G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

  • '17 '16

    @barney:

    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.

    I think a playtest with a more OOB Cruiser (no AA defense, no M3) carrying 1 Marines in its weak version A1-2 D2 C4 can provides an interesting increase of naval action and amphibious landing.
    Restricting to BB seems to be an indirect way to favor US, but with Cruiser the warships could be more scattered to invade more islands. Also, this can be an incentive to throw more Submarines at them.

    For now, TP is still defenseless in TripleA file, so if giving such carrying capacity appears to be a little off balance, you can make TP cost at 5 IPCs. That way the 32 IPCs fleet is much more balanced:

    2 (Cruiser+ Elite/Marines A1 D2 C4 combo) = C32, CA A6 D6 + 2 Elites A2 D4

    A) 2 DDs + 1 TP c5 /1 Tk + 1 Inf = C30, DD A4 D4 + Ground A4 D5
    B) 1 CA + 1 DD + 1 TP c5/ 1 Art + 1 Inf = C32, Warships A5 D5 + Ground A4 D4
    C) 1 CA + 1 Sub + 1TP c5/ 1 Tk + 1 Ind = C32 Warships A5 D4 + Ground A4 D5

    It seems better to use Cruisers and Marines.
    You get 2 Offshore bombardment @3 and higher off/def in SZ.

    A) 2 DDs are outmatched by 2 Cruisers but there is 2 IPCs left.
    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, DD protection against Sub and A4 D4 best combo, better than A2 D4 Marines.

    C) You get 1 fire support @3, and a high attack factor and 1 Sub fodder against Sub, on defense.
    Landing units have more punch A1 +  A3 vs 2 Marines A1 + A1.
    Seems a better balanced equilibrium point with TP5 vs CA12 carrying 1 Marines.

    After all, no cost has been determined irrevocably for now.

    Even if Marines A1-2 D2 C4 have no outstanding combat values compared to Infantry, carrying them on BB and Cruiser is still a very useful capacity since you don’t need to invest as much on escorting warships since BB and Cruiser have high defense values and provide a useful 1 shot bombardment.

    By weak Marines/ or special Infantry, I’m still thinking, and still assuming no special bonus (Marines) or penalty (Tk) during amphibious assault :
    @Baron:

    @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 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.

    This sounds like a very sensible approach.  One of few historical inaccuracies about A&A that’s never really bothered me is the fact that all the countries (except for China) in Global 1940 have access to the full roster of unit types, even if in real life they did not actually operate such units during WWII, or only had inferior-quality models.  The USSR is a good example: in WWII, it didn’t have (as far as I know) any operational fleet carriers, and its battleships were all old and slow and under-gunned.  So it would be in keeping with A&A OOB practice to allow everyone access to a dedicated Marine unit (with identical characteristics for all nations), even if in real life some of these Marine-type or quasi-Marine-type forces were not all of the same size or quality.  And another argument in favour of using Marines as a special infantry unit with an amphibious-landing bonus, as opposed to adding generic elite forces, is that such a Marine unit was actually included (though just for the US) in the original Pacific game, with its own distinctively-coloured (though not distinctively shaped) sculpt…so it’s a concept that’s been officially used in the actual A&A game line.

    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

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    Regularkid made good points.

    I have always thought that including nation-specific units were problematic in a couple ways. One of which being they tend to be pretty American-centric. At least with people who like to include special units in house rules, most of them seem to involve US special use forces while ignoring other nations’ equivalent or similar forces.

    I think everyone should be given the options to buy/develop the same spread of special units or tech. Puts everyone on an even footing and each nation should end up tailoring its special units/tech upgrades to what it needs in the game.

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Perhaps instead of a generic +1 to attack at all times, you just give them a +1 to attack in the first round of the combat phase. Then the unit type could be used for all Nations, but you could give a nod to the Corps by just having a lot of these units staged and ready for deployment at Pearl and W. US when you do the set up chart for the Americans.

    Does TripleA coding allows this kind of bonus: +1A for first combat round and only this combat round?

    @Narvik:


    Paras should be like this, up to 3 Paras can combat move up to 3 spaces away from a working AirBase**. I know the OOB rules says 2 units, but it can scramble 3 fighters, so lets keep numbers that everybody can remember.**

    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.

    Of course you can drop Paras only in any territory within range of your AB. They don’t need a back up force coming from adjacent territory. In the Battle of Crete, the Italian amphibious assault failed, because the Brits had a lot of battleships in the seazone. Then the Germans dropped Paras from planes. The first men in chutes would usually capture an airfield, and the following up forces would land on that airfield, so 3 Paras from an AB don’t just represent 100 000 men with chutes, it represent men landing in gliders or air transports landing on newly captured airfields too.

    As Narvik pointed out, the first combat round can figure for the first days of paratroopers airdrop surprise effect or beachheads battle (which took no more than 1 or 2 days, besides shorebombardment).
    I think everyone agree that a whole player’s turn figures for many months of war.

    This bonus seems accurate and add some flavour to a unit which is similar to Infantry otherwise.

    It could work for a single Marines/Paratrooper unit.

    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.
    +1A first combat round 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.
    +1A first combat round bonus when airdropped.

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


  • @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 pussy 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-Jürgen 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.


  • @Black_Elk:

    Given the size/scope of the territories involved, a “marine” unit that is unloaded into Normandy as part of a D-Day drop, could be imagined instead as a paratrooper (even if it’s technically being delivered by a warship or transport for the gameplay mechanic, you could just pretend it was an air drop in advance of the larger amphibious landing.) If its not explicitly named “Marine” but rather something like Marine/Elite Infantry. It’s just one of those situations where some freedom of imagination would be nice, instead of pretending an alternate history (that has USMC storming fortress Europa) you just pretend that in this case the unit is not a Marine, but rather a Paratrooper or a Ranger.

    Does something like that make sense?

    I’m not sure how to answer your “Does something like that make sense?” question because I’m not sure I understand the concept you’re describing.

    If we define a Marine unit as an infantry-type unit which gets a bonus on amphibious landings, I don’t see any problem with their being used to make amphibious landings in Europe.  The USMC didn’t, as far as I know, make any such landings in Europe during WWII, but they could certainly have done so if they had been sent there.  There’s no reason to have a rule (if I’m understanding your proposal correctly) which says that in order for US infantry-type units to get an amphibious landing bonus in Europe they have to be called Rangers instead of Marines, because a US Marine making an amphibious assault on a beach in Normany is conceptually just as valid as a US Marine making an amphibious assault on a beach on Iwo Jima.

    What isn’t conceptually valid is to consider terms like “Marine” and “paratrooper” and “commando” (and so forth) as interchangeable or arbitrary.  That would be like saying that “battleship” and “cruiser” and “destroyer” are interchangeable terms because they all refer to surface-combat warships and, therefore, to vessels which have few or no significant differences between them.  That’s not the case for warships, and it’s not the case for elite forces like Marines and paras and commandos and whatnot.  These infantry-type units have different names for a very good reason, and it has nothing to do with what service branches they belong to (because in fact some of them – like paratroopers and Rangers, which are both Army personnel – actually belong to the same service branch).  The reason they have different names is that they serve in very different roles, and have very different training and equipment to carry out those roles.  Paratroopers have no special skills in making assaults against defended beaches, Marines have no special skills in making parachute jumps, and commandos have no special skills in either of those capacities.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @CWO:

    @Black_Elk:

    Given the size/scope of the territories involved, a “marine” unit that is unloaded into Normandy as part of a D-Day drop, could be imagined instead as a paratrooper (even if it’s technically being delivered by a warship or transport for the gameplay mechanic, you could just pretend it was an air drop in advance of the larger amphibious landing.) If its not explicitly named “Marine” but rather something like Marine/Elite Infantry. It’s just one of those situations where some freedom of imagination would be nice, instead of pretending an alternate history (that has USMC storming fortress Europa) you just pretend that in this case the unit is not a Marine, but rather a Paratrooper or a Ranger.

    Does something like that make sense?

    I’m not sure how to answer your “Does something like that make sense?” question because I’m not sure I understand the concept you’re describing.

    I think I get this and was considering proposing something similar.

    Correct me if I am wrong Balck_Elk, but it appears you mean simply having one Elite infantry unit type which counts for any non-standard infantry. Meaning the Elite Infantry stand for Marines, Paratroopers, Commandos, etc… as the situation on the board warrants.

    While not entirely accurate, I think the scale of the game suits this simplification. It is possible that even the addition of a single Elite infantry unit could be superfluous or under-utilized. Compare that to introducing 3 separate elite or special use unit types (Airborne - Paratroopers, Marines - Navy, Commandos/Rangers - Army). I don’t think you would ever have the time to buy enough of the ones that you need. Better to just have one unit that can serve in multiple roles. Makes the piece much more useful overall.

    Personally I think a simplification of one Elite unit type is plenty and would agree with melding all types into one.


  • @LHoffman:

    Personally I think a simplification of one Elite unit type is plenty and would agree with melding all types into one.

    And I’m not opposed to this concept.  As I indicated earlier, such a generic elite infantry unit could be perfectly realistic as long as it has a single, modest ability boost that never changes in any circumstance.  A bonus of +1 on all attacks would be one option for doing so.  The unit would not make sense, however, if its characteristics change from situation to situation (e.g. a +1 bonus on attack in Situation A, a + 1 bonus on defense in Situation B, etc.), or if it’s allowed to have multiple special abilities representing multiple specialized capabilities (a bonus on amphibious landings, a special transport-by-cruiser ability, a special airborne/parachute landing capability. etc.)

  • '17 '16

    @CWO:

    @LHoffman:

    Personally I think a simplification of one Elite unit type is plenty and would agree with melding all types into one.

    And I’m not opposed to this concept.  As I indicated earlier, such a generic elite infantry unit could be perfectly realistic as long as it has a single, modest ability boost that never changes in any circumstance.  A bonus of +1 on all attacks would be one option for doing so.  The unit would not make sense, however, if its characteristics change from situation to situation (e.g. a +1 bonus on attack in Situation A, a + 1 bonus on defense in Situation B, etc.), or if it’s allowed to have multiple special abilities representing multiple specialized capabilities (a bonus on amphibious landings, a special transport-by-cruiser ability, a special airborne/parachute landing capability. etc.)

    So, if I understand, it would not be possible to use 1 unit as qualified for the two situations, amphibious assault aboard cruiser or airborne attack with AB. Right?


  • @Baron:

    @CWO:

    @LHoffman:

    Personally I think a simplification of one Elite unit type is plenty and would agree with melding all types into one.

    And I’m not opposed to this concept.  As I indicated earlier, such a generic elite infantry unit could be perfectly realistic as long as it has a single, modest ability boost that never changes in any circumstance.  A bonus of +1 on all attacks would be one option for doing so.  The unit would not make sense, however, if its characteristics change from situation to situation (e.g. a +1 bonus on attack in Situation A, a + 1 bonus on defense in Situation B, etc.), or if it’s allowed to have multiple special abilities representing multiple specialized capabilities (a bonus on amphibious landings, a special transport-by-cruiser ability, a special airborne/parachute landing capability. etc.)

    So, if I understand, it would not be possible to use 1 unit as qualified for the two situations, amphibious assault aboard cruiser or airborne attack with AB. Right?

    No.  They’d have a +1 bonus on attack and nothing else.  No special transport abilities.  No riding aboard cruisers or battleships, no parachuting from planes.  Transportation of elite troops would be exactly the same as transportation of normal infantry.  Their “elite” status would simply be an expression of higher morale and motivation, translating into a small attack bonus.  It would not give them any special abilities that, in real life, would only apply to Marines or would only apply to paratroopers or would only apply to any other specialized troop type.  If these “elite” forces are supposed to be generic, then they have to be realistically generic.  They can’t be a combination of half-a-dozen different troop types that all have specialized skills.  To put it another way: if a regular infantryman is a standard knife, then an elite infantryman would be a dagger, not a Swiss Army knife.


  • Quick edit: Sorry, I should have said, “Yes, it would not be possible” rather than “No” in answer to your question “Right?”  I was typing too fast.  Yes, you’re right that it would not be possible to use 1 unit as two different types of units.


  • @Black_Elk:

    Well it would be fairly easy to just adopt the rules of the previous Pacific game verbetum, but you still have an issue in G40 that you didn’t have in the original Pacific game, namely that the new Pacific 1940 map is designed to be integrated with the Europe 1940 map. So I can easily imagine a situation where you have all the Marines crossing the Altantic for a USMC lead D-Day invasion. The unit abilities described above would be much more valuable (in game play terms) if used to invade France or Berlin etc. Because they get a boost on Amphibious and the first round of combat is so key to those battles.

    Hey Folks,

    in our G40 games we use the ‘Marine-Rules’ from the old A&A-Pacific along with the dark-green minitaures. And as Black Elk suggested, if US-Marines were deployed to the Atlantic, we treat them as rangers.
    In addition, since the Japanese miniatures of the old Pacific are red, we use them as SNLF units. (And 6 old red Japanese figthers are used as Kamikaze Planes)
    This workes very well for us.

    Greetings,
    Lars

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @CWO:

    No.� They’d have a +1 bonus on attack and nothing else.� No special transport abilities.� No riding aboard cruisers or battleships, no parachuting from planes.� Transportation of elite troops would be exactly the same as transportation of normal infantry.� Their “elite” status would simply be an expression of higher morale and motivation, translating into a small attack bonus.� It would not give them any special abilities that, in real life, would only apply to Marines or would only apply to paratroopers or would only apply to any other specialized troop type.� If these “elite” forces are supposed to be generic, then they have to be realistically generic.� They can’t be a combination of half-a-dozen different troop types that all have specialized skills.� To put it another way: if a regular infantryman is a standard knife, then an elite infantryman would be a dagger, not a Swiss Army knife.

    Well, my intention was the opposite. Why couldn’t they be a single unit which has different specialized abilities in different situations? This is what would make them a very useful and valuable piece. If you just have an infantry unit that has a better attack value than normal infantry, then what is the big deal? Why buy them?

    Normal infantry pieces in AA actually comprise (theoretically) a number of specialized functions that are contained withing a single Corps or Army level formation. There are engineers, medical support, combat infantry, reconnaissance teams, logistics/mobility units, intelligence units and limited bombardment units such as mortar and artillery. All of these are combined in a single unit type for game purposes.

    Special forces or elite units, by comparison have some of these elements but in far fewer numbers. Additionally, combining the very tactical abilities of parachute jumps or amphibious assaults under one unit is not so far fetched. It was less common in WWII, but special forces today employ many, if not all, of those abilities. For example, the US Marine Corps has both amphibious and parachute detachments. The SEALs do pretty much everything these days, but even their origins in WWII in Scout and Raiders/UDT combined amphib assault and commando tactics. US Ranger battalions famously conducted amphib assaults at Omaha beach, even though they were not “Marines” - as I believe you pointed out Marc.

    More than anything else, this would greatly simplify infantry unit types and greatly improve their overall usefulness. If in an amphibious assault, the Elite is treated as a Marine. Elites can also be used as paratroopers, however anyone’s personal rules allow for them. And Elites also act as a generalized commando/upper echelon infantry formation, with roll values to match.

    No, it isn’t perfectly accurate, but I think it is a very reasonable and pretty good solution for this scale of game without providing for 3 separate additional infantry types. (Which would push us up to 6 or 7 infantry types depending on what game you play.)

  • '17 '16

    @LHoffman:

    @CWO:

    @Black_Elk:

    Given the size/scope of the territories involved, a “marine” unit that is unloaded into Normandy as part of a D-Day drop, could be imagined instead as a paratrooper (even if it’s technically being delivered by a warship or transport for the gameplay mechanic, you could just pretend it was an air drop in advance of the larger amphibious landing.) If its not explicitly named “Marine” but rather something like Marine/Elite Infantry. It’s just one of those situations where some freedom of imagination would be nice, instead of pretending an alternate history (that has USMC storming fortress Europa) you just pretend that in this case the unit is not a Marine, but rather a Paratrooper or a Ranger.

    Does something like that make sense?

    I’m not sure how to answer your “Does something like that make sense?” question because I’m not sure I understand the concept you’re describing. �

    I think I get this and was considering proposing something similar.

    Correct me if I am wrong Balck_Elk, but it appears you mean simply having one Elite infantry unit type which counts for any non-standard infantry. Meaning the Elite Infantry stand for Marines, Paratroopers, Commandos, etc… as the situation on the board warrants.

    While not entirely accurate, I think the scale of the game suits this simplification. It is possible that even the addition of a single Elite infantry unit could be superfluous or under-utilized. Compare that to introducing 3 separate elite or special use unit types (Airborne - Paratroopers, Marines - Navy, Commandos/Rangers - Army). I don’t think you would ever have the time to buy enough of the ones that you need. Better to just have one unit that can serve in multiple roles. Makes the piece much more useful overall.

    Personally I think a simplification of one Elite unit type is plenty and would agree with melding all types into one.

    @CWO:

    @Baron:

    @CWO:

    @LHoffman:

    Personally I think a simplification of one Elite unit type is plenty and would agree with melding all types into one.

    And I’m not opposed to this concept.�  As I indicated earlier, such a generic elite infantry unit could be perfectly realistic as long as it has a single, modest ability boost that never changes in any circumstance.�  A bonus of +1 on all attacks would be one option for doing so.�  The unit would not make sense, however, if its characteristics change from situation to situation (e.g. a +1 bonus on attack in Situation A, a + 1 bonus on defense in Situation B, etc.), or if it’s allowed to have multiple special abilities representing multiple specialized capabilities (a bonus on amphibious landings, a special transport-by-cruiser ability, a special airborne/parachute landing capability. etc.)

    So, if I understand, it would not be possible to use 1 unit as qualified for the two situations, amphibious assault aboard cruiser or airborne attack with AB. Right?

    Yes.  They’d have a +1 bonus on attack and nothing else.  No special transport abilities.  No riding aboard cruisers or battleships, no parachuting from planes.  Transportation of elite troops would be exactly the same as transportation of normal infantry.  Their “elite” status would simply be an expression of higher morale and motivation, translating into a small attack bonus. It would not give them any special abilities that, in real life, would only apply to Marines or would only apply to paratroopers or would only apply to any other specialized troop type.  If these “elite” forces are supposed to be generic, then they have to be realistically generic.  They can’t be a combination of half-a-dozen different troop types that all have specialized skills.  To put it another way: if a regular infantryman is a standard knife, then an elite infantryman would be a dagger, not a Swiss Army knife.

    These two posts give a pretty good summary of the aporetic issue on adding a single other non-ordinary Infantry.
    Either we create an all purpose unit (3 purposes: Marines/Paras/Rangers,  or 2 purposes: Marines/Rangers or Marines/Paras or Paras/Rangers), or we have to chose which type of special Infantry unit, probably Marines, we want to introduce at the expense of letting aside the others.

    Maybe I get a way to sort out the opposition between Marines only, more historically accurate approach, vs Elite (all purposes), more strategic game approach.

    I would accept this solution to introduce a useful unit as much as possible (not too specialized).

    Paras can stay a Tech, as it is.
    Marines or Marines/Rangers (I view Ranger as a kind of Shock troop), according to Hessian seems less opposed in their ability.

    Elite Infantry: Marines/Rangers (Shock troop):
    (Reduced survivability on defense)
    Cost 4
    Attack 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.

    Land movement bonus:
    Gets Move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry or Tank (blitz along with Tank or Tank+MI).

    No combined arms with Artillery.

    No production limitation.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    Paratroopers could remain solely a tech item. If you were to keep them as such, they are simply regular infantry that get the airborne movement. They have no other special attack/def values and you cannot outright buy them. A combined Marine/Elite unit would then cut out the airborne element but still allow the amphib bonus.

    Ultimately, a system like that is just as good because you still only introduce one new unit rather than three. It just depends on the system you want to use. Personally, I am of the mind to not have Paratroopers as a tech development and would rather people just be able to buy them and use as desired (albeit as a single, multipurpose elite level infantry).

    Oh, and for reference, my system would look something like:

    Elite Infantry  A2+  D3  M1   $5 - A3 when paired 1:1 with Armor units. NO bonus for Artillery support. Possible Cap on total number allowed on board per Nation.

    Attack should be reg infantry max and reflect combined arms component with Armor for a +1. To me, a structure like A2 D1 $4 for Elite is essentially a less capable infantry unit at higher cost. In no way should Elite infantry have an inferior defense to normal infantry. If anything it should be higher to reflect their status and resolve.


  • @LHoffman:

    Special forces or elite units, by comparison have some of these elements but in far fewer numbers. Additionally, combining the very tactical abilities of parachute jumps or amphibious assaults under one unit is not so far fetched. It was less common in WWII, but special forces today employ many, if not all, of those abilities. For example, the US Marine Corps has both amphibious and parachute detachments. The SEALs do pretty much everything these days, but even their origins in WWII in Scout and Raiders/UDT combined amphib assault and commando tactics. US Ranger battalions famously conducted amphib assaults at Omaha beach, even though they were not “Marines” - as I believe you pointed out Marc.

    It’s a fair point that some Special Forces today do in fact have multiple talents and skills, but there are two problems with applying this concept to a generic elite A&A unit.  One problem is a minor realism issue, and the other is a major realism issue.  The minor realism issue is that these sorts of multi-skilled Special Forces personnel were less common in WWII than today.  The major realism issue, however, is an issue that exists just as much today as it did in WWII: the fact that the more skills you want to give to a soldier, the more money and time is required to train and equip them, and the fewer men you can find who have the qualifications that make it possible for them to be trained to the required standard – and therefore the fewer such soldiers you can realistically produce.  To give a concrete example:

    • It’s perfectly realistic (because it was actually done in WWII) to produce a division-sized group of Marines – say, 10,000 men – who have the specific skills to carry out an amphibious assault on a defended beach, and who’ve trained for months to carry out that specific attack, but who don’t have a whole bunch of Swiss Army knife Special Force skills (parachuting, hand-to-hand-silent combat, sending Morse code, etc.)

    • It’s perfectly realistic (because it was actually done in WWII) to produce a regiment-sized group of Special Forces – say, 2,000 men – who have a whole bunch of Swiss Army knife Special Force skills like the ones I mentioned.  The British Army’s SAS, which was founded in WWII, is an example of such a unit.

    • It is NOT realistic to produce division-sized groups of soldiers who have the range of skills and abilities of Special Forces units.  Special Forces of this type are tremendously expensive to create and maintain, and take a huge amount of time to train, so they can’t be mass-produced on the scale of regular military formations.  And even if time and money were no objection, there’s another problem that would make such a concept impossible to implement: qualifications.  It’s only a small minority of potential candidates who have the intelligence, the physical toughness and the other qualifications needed to be in Special Forces units.

    Case in point: the current British SAS draws its potential recruits from every branch of the British Armed Forces, so its applicants are already fully-trained military personnel.  Of those applicants, the majority are aren’t just regular soldiers; they’re often soldiers who’ve served as commandos or paratroopers – so we’re already talking about soldiers who are above average.  Out of each batch of (typically) 200 of these high-quality recruits, just how many survive the extremely tough selection process and get their SAS beret?  About 30.  That’s a 15% acceptance rate.  The other 85% weren’t rejected because they’re creampuffs, they were rejected because Special Forces units, by definition, have extraordinarily high requirements which are impossible to apply to large-scale military formations.

    As has been mentioned, the US Marines did have paratroops units (the Paramarines) in WWII, and they did have a couple of commando-type Raider Batallions – so yes it’s true that some Marines did have multiple specialized abilities.  But that’s precisely the point I’ve been trying to make: these were specialist Marine units, not standard ones, and it took long, expensive, special training for them to gain those abilities (as colourfully depicted in tthe WWII movie Gung Ho).  Just because a small number of specialized Marine units hand multiple abilities doesn’t mean that the far more numerous “standard” Marines had those abilities.  They didn’t.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    I agree with your analysis Marc and think you are spot on.

    The only reason I am suggesting combining all three into one is for the sake of simplicity. I think it would be better for the game as a whole to combine and simplify rather than expand based on the historic legacy of each country or the tactical abilities of certain forces.

    As you referenced, Marine-type units could be produced in a similar quantity to regular infantry because they were utilized (by the United States) at a Corps/Division level.

    Commando special forces never approach divisional level numbers, let alone a corps which is the more accurate A&A level of representation. Airborne divisions for the US, Germany and the UK may have added up to one or two Corps level units total, but that is it.

    My point is that other than for Marines, it is improper to have an entire infantry unit used to represent a commando unit or even an airborne unit in most instances. These two types, more so than Marines, are highly tactical in nature and have little place in Axis&Allies.

    The combination of Marines, Commandos and Airborne units into a single Elite infantry seeks to amalgamate the abilities and individual minority of said units into a collective representation. You can still disagree with it and I understand why. But to me this is another case of sacrificing a small amount of historical/physical accuracy to smoothly accommodate a niche unit that people want to play with.

  • '17 '16

    @LHoffman:

    I agree with your analysis Marc and think you are spot on.

    The only reason I am suggesting combining all three into one is for the sake of simplicity. I think it would be better for the game as a whole to combine and simplify rather than expand based on the historic legacy of each country or the tactical abilities of certain forces.

    As you referenced, Marine-type units could be produced in a similar quantity to regular infantry because they were utilized (by the United States) at a Corps/Division level.

    Commando special forces never approach divisional level numbers, let alone a corps which is the more accurate A&A level of representation. Airborne divisions for the US, Germany and the UK may have added up to one or two Corps level units total, but that is it.

    My point is that other than for Marines, it is improper to have an entire infantry unit used to represent a commando unit or even an airborne unit in most instances. These two types, more so than Marines, are highly tactical in nature and have little place in Axis&Allies.

    The combination of Marines, Commandos and Airborne units into a single Elite infantry seeks to amalgamate the abilities and individual minority of said units into a collective representation. You can still disagree with it and I understand why. But to me this is another case of sacrificing a small amount of historical/physical accuracy to smoothly accommodate a niche unit that people want to play with.

    “The combination of Marines, Commandos and Airborne units into a single Elite infantry seeks to amalgamate the abilities and individual minority of said units into a collective representation.”
    Well said.  :-)
    It  express the strategic game perspective IMO on this non-standard Infantry unit.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Yeah. I may not have drawn a clear enough distinction there from my earlier posts. What I meant was not a rule about what to call the unit in a given situation, but rather pointing out that its earier to go from generic to specific in the imagination, than it is to go the other way round. If the unit is called marine explicitly and the US player uses them in Europe, then from a gameplay narrative standpoint you’ve got the USMC in Europe, whereas if the name is more generic then you can make up a different story. Though to do that I agree that the combat bonus needs to be equally generic. Basically in the same way that the generic infantry unit in the current OOB can be imagined as a “marine”, since things are left open, infantry is imagined as more of an abstract catch all.

    I don’t have any issue borrowing from the previous Pacific game for Marines, or to have marine units for each player as a purchasing option as suggested above. I think you can do a lot with the set up chart to give the US and Britain these units at the start, and just let other players choose if they want them. Also dont really have a major issue with US marines in Europe, since that is something that could have happened if the command wanted, as Barney noted. But I know for some players if it becomes a pronounced thing that occurs every game, it can be kind of annoying when the game encourage ahistorical purchasing patterns. Similar to the way the Japanese tank drive was kind of annoying in Classic and Revised. But again I think we can achieve a lot through starting placement, as a way to give a nod to the history, rather than purchasing restriction.

  • '17 '16

    @LHoffman:

    Oh, and for reference, my system would look something like: �

    Elite Infantry �A2+ �D3 �M1 � $5 - A3 when paired 1:1 with Armor units. NO bonus for Artillery support. Possible Cap on total number allowed on board per Nation.

    Attack should be reg infantry max and reflect combined arms component with Armor for a +1**. To me, a structure like A2 D1 $4 for Elite is essentially a less capable infantry unit at higher cost. In no way should Elite infantry have an inferior defense to normal infantry. If anything it should be higher to reflect their status and resolve.**

    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.
    Also, the land movement bonus come from the less numbered, less equiped special Infantry unit.
    Attack @2 is balanced by lower defense @1 to allow a more balanced Cruiser carrying capacity.

    This unit have a better attacking factor because of their abilities, training and surprise tactics despise their fewer number of soldier. 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.

    I believe I’m more conservative on combat points.
    Such A2-3 D3 M1 C5 would be stats for Heavy Artillery unit in my HR not special infantrymen with light weapons.

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 2
  • 17
  • 14
  • 3
  • 8
  • 2
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

100

Online

17.1k

Users

39.4k

Topics

1.7m

Posts