Another house rule my brother and I have put into play based on the
“marines” concept (I think it was from the first A/A Pacific)is this:
In the Pacific Theater only, the U.S. can pay 5 each for marines that attack at 3 and defend at 2. The Japanese counterparts attack at 2 and defend at 3 costing the same 5 ipc’s each.
They can only be used on islands or coastal territories or they revert to ordinary infantry if fighting inland.
We felt this reflected the theme of the Pacific more. Where tanks and
mech. inf. weren’t as common or effective. Also, with the Japanese we felt it reflected their intense nationalism, and code of honor sometimes to the point of fanaticism with their suicide attacks (on land, I don’t mean the Kamikazi’s here). The American marines we feel
show the courage and sacrifice of those elite troops when taking all those islands.
We use the red Japanese inf. and the dark green American inf. from
an earlier version of A/A for the marines.
Are the Japanese equivelants SNLF?
I’d rather prefer Japanese ground units defend at +1 on island territories instead of your house rule, but I do miss the Marines.
However there is little incentive to fight for the majority of the islands as most provide little strategic advantage.
Hawaii, Carolines, Flip and the DEI seem to be the only islands that really become very contested in my games - and thats tragic considering how everything historically played out in the Pacific seemed to occur at great places like Midway and Iwo Jima which are largely negligible in global games.
Well, as for the Japanese, I didn’t really know what to call those units. The U.S. had marines, of course, (which A&A version tried to introduce them? Was it the first A&A Pacific?). The Japanese defending at 3 is supposed to symbolize there fanatical resistance and the attacking at 2 their suicidal desparate attacks near the end. The (Japanese)piece really doesn’t represent an official rank as much as it does the spirit of their attitude.
I agree that in spite of the best intentions island hopping warfare so prevalent in the Pacific doesn’t seem to organically be built into the rules. Have mulled about making houserules to adjust this for quite awhile.
I agree that in spite of the best intentions island hopping warfare so prevalent in the Pacific doesn’t seem to organically be built into the rules. Have mulled about making houserules to adjust this for quite awhile.
Simply put, making all non-Japanese islands not worth any IPC become worth 2 IPC for Japan provides a pretty nice incentive to go after places like the Solomon islands or Guam. It also creates an incentive for the Allies to protect them with units.
I particularly like all SZ’s with an island provide the extra space movement for both aircraft and ships (to simulate leaving fully supplied from port) instead of requiring Naval Bases be present.
I’ve also toyed around with the idea that aircraft on any island have an opportunity to “intercept” hostile ships moving through that SZ via localized air patrols. Single round of combat with sub-like capabilities on the fleet for being spotted. Have to roll a 2 or less to make it happen and then roll the attack value per aircraft to strike a hit.
Could extend that to everyone.
Germany SS Troops
Russian Partisans
British Commandos
Japanese Banzai
American Marines
Just leave China, France and Australia out.
You left out Italy(easily done: did we even turn up for WW2?)
Perhaps Italy’s Elite unit should attack at 1 and defend on 2. Then the regular pasta eating, bullet dodging, love making Inf attack on 0 and defend on 1.
Am I too harsh on my ancestors?
I like the idea of a more expensive Elite Inf for each country.
@wittman:
You left out Italy(easily done: did we even turn up for WW2?)
Perhaps Italy’s Elite unit should attack at 1 and defend on 2. Then the regular pasta eating, bullet dodging, love making Inf attack on 0 and defend on 1.
Am I too harsh on my ancestors?
I like the idea of a more expensive Elite Inf for each country.
Yea, I left Italy out. Toss em in with Australia, True Neutrals and France.
No tossing going on while I am around. And I thought you were a lady!
The real reasons the Italians lost was because the gunnery sergeant ordered rigatoni instead of shells.
You are close. From what I have understood from my pre war volunteer grandfather(1935 I think) Italy was totally unprepared for war. Supply was useless and only got worse when England denied us use of Mare Nostrum.
In the Winter of 41 deep in Russia they had no food and he told me he and his men had not eaten in such a long time that one of them took it on themselves to find a solution. For days afterwards the Company commander could be seen looking for his cat.
Like the English Army the officers and men did not mix and tbat probably did not help
matters.
I think the rank and file would rather have been at home. Few saw the English and especially the Americans as the enemy.
My grandfather was very happy to be demobbed.
Only to find himself in a communist/fascist civil war 43-45.
I dont think most Italians thought the United States was the enemy at all - more that Nazi Germany was an occupying force.
Let us not forget that Italy was an Allied nation, along with the United States, in World War I. They were more allied than Russia - with which we invaded after WWI.
