• '17 '16

    Battleship and Cruiser are unoptimized for naval combat. Since the game is abstract, you can assume that a few Marines transport ships are part of a task force of this unit. After all, it carries half the number of unit of a TP and nothing else than Infantry.

  • '16

    Fair enough.

    It does depend on scale.

    I’ve always chosen to believe that, in Axis & Allies, each individual land unit corresponds to a small army corps, or approximately 20,000 men, with some exceptions made for independent commands such as colonial garrisons (e.g., the 2 British INF on Hong Kong or the 1 INF on Malta).

    Individual naval units seem to correspond to squadrons or flotillas, but on occasions a lone cruiser or destroyer might stand in for a small fleet that included one or two capital ships only, such as the Siamese navy.

    Individual air units appear to correspond to wings.


  • @Trenacker:

    In my opinion, the size of marine detachments aboard navy ships during the Second World War were far to small to justify allowing them to be carried by or land from ships other than transports.

    I agree.  I’ve written at some length in other threads about the whole Marine detachment concept, so I won’t recapitulate the various points I made.  Suffice to say that there’a vast difference between a full-blown, division-sized Marine amphibious landing force (such as was used at Iwo Jima) and the tiny detachments of Marines that were attached to US and British major vessels during WWII for shipboard security purposes and in some cases to man part of the ship’s armament.  Marine amphibious landing force, in addition to sheer size, were trained for months to make a particular landing, and were equiped (among other things) with dedicated landing craft and amphibious landing vehicles.  Marine shipboard detachments were very small, were not trained to assault a specific enemy shore, were not trained to operate as a team with Marine detachments with other ships (you can’t throw together detachments from different ships and treat them in the same way as a unified force that’s operated as a unit for months), and they didn’t have access to landing craft and amphibious landing vehicles because battleships and cruisers did not carry any such equiment.


  • The idea for the marines is simply to allow a historical element into the game and vary the game play a bit.  The ability of the USN to coordinate, execute and support amphibious operations over long distances was a one of the crucial factors in the Pacific war.  No other nation was able to execute this type of planning to the extent the allies did and the role of amphibious landings and the technology employed was perfected by the USN/USMC.  The idea of the marine is to bring some of this advantage into the game play and and the same time make the cruiser and BB more versatile.

  • '17 '16

    @elgato610:

    The idea for the marines is simply to allow a historical element into the game and vary the game play a bit.  The ability of the USN to coordinate, execute and support amphibious operations over long distances was a one of the crucial factors in the Pacific war.  No other nation was able to execute this type of planning to the extent the allies did and the role of amphibious landings and the technology employed was perfected by the USN/USMC.  The idea of the marine is to bring some of this advantage into the game play and and the same time make the cruiser and BB more versatile.

    @simon33:

    I’ve always thought they’re overpowered. Maybe get rid of their amphibious assault bonus and/or support for a bombardment.

    If you want to try a different Marines unit which is not an Infantry, your thread made me think about this:

    Marines
    Attack 1-2
    Defense 1
    Move 1
    Cost 3
    Get +1A on amphibious landing.
    Can load 1 on Cruiser or Battleship, or 2 on a Transport
    Cruiser or Battleship forfeit their offshore bombardment when unloading Marines.

    That way, 2 Marines remains a 1 IPC cheaper option than 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery 7 IPCs to get same attack factor of A2+A2 (but on defense you get a weaker D1+D1 instead of D4 with either 2 Infs or Inf+ Art).
    Also, you may consider that 1 Marines unloaded from Cruiser and Battleship is using warship guns as a kind of combined arms to reach A2 combat while on TP you may consider that they carry landing crafts of all kinds to make a better shorelanding.

    That way 1 Tank A3 and 1 Marines A2 make the optimal unloading for amphibious assault A5 (9 IPCs). Neither 1 Inf+1Art A4, 7 IPCs or 1 Inf+1Tank A4, 9 IPCs beats this combination.

    If you don’t want to add more unit type on the board.

    You can also consider this possibility for Cruiser and Battleship:
    Cruiser
    Attack 3
    Defense 3
    Move 2-3
    Cost 12
    Shorebombardment 3 OR
    Loading/offloading  1 Infantry unit.

    Battleship
    Attack 4
    Defense 4
    Move 2-3
    Hits 2
    Cost 20
    Shorebombardment 4 OR
    Loading/offloading  1 Infantry unit,
    gives +1A support to Infantry being offloaded if no naval combat done in SZ.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1646806#msg1646806

  • '17 '16

    @elgato610:

    British RAF - Fighters cost 9 not 10

    IDK what you wish to figure about it historically speaking.
    If it is higher defense capacity, why not give Defense @2 in SBR?
    Or a primitive radar network to IC and bases’ AA guns on UK only: @2.


  • I am looking to some how give the British the advantage of the RAF with the Spitfire and Hurricanes during the battle of Britain.  The idea about radar advantage from plane based in Britain is a good idea.


  • @elgato610:

    The idea for the marines is simply to allow a historical element into the game and vary the game play a bit.  The ability of the USN to coordinate, execute and support amphibious operations over long distances was a one of the crucial factors in the Pacific war.  No other nation was able to execute this type of planning to the extent the allies did and the role of amphibious landings and the technology employed was perfected by the USN/USMC.  The idea of the marine is to bring some of this advantage into the game play and and the same time make the cruiser and BB more versatile.

    I’m not opposed to having a Marine unit: I think it would be a lot of fun, and that it would indeed reflect the important role that the USMC played in WWII.  What I’m saying, however, is that there’s no historical basis for major (by which I mean roughly division-sized) US Marine amphibious landings being launched from battleships and cruisers using Marine shipboard detachments.  I think there have been cases of Marine shipboard detachments have gone ashore on various types of limited missions, but these situations would have involved very small numbers of men and they would probably would not have involved storming a defended beach.  As I’ve said, the US Marine amphibious landings made in the Pacific during WWII were major operations conducted with large numbers of purpose-trained, purpose-equiped Marines, assembled into a full-scale invasion fleet.  That’s not at all the same kind of operation as landing a Marine detachment of a few dozen men on short notice on a limited-objective mission.  To put this in terms of an analogy: when the US Marines punched into Kuweit during Operation Desert Storm, they did so with roughly two divisions (about nine regiments, I think), not with the US Marine detachment that was on guard duty at the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia.  So my point is simply: if such a house rule is introduced, it can certainly be done simply on the basis that it’s fun and that it makes battleships and cruisers more useful, but it should not be done on the basis that it reflects historical reality.

  • '17 '16

    @CWO:

    @elgato610:

    The idea for the marines is simply to allow a historical element into the game and vary the game play a bit.  The ability of the USN to coordinate, execute and support amphibious operations over long distances was a one of the crucial factors in the Pacific war.  No other nation was able to execute this type of planning to the extent the allies did and the role of amphibious landings and the technology employed was perfected by the USN/USMC.  The idea of the marine is to bring some of this advantage into the game play and and the same time make the cruiser and BB more versatile.

    I’m not opposed to having a Marine unit: I think it would be a lot of fun, and that it would indeed reflect the important role that the USMC played in WWII.  What I’m saying, however, is that there’s no historical basis for major (by which I mean roughly division-sized) US Marine amphibious landings being launched from battleships and cruisers using Marine shipboard detachments.  I think there have been cases of Marine shipboard detachments have gone ashore on various types of limited missions, but these situations would have involved very small numbers of men and they would probably would not have involved storming a defended beach.  As I’ve said, the US Marine amphibious landings made in the Pacific during WWII were major operations conducted with large numbers of purpose-trained, purpose-equiped Marines, assembled into a full-scale invasion fleet.  That’s not at all the same kind of operation as landing a Marine detachment of a few dozen men on short notice on a limited-objective mission.  To put this in terms of an analogy: when the US Marines punched into Kuweit during Operation Desert Storm, they did so with roughly two divisions (about nine regiments, I think), not with the US Marine detachment that was on guard duty at the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia.  So my point is simply: if such a house rule is introduced, it can certainly be done simply on the basis that it’s fun and that it makes battleships and cruisers more useful, but it should not be done on the basis that it reflects historical reality.

    Marines
    Attack 1-2
    Defense 1
    Move 1
    Cost 3
    Get +1A on amphibious landing.
    Can load 2 on a Transport.

    Keeping a straightforward unit as above make Marines a competitive unit in specific amphibious landing.

    It seems sounder to keep as much as possible a single clearly delineated function per sculpt: TP is  for moving land unit, warships are meant for combat.


  • I get the whole argument, but the big picture goes something like this.  American amphibious operations played a key role in WW2.  They involved the combination of many elements which were uniquely employed by the US.  That is a historical fact.  The question is how to/ is it possible to represent this historical advantage in the game and still maintaining playability and a semblance of balance between the powers. So the question was simply how could one represent this historical in AA 1940 and maintain playability.  It may not be possible who knows.


  • My feeling is that the major role played by the US Marines in amphibious landings in the Pacific during WWII could be represented realistically in A&A by treating them as a slightly upgraded version of the normal infantry unit in the context of making an amphibious landing.  A&A has amphibious landing rules, so nothing needs to be invented in this regard; all that needs to be done is to replace the standard infantry unit used in such landings with a Marine unit that costs more but can do more.  (I don’t have any specific figures to recommend; other folks here are far more skilled at computing such variables.)  This solution side-steps the whole “Marines being transported on surface-combat-vessel” issue, which is a house-rule idea that’s been kicked around for a long while but which, in my opinion, is a case of going down the wrong rabbit hole because its real purpose wasn’t to provide a realistic depiction of Marine landings; it real purpose was to make battleships and cruisers and destroyers a more attractive purchase.

  • '22 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    One way to emphasize the effectiveness of marines and to represent the logistical challenge of amphibious landings could be to penalize the attacker for the first round, which has been brought up by others. Perhaps artillery and armor could attack at -1 during the first round for values of 1 and 2, respectively, and marines could attack at 2 for the first round. Every round thereafter artillery and armor attack at normal values while marines revert to 1 unless supported. by artillery.

  • '17 '16

    @elgato610:

    I get the whole argument, but the big picture goes something like this.  American amphibious operations played a key role in WW2.  They involved the combination of many elements which were uniquely employed by the US.  That is a historical fact.  The question is how to/ is it possible to represent this historical advantage in the game and still maintaining playability and a semblance of balance between the powers. So the question was simply how could one represent this historical in AA 1940 and maintain playability.  It may not be possible who knows.

    US Marines as a National Advantage
    Attack 1-2
    Defense 2
    Move 1
    Cost 3
    Get +1A on amphibious landing in Pacific only as long as there is at least one Cruiser or Battleship providing support in SZ.
    Can load 2 on a Transport.
    Can combined arms with Artillery in regular combat, not in amphibious assault.
    (It is just a way of saying you cannot stack both bonus.)

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @toblerone77: I’m not sure what kind of credentials you think people need to have in order to offer useful opinions about gaming and history, but I wanted to point out that I’ve received dozens of extremely useful insights about both history and gaming here on the forum, for free, on short notice, and on questions that would be considered incredibly “niche” if I tried to pose them in an undergraduate history class or for that matter at my local board game store.

    Wikipedia isn’t the only good source on World War 2, but if you had to pick one, it’s a pretty good place to start! They offer in-depth, thoughtful coverage on an extremely wide variety of WW2 topics.

    If I had to summarize one frustration with the people who show up to post on these boards, I’d say it’s that people are a little too confident in their opinions. Ignorant or educated, clever or dim-witted, there are lots of people here who are convinced that they’re right and you’re wrong.


  • Reminds me of a quote: “Ideas are like children. you can’t help thinking your own are the best.”

  • Customizer

    My comment was more out of frustration than anything. Out of politeness I removed it. I have been away from this website for a long time. My comment was directed more to something I see happening still even after so many months and it’s a shame.

  • '17 '16

    It is houserule. Anyway, everybody is its own master when playing F-2-F.
    Anyone can throw ideas, with more or less aim at something.
    Sure, some are more “historically oriented”, other “playful, blastful” oriented, other “KISS” and some more OOB and aimed at minimal changes.
    When an out-of-the-sandbox HR appear, for my part, it brings more connections to what I’m thinking about sure it is out of the track proposed but it does not kill the opening ideas. It gives much more possibilities. The opening poster is not constrained to do anything.

    Cruiser HRs are quite interesting to read as it reveals how people can be creative.
    Even your C8 TP, C8 Sub, C8 Destroyer cost structure remained in my back pocket when I worked on Redesign to find alternative to current OOB interactions and cost.

    It was not chosen amongst possibilities, but it was still amongst the one to compete within my framework. It had not received great enthusiastic response when you posted it but nevertheless was an idea I read and understand why it have its own merits.
    Within a specific gameframe and context (like introducing new players) some HRs are better than others. Ultimately each one of us is the boss and pick what he likes.
    Even my own F-2-F HRs adjust according to what gamemap, time and players attending because the ultimate goal is still having fun with it and all of us attending. Not just me wanting to test something, there is less experienced players which want to understand the game, others which are competitors that don’t like tweaking on balance indirectly due to HRs, there are beer takers and friend talkers which don’t care, etc.

    So all ideas received a varieties of more or less detailed comments, but still it means your ideas has been read. And , who knows what can happen to them  afterward, they travel and can help someone else on its specific intent.

    Good to see you on forum Toblerone.
    Did you find new teammates to play A&A?

  • '17 '16

    @toblerone77:

    My comment was more out of frustration than anything. Out of politeness I removed it. I have been away from this website for a long time. My comment was directed more to something I see happening still even after so many months and it’s a shame.

    Another explanation about some oriented kind of comments about pseudo-historical HRs is that history provides the first generic background to look upon a given set of HR.
    When there is more or less contextual infos, it is more or less accurate according to which is talking for sure. But, it is democratic sharing, everyone has to use critical thinking. As you pointed out second hand historical sources (wiki) doesn’t worth first hands from true academical research and commitment to learn about WWII.

  • Customizer

    Baron I will be as kindly as I can. While many appreciate your posts it would be appreciated by myself and many of the community for you specifically, to refrain from over-posting and commenting on every single thing that comes upon the House Rules forum.

    While i know you put a lot off work into your posts, and there is a language difference, your posts are not always appreciated, especially when you post over and over, and over and over, and over and over again. I may speak for myself, speaking without disrespect; but you really need to shut up on occasion. You’re constant droning and vomiting endless calculations is drat rating to new participants and veterans alike.

    I apologize for being so blunt or if I seem un kind. However please be more selective in the conversations on this board which you engage in. your comment is appreciated on this board but flooding the board is un-mannered and obnoxious.

  • '17 '16

    OK. Comment noted.
    Don’t be afraid about numbers, they will be much less present since they found a way to be applied in a Triple A Redesign game.

    I will try to refrained myself to not overflow too much threads.

    For language difference, maybe someday it will improve…

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 18
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 3
  • 7
  • 6
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

29

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts