth.

An important point to keep in mind is that the special bonuses of these units should only apply when these elite units are used in their particular specialized roles.  Players would be allowed to use elite units as regular infantry (something which desperate armies who are losing a war sometimes do), but in such a case the special bonuses of the elites would not apply.  And players would not be allowed at all to use an elite of one type as an elite of another type; for example, a paratrooper with an airborne-assault bonus would not be allowed to be used as a Marine with an amphibious-assault bonus.

@CWO:

Without getting into any details about actual combat value numbers (since that’s never been been my strong suit), my suggestion would be this: to have a small number of distinct types of elite forces, each with a distinct type of bonus that would apply only to a special kind of situation…
…Third and lastly – and on a lighter note – keep in mind that all military units (and some more so than others) can be very touchy about being confused with other military units.  To see this principle in operation (and I really advise against doing this in real life), just try walking up to a US Marine and saying, “Hi, Soldier!”…

Yea trying to combine 3 units into 1 is difficult. Different branches use different words is right. My favorite is the Army has a latrine, the Navy has a head and the Air Force has a bathroom. :)

@Black_Elk:

Right now OOB there are no sailers airmen or marines, they are all just ‘infantry’ soldiers, so anything is probably a step up from that right?

Actually, sailors and airmen and Marines are not soldiers.  Sailors and airmen and Marines are, respectively, Navy personnel, Air Force personnel and Marine personnel.  Soldiers are Army personnel. But the crucial concept here, for A&A game purposes, isn’t the distinction between service branches, it’s the distinction between military personnel who fight (and move) primarily on foot using personal and/or man-portable weapons (infantrymen) and military personnel who fight (and move) in other ways.

The A&A Infantry unit represents (logically enough) infantrymen.  Army soldiers who fight and move primarily on foot are infantrymen, and Marines who (in a given mission) fight and move primarily on foot are (technically) infantrymen too…though they’d probably prefer being referred to as “Marine serving in an infantry role.”

Almost every other A&A unit represents either a crew-served non-man-portable heavy weapon (like an AAA gun) or a vehicle-type weapon platform (tanks, ships and aircraft all being such platforms).  They all have military personnel inside (or alongside) them, but in an operator role.  And those platforms aren’t necessarily manned by guys from the service branch that one normally associates with that particular weapon type.  Tanks are conventionally thought of an Army weapon, which in most cases they are, but the USMC has some tanks of its own; the fact that they’re tanks doesn’t make them Army vehicles, and the fact that they’re operated by Marines doesn’t make them ground troops with a talent for amphibious landings.  Ditto for Marine ground-support attack aircraft.

The one A&A unit which is a bit fuzzy in this regard is the Mechanized Infantry unit – a problem complicated by the fact that the sculpts represents everything from trucks to half-tracks.  Strictly speaking, these units still represent infantrymen in the sense that they’re troops who fight on foot, but unlike conventional “foot-sloggers” these guys make their longer-distance operational moves in vehicles.  The correct term in a WWII context would actually be “motorized infantry”.  “Mechanized infantry” in the modern sense usually means troops who normally fight from inside their machines (called infantry fighting vehicles) rather than just using them as taxis from which they dismount to fight (in which case the vehicles are called armoured personnel carriers if they’re tracked).

But anyway, part of the point I was trying to make in my previous post was that a “generic elite” unit would sound a bit dull from a labeling point of view, but the more important point I was trying to make was that a “generic elite” unit would be problematic in terms of its combat bonuses and other special features.  If every single elite unit on the board, used for every purpose, has a single unvarying set of values, then the problem becomes: which bonues does it have?  If it’s something that’s very general (say, a bonus of +1 on attack in any situation), then that’s fine.  But if it’s something more specific (say, a a bonus of +1 on amphibious assaults), then by definition you’re no longer dealing with a “generic” elite unit, you’re dealing with a specialized one (in this case a Marine) who has a bonus that would not apply to a different type of specialized unit (say a paratrooper).  In such a cse, the elite unit would be usable in one role but not in another.  An even more problematic option would be to create an elite unit that has all the bonuses of all the elite types, and therefore is usable in all roles: amphibious assaults, parachute landings, and anything else.  The problem with this kind of “many-elites-in-one” unit is that it’s unrealistic – unless perhaps we’re talking about James Bond, who as we all know can do anything from flying a fighter plane to making HALO jumps to fighting hand-to-hand against enemy scuba divers.

I’m with CWO on this. Marines should be their own unit. I don’t really have a position on paratroopers, one way or another. But I don’t think having a ninja-like “elite” unit that does everything special-oppy is really in keeping with time period or the general scheme of the game.

In my opinion, the only way that you could realistically have a generic elite unite encompassing Soviet Siberians, US Marines, British Commandos and so forth would be to give it a single, modest, generic special ability like a +1 on attack in all situations.  And nothing else.  Soviet Siberians, US Marines and British Commandos had nothing in common in terms of specialized skills or equipment, other than the fact that they were tough and highly motivated.  The Siberians were tough infantrymen trained and equiped to fight in winter conditions.  The USMC was highly skilled at and equiped for large-scale (i.e. division-sized) amphibious landings.  The Commandos were designed to conduct small-scale, high-value raids on Occupied Europe and were (among other things) trained in Special Forces- type skills like silently killing an enemy with a dagger in one-on-one combat.  If these various groups were pieces of equipment rather than people, they’d arguably be closer to being different classes of weapons (let’s say fighter planes as opposed to tactical bombers) rather than being different models of the same weapon class (Russian fighter planes, American figher planes, British fighter planes, etc.)

Regarding your question about the applicability of the Marine concept to nations outside the US, my impression is that, in a WWII context, the USMC was the only Marine-type force that grew big enough to field division-sized forces, the only one which was given the primary (or even sole) responsibility to conduct amphibious landings on major objectives, and the only one which was put in the position where one of its generals got to command Army troops as well as Marines in a large joint combat operation (though apparently the US Army later swore that it would never put up with that sort of thing again).  My guess is that the Royal Marines were probably the second-biggest Marine-type unit in the world at that time, and probably the only one that was of a caliber high enough to compare with USMC…but I’m not aware of the Royals carrying out any WWII amphibious operations on the scale  of those which the USMC tackled in the Pacific.  Some other nations had Marine-type units (I’m pretty sure the French and the Russians did), but in terms of size and institutional importance they weren’t in the same league as the USMC and the Royals.  And as previously mentioned, the Japanese SNLF had a catchy name but their capabilities were limited.  Moreover, an important point was that SNLF troops were commanded by Navy officers, whereas the US Marines and the Royal Marines most emphatically have officers who are themselves Marines.  (Case in point: I’ve heard that every US Marine – from the rear-echelon guys who handle cooking and supply to the Commandant of the Corps himself – is expected to be a competent combat rifleman and is required to re-qualify on the rifle range once a year.)

So in terms of the actual A&A board games (and leaving aside virtual versions like TripleA), I think that the original version of the Pacific game is perhaps the one that points to the solution.  It provided the US (and only the US) with two differently-coloured infantry sculpts: one colour standing for conventional infantry and one standing for Marines.  When I bought that game back in whatever year when it was published, my reaction was to feel that this unique feature was: a) neat, and b) entirely appropriate from a historical perspective.  If any of the A&A games ever published had given Marine-type units to any country other than the US (with the possible exception of the UK), I would have raised one or both eyebrows (depending on the specific countries in question).

@Narvik:

@Baron:

The other way, still impressionistic, try to be more accurate at strategic and unit level to figure how 1 army group/division is different from a Marines group/division in combat value.

First, the army group is equipped with heavy infantry weapons like field artillery, grenade launchers, mortars, heavy machineguns etc etc that delivers a heavy punch, while the Marines and Paratroopers only have their rifles and must gamble on surprise and tactics.

Second, the army group got trucks and horses to supply them with ammo and stuff so they keep a good combat perseverance over long time, while the Marines and Paras only have food and ammo for 2 days of fighting.

To not ruin this very abstract game, I figure that Marines and Paras can only have special abilities in the combat move and first round of combat. After that they act like regular infantry.

About the Marines, I think they should roll 2 or less as standard during amphibious assaults, but shore bombardment from a Battleship or Cruiser can boost a matching Marine to a 3 or less as hit. Field artillery should of course not be allowed to boost any unit during amphibious assaults, since it takes a lot of time to move them ashore and get them working. Its not like a tank that just drive ashore and start shooting. Anyway I strongly believe in the A&A 1914 rules that let defending artillery fire one pre-emptive round at the landing party when they are swimming defenseless to the beach. Amphibious assaults against defended shores are actually very weak attacks, and it strongly favors the dug-in defenders in the bunker line. Its the Panzer blitzkrieg attack against surprised defenders in plain fields that are true strong attacks.

IMO, based on points bolded, it is clear that at army/division level Marines are weaker offense and defense.
I believe that we put high offense such as Attack 2 or even @3 in amphibious assault with Artillery or Battleship fire support based mostly on an individual comparison between soldier training and Marines training and some epic battle in Pacific islands invasion.

But using the principle that Marines unit is first carried on board warships (Cruiser and Battleship) and have smaller weapons due to this restriction space on board warships.
Such A&A unit at a strategic theatre of operation level, we give Marines, at most, the same combat values than regular Infantry.

In addition, since their training seems more complex and intensive and imply special movement with warships we can make it 1 IPC higher than regular Infantry.

On Paratroopers, assuming the Tech parameter linked to Air Base, dropping up to 3 TTs away in a TT already attacked by land units, carrying smaller weapons too and few ammunitions and supplys, it is already a stretch to give Paras the same combat values than regular Infantry. At least, we can say that surprise is a factor which make Paratrooper unit even to regular Infantry unit.

Again, we agree that their training is more intensive and complex compared to ordinary soldier, hence an additional 1 IPC higher than regular Infantry.

So, a solution can be, at least for a single type of unit for both Marines and Paratroopers:

Specially Trained Infantry (STI) /Marines/Paratrooper:
Cost 4
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1

Sea movement bonus:
1 STI unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 STIs or 1 STI plus any other 1 ground unit.
No combat bonus when making an amphibious assault.

Air movement bonus:
Up to 3 ST Infantry can start from an active Air Base to make a paratrooper attack drop up to 3 TTs away in an enemy territory which does need to be attacked by other ground units.
Must submit to pre-emptive AAA fire first.
No combat bonus when airdropped.

Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery.

No limit number on Specially Trained Infantry units.

OR, if we want an all purpose unit:

Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper/Ranger/Shock troop:
Cost 4
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1-2

Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.
No combat bonus when making an amphibious assault.

Air movement bonus:
Up to 3 Elite Infantry can start from an active Air Base to make a paratrooper attack drop up to 3 TTs away in an enemy territory which does need to be attacked by other ground units.
Must submit to pre-emptive AAA fire first.
No combat bonus when airdropped.

Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry or Tank (blitz along with Tank, too).

Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery.
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry.

Maximum attack value remains 2.

No limit number on Elite units.

@regularkid:

I’m with CWO on this. Marines should be their own unit. I don’t really have a position on paratroopers, one way or another. But I don’t think having a ninja-like “elite” unit that does everything special-oppy is really in keeping with time period or the general scheme of the game.

I rather see it like a game possibility to enhanced strategic decision without blocking 1 strategy over an other because the player invest in a too specialized infantry unit.

The nature of the special Infantry unit becomes clear once used in combat move.
Example, UK have 2 Elites. If one is moved on BB for an amphibious assault, it is a Marines. If the other is moved via AB it is a paratrooper.
Once the battle is done, if these units survive they will probably be involved in a counterstrike which destroy them. And if they survived, they will be on the ground acting like ordinary Infantry on the next attack.

@regularkid:

@barney:

I would vote for letting BBs pack them around, but if you add CAs and CVs I think you’d end up with fleets of elites and no transports. Maybe a transport shuck to feed the fleet but IDK like anything you’d just have to try it.

It is precisely for this reason that 5 is the correct cost for these units. And there’s no reason not to allow cruisers to transport them as well. Have play tested this scores of times with many different players. The cost of 5, with transport ability by cruisers and battleships results in exactly the type gameplay one would hope to see with these units–for island hopping and as a compliment to larger landing forces comprised of conventional units. If you’re going to lump all of the “elite” abilities into a single unit, then arguably the price should be even higher.

I still believe that giving Cruiser Marines (A1 D2 C4) carrying capacity is on the verge of OP.
Maths says it is a limit case compared to escorted TP.
So, only play-test can reveal if Cruiser should get it or not.

To figure how it is OP, a comparison on 32 IPCs basis can still be made:
2 (Cruiser+ Elite/Marines A1 D2 C4 combo) = C32, CA A6 D6 + 2 Elites A2 D4

A) 2 DDs + 1 TP /1 Tk + 1 Inf = C32, DD A4 D4 + Ground A4 D5
B) 1 CA + 1 Sub + 1 TP/ 1 Art + 1 Inf = C32, Warships A5 D4 + Ground A4 D4

It seems better to use Cruisers and Marines.
You get 2 Offshore bombardment @3 and higher off/def in SZ.
Is it still too much? Probably.
A) 2 DDs are outmatched by 2 Cruisers.
On land, you bring 1 Tank A3 each combat round but no Offshore bombardment.
But 2 Marines A1 D2 is weaker than Inf and Tank combos.
Though, Cruisers are much vulnerable to Subs attack.

B) On land, you get 1 Cruiser @3 1 shot support and A4 D4 best combo, better than A2 D4 Marines.
And at sea, it is a more even battle if TP worth 1 hit. Actually, CA, Sub and 1 hit TP are slightly better on defense than 2 Cruisers (60% vs 30%).

I don’t know how much Cruiser with 1 Marines can change Naval dynamic and being detrimental to regular TP ferrys.
Being cautious, BB would be the only warship with this carrying feature, but this can affect minor powers and reduced too much the interest to use Marines. Only playtest will tell if fast Marines deployement by Cruiser improve the game.

Until new facts, I still believe what I said earlier:

@Baron:

@Narvik:

When it comes to Marines, I think all surface warships can carry one Marines unit. Both Germany and Japan used Destroyers to let infantry cross short seazones, because they were short on Trannies, and Destroyers were more suitable to carry infantry than Battleships. On the Amphibious Assault on Norway, thousands of German infantry would ride on the deck of Destroyers. But important to remember, they can only do this for a short distance. No warships can cross the Atlantic or the Pacific with infantry on the upper deck, they would freeze to death. That’s why they build Trannies.

On carrying capacity, I rather prefer units with clearly distinctive features giving each of warships a more singular identity.
Cruiser is a gunboat which have more range and AA capacity.
Battleship is a gunboat with heavier armor and Marines carrying capacity.
Destroyer is a cheap warship meant for escort duty and for Anti-Sub Warfare.

Cruiser
Cost 12
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.

Battleship
Cost 20
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry

Giving cruiser a carrying capacity open a balancing cunundrum with Marines vs Infantry and TPs.
A real can of worms.

@Black_Elk:

How did it work in the original Pacific game? Was it simply an aesthetic difference with color or did marines have a different combat value?

http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axispacific.pdf

INFANTRY
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1
Defense Factor:2
Cost: 3 IPCs
Description
These units are a good buy for a defensive position
because each costs only 3 IPCs, and
they defend with a die roll of 2 or less.
• For each artillery unit attacking the same territory
one Infantry unit may attack with a roll
of 2 or less.

U.S. MARINES
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1 or 2
Defense Factor: 2
Cost: 4 IPCs (USA only)
Description
Only the United States has Marine units, these
are the dark green infantry pieces. Marines normally
attack just like infantry units (with a roll of
1). However, they are more effective in
Amphibious Assaults, as explained below:
• A Marine unit attacking in an Amphibious
Assault scores a hit on a roll of 2 or less. A
Marine unit that enters combat by moving
from one land territory to another land territory
may still attack with a roll of 2 or less as
long as at least one friendly unit attacks from
a sea zone making the battle an Amphibious
Assault.
• For each artillery unit attacking the same territory
one Marine unit may attack with a roll
of 2 or less.
• For each artillery unit attacking the same territory
in an Amphibious Assault that is not
paired with an infantry unit, one Marine unit
may attack with a roll of 3 or less.

I agree that faction specific unit-rosters are a recipe for confusion, steep-learning curves, and low-adoption. But if you were going to add a unique unit for each faction,  u really would not want to add any other units to the roster (even non-faction specific ones), because the new units would already be such a huge change/barrier to new players.

Really, I think it would be preferable to avoid faction-specific units for the reasons others have stated. So adding the ‘marines’ to all nations’s unit rosters (except China, of course) would be the better approach.

To CWO’s point, the fact that some countries historically did not use “marines” by that name, or did not use them as extensively or effectively as the US should not prevent their inclusion (even if u name them differently for each nation). It would be no different than allowing Russia to build an aircraft carrier (even though Russia didn’t build or deploy any during the war), or giving all nations armor with the same exact combat stats (even though there were substantial qualitative differences in the armor used by each nation during the war). As a practical matter, marines are going to be used most heavily by countries engaged in amphibious warfare–i.e., you’re not going to see russia building them in most games. And the fact that Germany did not utilize marines (or their functional equivalent) during the war does it mean it could not have, if it chose to emphasize strategic objectives that warranted them.

.

I’ve been playtesting a couple elite units. They both seem to work well. The first one is A1, +1 for amphib attack, +1 when paired with armor, D2, M1, +1 when paired with mech, may blitz when paired with mech and tank, BB may transport 1, 3 elites may M3 from AB as long as other ground troops attack, C4. Armor are -1 on all amphib attacks.

The other one is A1, +1 for amphib attack, +1 when paired with armor, +1 when paired with mech , D2, M1, +1 when paired with mech, may blitz when paired with mech and tank, BB and cruisers may transport 1, 3 elites may M3 from AB as long as other ground troops attack, C5. Armor are -1 on all amphib attacks.

Of the two I prefer the 4 dollar version. It gives some minor encouragement for BB buys. Depending on how things go the first rd Germany, UK and Italy could all have BBs along with US and JPN so there would be some usage but not excessive. It has mech boosting movement and armor the attack which seems like it should be easy enough to follow. It makes for a nice minor factory buy with elite, mech, armor for A1 A2 A3 combo. You probably want to use the primitive terrain though or those things will be hauling ass all over China and soviet asia :). A simple +1 A would be the easiest way to go but triplea can’t do that.

The five dollar one is fun too though. The mech boost on attack makes for some different combinations. You can have a 9 PU combo that has A1 A2 vs a 10 PU one that has A1 A3. When in amphib mode you can have a A1 A3 for 9PUs (which is what armor/inf do currently) as opposed to the 10 PU A2 A3. It’s also easier to boost the airborne units. The 5 PU cost prevents spamming on CAs and mech/elite combos.

One of the earlier A&A games had armor -2 for 1st rd of amphib combat so the -1 isn’t completely foreign.  I think of the elite units as just being superior to normal infantry. Whether it be because of training, equipment, motivation or whatever. If they go into battle by sea, air or land, they will be more effective than regulars. As kid mentioned Russia probaly won’t use them in a marine role and if Germany and Italy do it just means the furher and el duce decided to invest more in a naval infantry unit. Same as if you go big with u-boats, it would be like Hitler being influenced by Donitz.

I like the what if aspect of the game. If Marshall wanted to send the marines to France, well that’s where’d they go. :)  Anyway it doesn’t bother me if things stray a little from history. You’re the Leader now and get to decide what to spend your money on. :) One can always scale back and not use elites when introducing new players to the game. I think experienced players will like them. It could just be a completely optional unit or as Elk stated earlier part of an expansion set.