Nation Specific (special) Units

I would probably consider both starting IJN Battleships as A5 D5 M2.
24 IPCs is a very prohibitive cost to see such units appears during gameplay.
Japan had better torpedoes. Maybe supersubmarines could better fit this special unit?
IJN Subs A3 D1 M2 Cost 6

For Russia, T-34 Tank seems to add more flexibility for player:
T-34 Tank A3 D3 M2 Cost 5.
Anti-tank Guns can also be the special unit, this also represents intensive defense lines:
ATG  A1 D3 M1 Cost 4, add +1 to Infantry on offense.

Germans U-boats can increase interest in ATO:
U-boats: A2 D1 M2 Cost 5 IPCs.

UK special forces units are much more elusive to accurately fit in game.
Commandos never have such impact as an army Tank division. (Attack @3, as describe)
Probably better fit to be useful in amphibious assault:
Uk Commando A1 D1 M1 C2, Attacks at 2 or less when paired with artillery.

However, Spitfires and Battle of Britain were much more paradigmatic of UK WW2 deeds.
Maybe Spitfire could be A3 D5 M4 cost 11 ?

Sherman Tank A3 D2 M2 C5 is interesting and emblematic.
Maybe add the capacity to put 2 US Sherman in 1 US Transport?

The one-special-unit-per-country idea is something that I’ve always liked, and your proposal to reassign standard OOB sculpts to special roles (and to turn 1941 OOB sculpts or HBG sculpts) into standard units in some cases is quite interesting.  Assessing A/D/M/C values has never been my strong suit, but here are a few comments based on a quick look at your list:

• I can see the point of wanting to downgrade slightly the statistics for the Sherman, which was automotively excellent and which was manufactured in large numbers but whose gun was marginal by late-war standards and whose armour was inadequate.  On the other hand, I’m having trouble with the concept of having the Sherman sculpt become a “non-base” unit, and I have even more trouble with the concept of the new base US tank sculpt become an IS-2 heavy tank.  US tank evolution in WWII was more or less the reverse of that.  The US started the war with some decidedly second-rate (or worse) tanks like the Grant/Lee, and “upgraded” to the Sherman around 1943 or 1944 if I remember correctly.  The Sherman eventually became the “base” (or standard) US tank for the closing years of WWII, to the point where it became known (at least in the west, since the Soviets would have strongly disagreed) as “the tank that won the war.”  A more realistic option would be to keep the Sherman as the base US tank, and to tack on two more types: a less effective tank for early in the war, and a green IS-2 sculpt to represent the heavy Pershing, which I think managed to see combat in the last few weeks of the war in Europe.

• Pairing Commandos with artillery sounds odd to me.  Artillery was generally used in conjunction with ground troops in conventional combat, by which I mean fairly large numbers of conventional troops operating at the front with all the supporting units associated with division-sized units.  The British Commandos tended to be used in small groups in short, fast, hit-and-run raids against occupied Europe, without the support of tanks or artillery or any other heavy stuff.

I’ll have to think about Italy and France and ANZAC, but here are a couple of ideas for a UK special unit, both making use of A&A 1941 sculpts.

Option 1 would be to use the 1941 Hood sculpt to depict what the Hood actually was: a battlecruiser rather than a battleship.  I don’t have a specific recommendation on what its combat values would be, but the general idea would be to make it better than a cruiser but not as good as a battleship (in terms of capabilities) and mid-way in price between those two categories cost-wise.

Option 2 is more radical: use the 1941 Lancaster bomber sculpt to depict Lancasters from the RAF’s no. 617 Squadron (a.k.a. the Dambusters) armed with earthquake bombs such as the 12,000-pound Tallboy or (better still) the 22,000-pound Grand Slam.  The Lanc was the only Allied bomber with the lift capacity and the bomb bay door space to carry the Grand Slam, which was the most powerful non-nuclear Allied bomb of WWII.

I support nations specific units but it is kind of pointless to do it because of the powers didn’t have anything special but I will say that we need a game that allows transport planes and paratroopers to be used in the game. Not sure if Italy used them but all of the allied nations had paratroopers and Germany and Japan used them at some point.

Just looking at the key concepts for which certain nations became known, I’d propose the following special units:

Germany: Heavy Tank (the Tiger is fine for this role). Alternatively, you could go with the '88 as a kind of cross between an AA gun and an anti-tank gun
Italy: Frogmen
U.K.: Battlecruiser, a kind of fast, lighter battleship
France: Foreign Legion
United States: Mechanized Infantry
Japan: Sure, the Yamato is fine. You could alternatively do a special submarine or fighter, or else simulate the Tokyo Express by allowing Destroyers to carry 1 infantry.
Russia: Militia is fine.
ANZAC: I’d give them a tougher infantry piece.

@Erocco:

@Trenacker:

Just looking at the key concepts for which certain nations became known, I’d propose the following special units:

Germany: Heavy Tank (the Tiger is fine for this role). Alternatively, you could go with the '88 as a kind of cross between an AA gun and an anti-tank gun
Italy: Frogmen
U.K.: Battlecruiser, a kind of fast, lighter battleship
France: Foreign Legion
United States: Mechanized Infantry
Japan: Sure, the Yamato is fine. You could alternatively do a special submarine or fighter, or else simulate the Tokyo Express by allowing Destroyers to carry 1 infantry.
Russia: Militia is fine.
ANZAC: I’d give them a tougher infantry piece.

Great ideas Trenacker. I like it a lot. Especially the Battlecruiser for UK and a tougher infantry for ANZAC.

Battlecruiser cost 16, attack 3, defend 3, move 2, takes two hits to destroy.
ANZAC infantry cost 4, attack 2, defend 2, move 1, attack 3 or less when paired with artillery

HMS Hood (UK’s Battlecruiser) was pulverized by Bismarck and Prince Eugen.
She had no deck armor.
To be nearer the historical depiction, 1 hit is enough but with the big guns on offense, at least.
Something like A4 D3 or A4 D4, for 14 IPCs.
Your stats A3 D3 2 hits are more for a kind of Heavy Cruiser, or more likely German Pocket Battleship.
But, since it is a special unit to UK, consider all UK’s Cruisers as Battlecruiser:
A4 D4,  or D3, M2-3 , 1 hit, Cost 12, shorebombard @4.
There is better chance this unit will be purchase.

The Anzac upgrade unit combat value seems balanced IMO.

I’ve long felt that naval combat on the AA map is actually too simplistic to allow for the variety of units that I might like.

My first thought was that I could add more sea zones to place a premium on the movement values of naval units. The idea was that this would make it worthwhile to build battlecruisers and cruisers rather than battleships. Unfortunately, it was pointed out to me that this throws the timescale off because it means that naval units take an unreasonably long time to cross oceans. If you’re OK with that, then try adding some new naval zones and see what happens.

Consider adding abilities (some perhaps card-driven). I came up with a concept that I call the “Naval Combat Search.” I’ve described it a few times on this forum. Basically, the players roll every time two naval or air forces meet at sea. Aircraft grant a bonus. Most of the time, the search is successful and a combat results. However, some of the time, fleets will steam past one another in the night or reconnaissance aircraft will miss something. No combat results and the pieces may move normally next turn or stick around to attempt another search.

@Trenacker:

Just looking at the key concepts for which certain nations became known, I’d propose the following special units:

Germany: Heavy Tank (the Tiger is fine for this role). Alternatively, you could go with the '88 as a kind of cross between an AA gun and an anti-tank gun
Italy: Frogmen
U.K.: Battlecruiser, a kind of fast, lighter battleship
France: Foreign Legion
United States: Mechanized Infantry
Japan: Sure, the Yamato is fine. You could alternatively do a special submarine or fighter, or else simulate the Tokyo Express by allowing Destroyers to carry 1 infantry.
Russia: Militia is fine.
ANZAC: I’d give them a tougher infantry piece.

For Italian forces, maybe just give them more punch but less sustainability.
Special Italian Forces:
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 3
Cannot combined with Artillery,
One unit maybe carry on Battleship.

I was inspired by this old post:
@Baron:

@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.

The problem with doing a 2 attack and 1 defense at 3 is that you basically give no good reason to use infantry any more if your attacking.

@Caesar:

The problem with doing a 2 attack and 1 defense at 3 is that you basically give no good reason to use infantry any more if your attacking.

If you want to hold the conquered ground, you will prefer regular infantry.
Also, you can get the same attack factor if you paired with Artillery.

I know that usually attack value cost more than same defense values.
So, if you want it less attractive, make it 4 IPCs unit A2 D1 M1, but able to travel on Battleship and Cruiser.

In addition, here is an interesting post on San Marco Regiment:
@regularkid:

@CWO:

Out of curiosity, I’ve done some looking around to see which of the Global 1940 player countries had either actual Marines or troops that could be construed as being similar to Marines during WWII.  It looks as if they all did (to one degree or another), so I’ve posted below the list of names that I’ve found.  I’ve left out China because Chinese forces aren’t allowed to leave their home soil under the OOB rules, and thus can’t carry out amphibious landings.

United States / US Marines
United Kingdom / Royal Marines
Soviet Union / Soviet Naval Infantry
ANZAC / Naval Beach Commandos
France / Fusiliers Marins
China / [Not applicable]
Germany / Marine Stossrupp Abteilung
Japan / Special Naval Landing Forces
Italy / San Marco Regiment

This was an awesome post. I learned something! The wiki article on the San Marco Regiment was particularly instructive, excerpted below:

---

With the beginning of the Italian campaign during World War I, the unit was named the Brigata Marina (Naval Brigade), and included two regiments, one infantry and one artillery.[1] The brigade’s infantry battalions were drawn from various Army and customs units, in addition to sailors from the torpedoed Italian navy cruiser Amalfi who were hastily equipped as infantry.[2] Following the Battle of Caporetto in October-November 1917, the Italian front had almost collapsed and the Marina Brigade fought in the defence of Venice during the Battle of the Piave River. After the war, the grateful city presented a flag with the Lion of Saint Mark, from Venice’s coat of arms, to the marines of the Naval Brigade. The Naval Brigade was renamed the San Marco Brigade because of the connection with Venice, and the Italian Ship of the same name that was sunk in World War I [2][3]

Between the two world wars only a San Marco Battalion existed. A special unit of the battalion was sent to garrison the Italian concession in Tianjin, China in 1924 and stayed there until it was interned by the Japanese in 1943, when Italy declared war on the Axis. In the confusion, one post resisted, holding out against Japanese attacks for 24 hours before surrendering. The interned Italians were then given the choice to represent the collaborationist fascist government, or become prisoners of war. The San Marco Battalion also served during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War.

At the beginning of the Second World War it became a two battalion regiment and later increased in size, and prepared for amphibious landings at Cape Martin in France which never happened.[2]When Italy attacked Yugoslavia in April 1941, the San Marco Marines carried out successful landings on several islands in the Adriatic and seized ports against minimal resistance.[2]The regiment expanded to seven battalions before the final desert battles in 1943, including the Battaglione Nuotatori who were trained as parachutists in 1941. The 3rd Battalion of the ‘San Marco’ Regiment, which became known as the Tobruk battalion,[4] repelled landings by British Commandos at Tobruk during the night of 13/14 September in 1942, in the course of the botched Operation Agreement. As a result, 200 British Commandos were taken prisoner.

The regiment fought at Tobruk and Tunisia, where it defended the Mareth line during April and May 1943. The Tobruk Battalion was later destroyed on the night of 5 April 1943 while defending the Oidane-el-Hachana line against an attack on Wadi Akarit by the British 69th Infantry Brigade and Gurkha units from the Indian Army 4th Infantry Division.[2][5]

“When we were about ten yards away we had reached the top of the slit trench and we killed any of the survivors,” recalled British infantryman Bill Cheall, who had just seen his section leader shot down by a San Marco Marine. “It was no time for p���� footing, we were intoxicated with rage and had to kill them to pay for our fallen pal.” [6]

The Italian Marines, well dug and plentifully supplied with automatic weapons and grenades, fought well, and casualties among the 6th Green Howards had been severe; two senior officers, six senior NCO’s and junior officers and one hundred and eighteen other ranks killed.[7]

German General Hans-J�rgen von Arnim later said of the San Marco Marines fighting abilities in Tunisia in 1943, that they were “the best soldiers I ever commanded”.[8][9]Following the Italian surrender in 1943, many San Marco marines fought for the Allies against the Germans, however the 4th (Caorle) Battalion fought for the Axis until the end of the war.

Used to play global conflict. They had A1 D2 units and A2 D1 units for the same price. It seemed to work pretty good. Too bad they’re not around anymore. They had some cool fog of war stuff that’d be neat in triplea.

It would represent forces more accurately as well. If you’re a more offensive minded army, such as Germany in wwII, this would give you another option in the makeup of your army. Anyway think I’ll give it a try.

4 ICP would be better for a unit that attacks at 2 and defends at 1.

@Caesar:

4 ICP would be better for a unit that attacks at 2 and defends at 1.

Need to be balanced compared to Artillery which have 4 combat points +1, (A2 D2 M1, +1 to Inf).
And MI A1-2 D2 M2, blitz with Tank.

The best solution I found for including new and unique units was transitioning to a different die base, such as d10, d12, or d20. This entails accepting that infantry fights may go on forever, and so I’ve adopted a rule that, after three rounds of combat, surviving units stay in place. There is also a system for “holding” enemy forces on a 1:1 basis so that armies can hold one another in place.

I think that greater unit variety is a superior solution to unique units.

You’re correct that adding too many new units and rules changes the game by making it much more involved. One solution to that would be to create combat cards.

@Trenacker:

Just looking at the key concepts for which certain nations became known, I’d propose the following special units:

Germany: Heavy Tank (the Tiger is fine for this role). Alternatively, you could go with the '88 as a kind of cross between an AA gun and an anti-tank gun
Italy: Frogmen
U.K.: Battlecruiser, a kind of fast, lighter battleship
France: Foreign Legion
United States: Mechanized Infantry
Japan: Sure, the Yamato is fine. You could alternatively do a special submarine or fighter, or else simulate the Tokyo Express by allowing Destroyers to carry 1 infantry.
Russia: Militia is fine.
ANZAC: I’d give them a tougher infantry piece.

Another idea to slightly increase US MI special unit is to allow 2 MIs on TP or 1 MI plus any other ground unit. (An old Wittmann idea.)
So, that way, US player can put 1 Tank and 1 MI on same TP for maximum mobility on ETO.

France Foreign Legion can be a more fierced and battled hardened unit:
A2 D2 M1 Cost 3 cannot get Artillery bonus.
Can only be built outside Paris IC.
So only built in minor IC such Southern France or Bordeaux.
I believe most comes from North Africa, IDK much.

For Japan, I like the Tokyo express but it needs a few limitation such as one Cruiser or one Battleship must escort Destroyers unit filled with IJ Infantry unit in each.

For Russia, I don’t like militia.
Ketushiya like rocket Artillery seems more iconic:
Maybe Artillery combined 1:1 with MI is able to move 2 TTys on offense?

For ANZAC, I pretty like this one:
@Erocco:

ANZAC infantry cost 4, attack 2, defend 2, move 1, attack 3 or less when paired with artillery

For UK, all Cruiser units are considered Battle Cruiser:
A4 D3 M2-3, 1 hit, shore  bombard @4, Cost 12

San Marco Marines regiment
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 4
Can travel on Cruiser or Battleship.
Cannot combine arms with Artillery.

For Germany, this Heavy Tank works for me:

Germany - Tiger Tank -
A3 D3 M2 C8 takes two hits to destroy, cannot be repaired once hit, rest is same as a tank - Unit used OBO AA 1941 Tiger Tank or HBG Tiget Tank version