@Cmdr:
Doubly so since I just thought, why not let Kaitens move during between CM and Conduct Combat moves for America, so they can intercept. Kind of like scrambling for submarines. Perhaps should be limited to 1 sea zone for this move, though Fighters do get 2 moves, out into the sea and back to their landing pad.
Ohmygosh this sounds nothing like a kaiten. It sounds like an uber-sub from WWII fanfic.
I’m very skeptical that your version of the marine is really balanced against your kaiten.
And yes, no one is ever going to build a 6 dollar Marine. It’s hard enough to build tanks. And then what, the BEST trade america is ever going to get, is that when it gets hit by the defender, it can trade a 4 ipc artillery, for a 3 ipc infantry? Lame.
You have trouble building tanks? Jeez. Thats kinda sad.
I think the marine as I propose it would be about as valuable as a tank in an amphib assault. I dont expect anyone to buy a marine just to have a marine, I expect them to use the marine for the specific and for the specific ability it brings to the table. No one would spam my version of the marine (at least they havent so far in the games we have tried) – its a situational unit not meant to replace any of the existing unis, but augment a certain playstyle.
All that said, I could come around to a 5 cost. Hmmm.
@Cmdr:
How so?
Seems pretty balanced, once you add in the Kaitens to rebuff Japan to match America.
Did you read my original post? I state right at the beginning that I dislike an arbitrary increase in attack value for an amphibious assault (and which prompted the post in the first place). I can go into all the historical and tactical hooplah about it, but it boils down to not making any logical sense. Its a poor mechanic for my purposes.
Worse, by your reckoning the kaiten is supposed to balance your mechanic - but that simply adds another rule for a part of the game and history I am uninterested in modeling. I’m very skeptical of the idea that you balance your marine not with cost, but with the introduction of a very fiddly unit. I’m looking to keep this as simple as possible, and the marine/kaiten balance is a lot more complicated and unbalanced than what I am searching for.
@Cmdr:
Marines cost 3, only USA can purchase them.
Special: Marines attack at a 2 or less when conducting an amphibious assault in the Pacific against an island (to include Japan).
Else: Nothing special.
Move: 1
Marines may be paired with Artillery. When paired, Marines attack at 3 or less on the first round.
For each subsequent round, Marines act as per normal Infantry rules.
Yup - that is pretty much the type of Marine that I dislike. Makes little sense and not terribly appropriate for Alpha+2.
@i:
i would say six is way to much, id never buy one costing that much you might as well buy a tank they cost the same, but if they were 4 or 5 it would be much better.
The idea is that they are about as valuable as armor in an amphibious assault. getting that onshore bombardment even after a sea battle is a big deal. So, while they dont have the combat factors of armor – their special ability makes up for their smaller values. The goal is to make a situational unit (attractive when you have an ambphib assault looming and some battleships/cruisers that can help in the combat), not one that is so great that it replaces armor or the INF/ART combo.
Here’s another question to ask:
In an amphib assault what do you want more? A 3 on attack or a 2 on attack preceeded by an onshore bombardment?
I’ve never liked A&A’s version of marines. The attack on a “2”, but only in amphibious assults, didnt ring true to me. Yes, marines specialize in amphibious assaults, but why would they be better in combat in one of the most difficult environments than when they fight in a more traditional situation? If they kick butt in an amphibious attack and warrant a “2” then they should kick similar butt in standard attacks instead of reverting to a “1.”
So, for Pacific40 and Alpha +2 my proposed marine addition is:
Marine
Attack 2
Defend 2
Move 1
Cost: 6
Special 1: For every marine unit involved in an amphibious assault the player may use an onshore bombardment even if the bombardment comes from a ship that participated in a battle previously that turn. Thus, if an attacking player has 2 Marines in an attack as well as a battleship and 2 cruisers (and the ships helped clear the way for the amphibious landing), the attacking player gets 2 onshore bombardment attacks (one may not be used since there arent enough marines to get all 3 bombardments).
Special 2: Marines do not benefit from artillery support.
Comments/critiques are welcome. The goal is to make a marine that is tough, and valuable in a unique way to amphibious assaults. The cost is the thing I am having trouble with - and keep thinking a cost of 6 isnt unreasonable. Marines bring a unique ability to the table that is potentially very valuable, so making them cost that much for a aituational benefit seems (possibly) appropriate. Then again, 6 is pretty expensive – maybe 5 would be better?
That’s why I separated china in two forces.
KMT and Mao forces cannot attack or share the same territories.
I also included a partisan rules.
China player can place 1 infantry on a china territory under japanese control.
Thats been something I was toying with as well - how to respresent the Chinese civil war that raged while the IJN was occupying much of the region.
I’ve been toying with a bidding mechanic – where the US and Soviet players make a blind bid at the beginning of the Chinese player’s round to see who gets to build and control China for that turn. I’m not sure how it would work… and think that the extra income the US gets might lead to the Soviet player simply allowing the US control turn-in-and-turn-out. Thats not what I want… I would like a mechanic where the Soviets and US have a friendly competetion to see who controls the Chinese and hopefully lead to a bit of a schizophrenic play-style on the part of the Chinese since they may flip-flop control each turn.
Not sure how to do it, though. Two distinct forces may be the way to go.
To complicated. I also don’t think it is historical. Shagki Shek, (forgive the spelling) never did to good against Japan and his forces often retreated. MAO on the other hand, after the war was well under way did give Japan a run for its money, but they didn’t do all that much deep behind enemy lines.
Your understanding of how Japan and the Chinese fared against one another are very different. Very different.
The NRA was increasing decentralized after 1939 with warlords basically running various regions and promoting partisan activity. The IJN had difficulty controlling and garrisoning China (which was part of the reason they established a series of collaborator governments)… formal battle lines basically evaporated after 1941 especially in the southern regions of China. Both the KMT and the Red Chinese promoted the use of resistance forces, blowing up railways, sabotaging food production, destroying mines… and generally forcing the Japanese to have to fight against a guerrilla force.
I mean, the Red Chinese and KMT thread of a relationship fell apart (finally) in large part because the Communists were co-opting local insurgent forces at a much more successful rate than the Nationalists.
Suggesting that the Chinese didn’t do much behind enemy lines, I think, does a disservice to the efforts that occurred in post-1940 China.
Well, in my perfect world the global game would allow for 2 options: 1 game for 5 Players (each playing the “great” powers) and a game that breaks down to allow for more players/options/phases.
So, it would go something like:
U.S. Player
U.K. Player (including the Commonwealth)
Soviet Player
German Player
Japan Player
If Canada were to be a seperate power in AAE40 I would like them to:
a) have at least 10 IC
b) have a series of NOs for the UK linked to keeping the commonwealth intact. So, As long as Canada, India, ANZAC and S. Africa remain intact the UK gets bonus cash. When one or all fall, their bonus cash (via NOs) evaporates.
That way the designers could allow options for a minor Canada ally while also keeping the UK economically viable (and relaint on its overseas colonies)
