Elite Infantry

Here is a post which gives my POV:
@Baron:

@Lit:

My view on elite/commando infantry is that they generally did not cost anymore industrial resources than regular troops, rather they are special because of the endurance and toughness of the men selected for the unit. Only a fraction of the military age population could serve in these units. Why not have them cost 3, since they require no more industrial input than regular infantry, but then limit the total numbers each nation can build too a fraction of there IPC production(IPC being a rough estimate of population) for instance for every 10 IPC you can maintain one commando infantry. Perhaps also require they are built over the course of 2 turns to simulate the additional training time.

…

@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.

@Baron:

@Narvik:

Pay attention. First, if Elite units should have a production cap, then so should tanks and battleships too. There are no good reason a nation can spam the map with Bombers or Battleships, but only build one or two Elite units during the game. Second, if Elite units must be taken as first casualties, then so should tanks and planes too. It is very ahistorical that after a great battle, millions of infantry are dead but all the tanks and bombers survived. Actually in the real war it was the other way around, so the idea is not bad, but it sure break the old A&A tradition of owner picking casualties.

…
Yes, Marc is correct, Paras are light armed, but sometimes surprise is stronger than heavy guns. I figure the surprise factor justifies a first roll of 2 or less as hits.

…

@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).

Going that way imply a totally different direction IMO, something like this:

Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper/Shock troop:
Cost 3
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.

Air movement bonus:
Up to three 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 doesn’t need to be attacked by other ground units.
Gets +1A on the first combat round when airdropped.
Must submit to pre-emptive AAA fire first.

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

Gets +1A combined arms with Artillery.
Gets +1A combined arms with Tank.

No limit number.

That way, in an amphibious assault Marines will be first casualty compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor but a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you need to move them on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply.

From a game perspective, an interesting and very specialized unit would be like this one.
It has low cost but also lower combat values to balance with its carrying capacity on Cruiser and Battleship.
Try to see the game at army group level, Marines combat unit division are certainly smaller than a full fledge army unit. That is why I suggest low offense / defense values except in the one combat situations which gives Marines their reputation: amphibious assault.

Marines as simply Marines and nothing more
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1

Sea movement bonus:
1 Marines unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other 1 ground unit.
Gets +1A on amphibious assault only.

No combined arms with Artillery.
No production limit number.

That way, 2 Marines for 6 IPCs, A4 D2 on amphibious assault will be better cost ratio than regular Infantry paired with Artillery A4 D4 C7.
But, in defense, 2 Marines Defense @2 cannot hold the ground as 2 Infantry Defense @4.

And also 2 Marines being weaker if going inland combat by themselves because of the no pairing bonus with artillery. But they stay on par 1:1 compared to a single Infantry on offense.

Also, in amphibious assault, Marines will be probably taken amongst first casualties compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor than Inf with Artillery (but have a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you keep them to move on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply on next turn. So, such Marines unit will more often die during debarkment and regular Infantry will last longer, in anticipation of next assault going inland.

So, it provides a different kind of tactical combat with 2 Marines on TP and still keeping Inf+Art a competitive combination too.

D1 was to reflect the smaller number of soldiers involved per unit compared to standard Infantry unit.
It is not for lesser morale but for less logistics and support required by this unit.
Lower defense @1, come from the lesser number of individuals being less equiped than regular Infantry unit.
Attack @2 on amphibious assault is balanced by lower defense @1 to allow a more balanced Cruiser and Battleship carrying capacity. This unit have a better attacking factor because of abilities, training and surprise tactics despise their fewer number of soldiers. They can do a lot with less but not for an extended period.

In addition, their lower defense factor would make them amongst the first casualty during counter-attack which can figure for they high risk mission they undertake.

In this case, such Elite Infantry cost 3 IPCs but receiving a boost to M2 when paired to MI, maybe better if MI cost is 5  IPCs.
That way, you keep an iconic unit at 5 IPCs.
I know your MI is able to tow 1 Artillery unit 2 spaces.

Grasshopper, I’m inclined to agree with the other commenters that it would be better to retain the paradrop mechanics of the OOB tech (i.e., launching paradropping units from airbases, without a separate transport-plane unit). CWO’s observation that soldiers can’t be loaded into a bomber bay is on point and made me LUL.

Regarding “Paratroopers may only be used if the hostile territory has at least 1 enemy land unit, and the operation is supported by either a ground attack, and/or amphibious assault” makes me sad cuz it means that Germany’s largest paratroop operation (Battle of Crete) can’t happen.

@CWO:

and partly because you said this unit is inspired by the G40B [whatever that refers to] Marine unit.

My dear fellow, get with the times! :P
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37341.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37553.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37799.0

@Young:

This is a hybrid unit inspired by G40B’s (Global 1940 Balanced) Marine unit…

NEW ELITE INFANTRY UNIT

Cost = 5 IPCs

Attack @1 (@2 during amphibious assaults on islands, but not supported by artillery)
Defend @2

Airborne assaults
During combat movement, up to 2 elite infantry units may launch from any friendly operational airbase to conduct an airborne assault up to 3 spaces away. These spaces are counted as if an air unit were to take off from the launch point, and drop them into a hostile territory. Paratroopers may only be used if the hostile territory has at least 1 enemy land unit, and the operation is supported by either a ground attack, and/or amphibious assault.

Amphibious assaults
Elite infantry may be loaded onto Cruisers and Battleships at a capacity of 1 per ship, as well as regular transports with the same capacity rules as oob (1 elite infantry = 1 regular infantry). During amphibious assaults, elite infantry attack @2 but are not supported by artillery, nor do Cruisers and/or Battleships get bombardments when unloading elite infantry.

Not bad. Not bad at all. For what its worth, battleship/cruisers retain their bombard abilities in g40b when unloading marines–the marines hit the shore via landing craft after all. Interestingly, the US Marine Corps has been extremely vocal in opposing the decommissioning of battleships, for their Naval Surface Fire Support abilities (source: https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/marines-lose-battleships-firepower). There doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason (historical or gameplay) to deny them the benefit of shore bombardment, which is part of the fun!

@Young:

Understood, so the challenge becomes how to differentiate the same unit with the same color as two separate unit types.

If I would want to test this houserule on tabletop, I would just take a bit of cotton wool from my First Aid kit and put a little bit on the soldiers’ rifles. It’s cheap and stays on as long as you want.

I like it YG!  (With the Naval Bombardment re-included)

I have too much to stuff into my next game.  But I think I’m going to include this into my house rules set as well for the games to come later.  I’ve got an old Risk game with infantry sculpts …. used to use them to represent Neutrals … but now you have me thinking of a new use for them!

@regularkid:

Not bad. Not bad at all. For what its worth, battleship/cruisers retain their bombard abilities in g40b when unloading marines–the marines hit the shore via landing craft after all. Interestingly, the US Marine Corps has been extremely vocal in opposing the decommissioning of battleships, for their Naval Surface Fire Support abilities (source: https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/marines-lose-battleships-firepower). There doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason (historical or gameplay) to deny them the benefit of shore bombardment, which is part of the fun!

Battleships unload shells, not Marines.  The Marines being supported by battleship bombardments come from other ships, not from the battleships themselves.  Battleships don’t carry extensive numbers of Marines and don’t carry landing craft.  And it should be noted that the blast produced by battleship broadsides would make things very uncomfortable – even dangerous – for anyone who tried to do something as tricky as climbing down a scrambling net from the battleship deck to an assault boat.

I think Marc has a good point on this

… I guess I was trying to rationalize it by thinking of a Battle Ship as a “Battle Ship Group”, not just a single piece.  The escort ships are invisible at this scale of a game.  Same for the Cruisers.  In reality, they are probably a group of ships that include all of the screens and escorts necessary for a Battle Ship or Cruiser to function.  Maybe if we use that abstraction it would work??

Also, I really like the way YG’s current rule puts extra importance on Air-Bases.  MAYBE … and this is just a MAYBE, it could be tweaked to state that Battleships and Cruisers can carry 1 of the Elite Infantry when an amphibious attack is launched from an operating NAVAL BASE.

This would do the following:

• Make it easier to justify that the actual Battle Ship and Cruisers are not carrying the troops … but rather the invisible escort ships accompanying them

• Put more importance on gaining and holding territories that have Naval bases.  … and putting more importance on TAC bombing those bases.

This way, his rule gives a very similar importance to bases of operation.  … a KEY factor in WWII strategy.  Both in the European and Pacific theaters.

@Young:

So I’ve been really trying to wrap my head around transitioning marines from Balance Mod over to table top, and from reading comments in this thread, some things have stuck with me… especially CWO Marc’s observations with using big gun ships to transport and unload troops during combat. I’m also concerned with finding different infantry units consistent with the oob units for all nations to represent marines on a table top, and there is a vocal need to incorporate airborne assaults into the game. There is also another problem I see… in order to want all those nickel and dime NOs for the islands in the Pacific and Med… it needs to be relatively easy to fight over them. Now I know 20+ members will argue that Balance Mod is play tested and it works, but that still doesn’t tell me if every player during every game is spending a minimum of 10 IPCs (1 transport and 1 infantry) to take one island worth nothing on their way to getting 5 IPCs with a couple more landings like the first. How many US transports and infantry will be lost trying to secure a 5 IPCs bonus in the Pacific? Anyway, back to the table top…

Instead of incorporating a new physical unit, how about we make the infantry we do have in the box easier to take islands. It’s late and I just came up with this, so bear with me as it’s pretty raw….

Cruisers and Battleships may pick up and drop off 1 of any land unit each during the non-combat movement phase only.
Fully operational naval bases (zero damage) may build up to 1 transport unit each during the mobilize new units phase.
Fully operational airbases (zero damage) may transport up to 2 infantry units each into a hostile territories during the combat movement phase (as per R&D paratrooper rules).

This also makes bases slightly more valuable and therefore more desirable as a bombing target (especially bases on islands).

Balance Mod is play tested and it works (heh).

But “20+ players”? Nay! This omits the dozen+ players that do Balanced in the TripleA gaming lobby! Our ranks are deep and deepening.

As for whether “every player during every game is spending a minimum of 10 IPCs (1 transport and 1 infantry) to take one island worth nothing on their way to getting 5 IPCs with a couple more landings like the first,” the short answer is: The pacific island NOs are contested in the preponderance of games, and they are aggressively pursued in virtually all KJF games. The fact that the League’s top players often go for the island NOs reflects that they’re economically viable.

Turning to your proposal, my comments and questions are in blue:

Cruisers and Battleships may pick up and drop off 1 of any land unit each during the non-combat movement phase only. Battleships carrying tanks and mechs? If battleship borne marines requires a minor suspension of disbelief (i dispute this, but whatevs), battleship borne armored divisions would require a lobotomy-assisted suspension of disbelief.
Fully operational naval bases (zero damage) may build up to 1 transport unit each during the mobilize new units phase. So every undamaged naval base spawns 1 transport per turn at no cost?
Fully operational airbases (zero damage) may transport up to 2 infantry units each into a hostile territories during the combat movement phase (as per R&D paratrooper rules). Is this with all of the attendant OOB rules requiring a supporting ground/amphib invasion? Range of 3 spaces?

My comments in green.

-Cruisers and Battleships may pick up and drop off up to 2 infantry units each during the non-combat movement phase only. Make it 1 infantry, and you might have something.

-Fully operational naval bases (zero damage) may build up to 2 transport units each during the mobilize new units phase. These units are not free of charge, it just gives better placement options for transports which I assume were not the most difficult to build considering that they have zero combat value. Could be good. Cannot reach judgments without play testing.

-Fully operational airbases (zero damage) may launch up to 2 infantry units each into a hostile territory during the combat movement phase (as per R&D paratrooper rules). Yes… up to 3 spaces away, must have supporting ground or amphibious attacking units, and must have at least 1 enemy unit on targeted territory. But the Battle of Crete. . . :(