German 88’s- AA guns that cost 6 move 1, can attack and defend at 3 or support infantry like artillery or be used for anti-air. You must chose which function at the out set of combat
This is interesting idea, in The War Game: World War Two the artillery can be used either for land units or the hit can be applied to air units. The problem is if you have say 5 of these units, it chews up air forces at an alarming rate. Did you consider this?
Good point with the DD and Marines being OP. Another solution could be to give the transport/support ability to the cruisers. One marine per cruiser and the cruiser supports at 2. This would make the cruiser more attractive as a naval vessel.
If I took out the air defense component and raised the price to 8 ICPS, would the flexibility of supporting an infantry during the attack be worth 8 ICPS
Small detachments of Royal Marines were posted to vessels of cruiser size or above, and sometimes to troopers or fleet auxiliaries to round out the gunnery crews. Traditionally, Royal Marines crewed at least one of the gun turrets aboard ship.
For special operations such as at Madagascar, a smaller vessel might be used to convey marines to a landing point.
If an amphibious landing was required, several of the larger ships in a squadron would combine their marine detachments into a battalion for that purpose, subject to command by the senior marine officer present.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’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
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.
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.
@CWO:
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.
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.
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.)
@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.”
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.
