Posts made by baron Münchhausen

Yep,
an odd situation that requires Germany has conquered Moscow and Caucasus,
Uk trying to help from IC based in India via Persia, then Japan beating UK from Kazakh SSR.
It will generates 16 IPCs. It’s double IPCs production of England!
We can be assured that it is the quest for “black gold”.
Just imagine this scenario: the poor caucasians beaten up from every fronts and be able to produced way much more than England industries… while Stalingrad is in ruined but their oil fields are raining gold and ready to use fuel!  :-D
That is a real anomaly.  :-o

I said:

But you still get, in rare circumstances, a Caucasus anomaly bringing 16 IPCs (instead of 4 IPCs and much better than what bring WUSA 1942.1 to the American in 1 turn) on the board in a whole turn if Russia, Germany, UK, Japan and Russia can capture it one after the other.

But it’s not true, if UK won the territory their is no IPC gain.
So it become a 12 IPCs anomaly not “16”.
Sorry,

@Gargantua:

My only concern is that this will make the Axis suffer much more, and early, than it will the allies.
The attacker is at a significant disadvantage.
So right out the gate you might as well remove 5 infantry units or more from the board for both Japan and Germany.
And what about nations like China?

I believe the problem will also be the same if you collect income at the beginning of your turn.
I think the game is balance in a way that Larry Harris knows Russia and Germany make more IPCs together than the sum of their territories. He probably adjust units on the board and territory value to balance this.

But you still get, in rare circumstances, a Caucasus anomaly bringing 16 IPCs (instead of 4 IPCs and much better than what bring WUSA 1942.1 to the American in 1 turn) on the board in a whole turn if Russia, Germany, UK, Japan and Russia can capture it one after the other. Instead of a completely crippled territory with destroyed infrastructure, as a normal war will do on any country.
Think about Koweit and their many burning oil fields, I think it took almost 2 years for the firemen to stop the fires Iraquies soldiers started…   And the war was already over.

To specifically respond to the post below:
The question: is it possible to maintain the sum of IPCS at global level, in a way to don’t have “the more you invade me, the more I produce” :wink: paradox and be able to keep the initial balance and movement of the game: Axis growing fast or get beaten?
That’s the best way I can rephrase it.

@Gargantua:

@Gargantua:

It’s best to reiterate the original question
What are you trying to achieve here?  To ensure there is no triple territory dipping?  Even if the territory is worth $0, if 3 parties fight over it, IPC/Unit-currency is still exchanged significantly…

The simplest and most universal way to achieve what you are hoping for, is to count ipc’s ONLY at the beginning of your turn.

There’s less money going around, and that means less units on the board… but they you don’t have to worry about splitting incomes, or any other stuff.  You simply only get what you’ve started with.

I read somewhere about this option, I can’t remember what was the topic but when I wrote the first post I was looking for something else.
Because, every disputed territory lower the global incomes. So as you say:

Less units on the board, means less options, less strategy, and a higher-impact-from/lower-resistance- to luckfactors.

I proposed a mid-way that keep the global value to the sum of the face value territories and keep NOs as they are.

The method I suggest can even add a “revenge” flavour somehow:
When you win a territory, you either put a flag token on enemy territory thus you can “remember” him: “give to the bank 1 IPCs, man…” and so forth…
In the other way, when you liberate a territory you can say: “Get out of my country, this is your flag token and…by the way don’t forget to pay 1 IPC, scum bag …”
The more it happens, the more you made it a psychological game: “I’m getting at your purse and their is a real hole in it, you should mend it…”

I revised the precedent post:

I was thinking about it in a different way:
Elite unit: Att: 1 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost 4, receive +1 att when paired with Art (same as Inf) or with an Arm (special ability).
After the first round and the rest of the battle, they  give +1 att to Art or Elite unit. So after the first round (of amphibious assault and coastal bombardment), if the Elite unit survive the defender rolls, it provides better targeting for Art (att:3).
If their is only two Elite units, then both get +1 Att, thus getting 2E units Att: 2 Def: 2, as long as they are paired.
For example, after first round of battle,
1 “marine” unit gets Att:2 and 1 paired Art get Att: 3.
Also this unit paired with an Armor will get this same attacking punch
Marine Att:2 and Armor Att: 3 on the very first turn and keep it after.
(It can be a way to represent the used of some kind of amphibious vehicule to get on the beach and a better coordinate work.)

The idea is that unit is better trained to work with other kind of arms on the battlefield.
Alone they are almost like ordinary Inf, but with others, it becomes a more deadly and efficient group.

So, when a US Elite unit (the marines) makes an amphibious assault with an Arm, at first they Att: 2 instead of only 1 for regular Inf.

I don’t want to give an additional +1 att. to Arm, because the fantastic “4” seems restricted to bomber and BB in many A&A versions.
Since, this unit already receive a +1 Att when paired with Arm on the first round of a battle, it can demonstrates the better coordination of “Marine trooper” with tanks during an amphibious assault and after.
And it is possible to put on a transport 1 Elite Unit and 1 Armor, and get the same offensive punch (2+3) than 1 Art and 1 Armor, but you cannot put both units in the same transport.
Another tactical interest over Inf+Arm (1+3) at 9 IPCs!
USA will certainly see what’s in it for them.

I also prefer to give a basic Att:1 because I don’t think that an Inf unit alone, even better trained, was as deadly as an Art unit or the defending troops waiting on an island, not until they get a real foothold. Or, unless they were helped by Art or Arm on the first round (almost like any ordinary Inf).

Is this historically accurate about how the marines works on the battlefield? I don’t know, but I hope.

In game terms, I think it keeps the balance.
You can chose:       Inf+ Art, cost 7 for 4 attack points and 4 on defense.
Or you can prefer Elite + Art, cost 8 for 4 attack points on first round,
                                                         5 attack points after (if they survive the first
                                                          round) and 4 on defense.

This match of Elite+Art (8 IPCs) can be as effective on offense than Art+Arm (10 IPCs) but not on the first round and move only at 1.
Also, on defense, it’s only 4 points instead of 5 for Art+Arm.
Though, Elite+Arm (10 IPCs) can be as effective as Art+Arm (10 IPCs) for the same cost.
And alone, Elite unit is no better than regular Inf but cost 1 more IPCs, thus it keep Art an interesting buying because alone Art: att2/def2 vs E unit: att1/def2.
So nobody will buy only this Elite unit but it will keep interest in buying more Art.

What do you think about this different way to look at the marines?

Now I think we can introduce them in 1942.1, 1942.2 and even 1940.

A hints that it is within some limits for playability:

This unit gets almost the same benefits than official marines in A&A Pacific but it is now available to every Powers.
It keeps same cost/ get +1 Art bonus to Inf./ get 1@3 (on 2e round) attributed to the Art instead of the marines.
If two Elite units are paired, they get each +1 Att after the first round.
Thus, it is for 2 E units2@2 but drop 1@1 if one Elite unit is hit.
Same cost as Art, if we compare 2 Art with 2 El unit:
2 Elites can get on board a transport but only 1 for Art.
Offensive points are very near: 2 Art= 2@2= 4 pts / 2 Elu=2@1 = 2 pts first rnd and 2@2= 4 pts on second rnd.
Although 1 Art alone has Att:2/ 1 Elites unit get only Att: 1@1

This way of seeing this new Elite unit has still some historical likelyness with Marines:
i.e. Not unbeatable marines @3 on the first round of an amphibious combat.

Or 1 marine alone able to combat @2 vs 1 Inf@2 on defense.

Actually many US marines were crippled on the beaches against entrenched Japanese Inf. and suffer many loses before taking a solid hold on the battle ground.

Rule from AAP:

From Axis and Allies Pacific

U.S. MARINES
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1 or 2
Defense Factor: 2
Cost: 4 IPCs (USA only)

Description
Only the United States has Marine units, these are the dark green infantry pieces. Marines normally attack just like infantry units (with a roll of 1). However, they are more effective in Amphibious Assaults, as explained below:

� A Marine unit attacking in an Amphibious Assault scores a hit on a roll of 2 or less. A Marine unit that enters combat by moving from one land territory to another land territory may still attack with a roll of 2 or less as long as at least one friendly unit attacks from a sea zone making the battle an Amphibious Assault.

� For each artillery unit attacking the same territory one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 2 or less.

� For each artillery unit attacking the same territory in an Amphibious Assault that is not paired with an infantry unit, one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 3 or less.

I’m also thinking that Russian player’s will like this unit on attack because they are craving for IPCs.

Soviet Guard, after the first round, will get the same punch of Art+Arm on attack, i.e. 2+3=5 at 10$, vs 8$, 2 IPCs less with this combination of 1 Elite Inf unit+ 1 Art.

I see how much A&A need elements to motivate attack instead of “turtle strategy”. In this way, giving nominal IPCs value of a conquered and very disputed territory helps a lot.

It is a non-sense to extract more economics from a war-zone and buffered (no man’s land) territory but it is a game and for easy playing you need a simple system to calculate income.

Even a “house rule” system that required that every time a token’s power is put on the board or put out of it, the owner’s power must pay half the value of the territory it lost requires time and concentration and is a distraction for every body who wants to prepare and anticipates future strategy, buying and tactical moves.

I suppose that Larry and the playtesters understand the side effect of “changing hand’s territories” creating much more IPCs than the total on the board, and take account of it (specialy for the disputed territories between Russia and Germany).

So even if it is historically inaccurate (that a war-zone like Caucasus will be more economically productive at a global level than the whole Great Britain that remain a whole turn in UK’s hand), it is probably better to play with it than creating ad hoc rule to correct it but delaying the game and affect the overall balance.

Thanks again Gargantua for taking the time to answer this post.

Thanks Gargantua,
I will think about this consequence and I will make a more developped reply.

I was wondering, does anyone ever worked on a different way to collect IPCs from territory?
As following the rules, the more a territory is fight over and exchange during a turn of play, the more cash every power getting over it. Usually, it worth double value: (USSR gets a 2 from Germany, Germany takes it, then UK retakes the 2).
In an extreme example, it can even be 4 times with an exchange between Russia, Germany, UK and Japan.
But if a Power keeps a country for an entire turn without any fight over it, it worth only its face value.

Isn’t strange, that a more unstable and crippled by war territory bring more IPCs during a turn?
For example: France can give 6 IPCs to Germany and also 6 IPCs to UK in the same turn. Thus raising the sum of all Powers incomes up to 6 IPCs.
It is quite counter-intuitive, even a non-sense.

To change this anomaly:
1- the collect income should be at the start of a turn. It will usually reduce the IPCs flows to undisputed “at peace” territory for 1 turn.

Or, (what I prefer)

2- after the first turn, after a territory is conquered, the ex-owner have to return back about half the territory’s value to the bank (minimum 1 IPC for 1, 2, 3 IPCs territory / 2 IPCs for a 4 territory/ 3 IPCs for a 6 / 4 IPCs for an 8 / 5 IPCs for a 10 / etc.).

Thus, you received half reward for a lost conquered territory and the sum of the IPCs allocates during a turn never exceed the total every Powers would have if all have kept their original territories.

If the balance of the game requires that USRR and Germany has more IPCs in hand because of this constant exchange of European territories, maybe we can allocate an extra 4-6 IPCs bonus to both and only two (as a citizen war effort campaign/ labor camp/ and conscripts men-women/soldier)

Is it changing 4 quarters for 1 buck?
Or does it worth the change?

Does anyone knows why the more expensive units (i.e. cruiser 12$ and battleship 20$) are not able to bombard a only one shot on the coast once they win a sea battle offshore?

For me, it seems many times you cannot use their only special capability.
For all other cheaper units their is no such thing.

In what way does this rule is necessary to keep the balance?

In game terms, since a turn is three months long why a cruiser or a BB cannot fight the enemy ships, then help the amphibious assault since you cannot make any debarkment if you are not able to destroy the enemy naval unit?

I’m pretty sure that, during WWII, many cruisers and battleships were able to destroy others defending surface vessels and, some hours later, support with their heavy guns the marines launching an assault on a beach.

If both battles have been simultaneous (like Leyte Gulf Battle) that would be OK, but, in the game, if you loose or retreat no transport can unload their troops.

Anyway, I wish to suggest a different rule to simulate that cruiser and BB can do many things during a three month turn. Or can make a more intensive bombardment if their is no other assignment.

1- Always allow one coastal bombardment per surviving cruiser or battleship after a naval battle and before the amphibious assault (limited by the number of ground unit coming out of transports). If the BB was damaged during the previous battle, halfed the attack: 1@2 instead of 1@4.
Or we can logically say that a damaged BB have to repair and is unable to support a debarkment. This would make sens.

2- When their is no naval battle, allows 2 rolls of dice per cruiser and BB present (limited by the number of ground unit coming out of transports) but take only the better result for each one (like LHTR for heavy bomber) .

Example: 3 inf are part of an amphibious combat, so 3 cruisers (A, B, C) out of 4 (D) cruisers offshore can roll dices @3:
A 1,2 / B 3,3 / C 4,5,/ D not allowed
thus making 2 hits even though four dices make 3 and under.

In this way, the expensive units can always be use at their full potential.

Option B: we can instead halfed the attack value of cruiser and BB that made naval battle before a debarkment: cruiser get 1@1/ BB get 1@2.
And a damaged BB have to be repaired and is unable to support a debarkment.

What do you think? Do you have some answers for my previous questions?
Thanks.

This is a list of different carriers unit.
Does it worth it to introduce them in the Atlantic and the Pacific for more historical inspiration?
Does it unbalanced the game against subs (and Germany)?
I think it is the case.
So introducing those sea units AntiSubWeapon (i.e. escort carrier), should be outweighted by a special sub rules Wolfpack attack : when 3 subs or more attack the same sea-zone, the first round is Att@3 per sub, the other round  Att@2 per sub. It can be a first strike or not. The presence of an ASW vessel doesn’t cancel the Wolfpack capability since it’s only for the first round of battle. This rule apply for any power, not only Germany.

Is Anti-Sub Weapon too cheap?
Is it better to rise the cost of a CVE to 10 IPCs and of a CVL to 12 IPCs?  
Because many will prefer them instead of destroyers?

Cost  Move    Att    Def
Escort carrier CVE
(Casablanca 28 fighters)   9 [10?]   2      0[1]   1   Takes 1 hit/ ASW / Carry 1 fighter
Light carrier CVL 1942 version
(Independence 45 fgts)  11(12?)   2[3]   1   2[1] Takes 1 hit/ ASW / Carry 1 fighter
Light carrier CVL 1940 version
(Independence 45 fgts)   10 (11?)   3      0   1   Takes 1 hit/ ASW / Carry 1 fighter

Fleet carrier CV 1942 version
(Yorktown/Big-E 90 fgts)   14      2       1        2    Takes 1 hit/  Carry 2 fighters
Fleet carrier CV 1940 version
(Essex 100 fgts)             16      2      0        2     Takes 2 hits/ Carry 2 fighters/ if hit once, only 1 fighter can operate and land on it, repaired at the end of the round near a Naval Base.
Fleet carrier CV 1942
(Essex 100 fgts)             18      2      1          2     Takes 2 hits/ Carry 2 fighters/ if hit once, only 1 fighter can operate and land on it, repaired as BB at the end of the round.

Supercarrier CVB
(Midway 130 fgts)             22    2      1           3 Takes 2 hits/ Carry 3 fighters/ if hit once, only 2 fighters can operate and land on it, repaired as BB at the end of the round.

Carrier (any) are priority target: for a battleship (BB) to absorb 1 hit, you must allocate one hit to a carrier if their is one present.
If there is more than one carrier, another carrier (any) or an already damaged BB must also take a hit before a second BB soaks 1 hit.
Thus, a fleet with 1CV (2hits) and 2BB have to take 1 hit on the CV before taking the two hits on each BB.

Another fleet with 1CV (2 hits), 1CVL (1 hits) and 2BB have to take 1 hit on the CV, 1 hit on the BB, then either sunk the CV or the CVL before allocate another hit on the second BB.
Although, it is possible to sink the BB instead of a carrier.
It is also possible to sink the CVL first, then take 1 hit on a BB, then 1 hit on the CV then 1 hit on the other BB.
Inspiration: Gamers Paradise

About fighters operations on a damaged CV
If we take a look at the initial placement of 1942.2, USA has only 1 CV in Hawaii.
This unit represent actually 1 group of three carriers: CV-5 Yorktown damaged/CV-6 Enterprise fully operational /CV-8 Hornet fully operational).
So, I think it can be acceptable to a damaged CV to still be able to operate 1 aircraft because it is not only 1 carrier but a task force of this kind of unit.

More, if 1 turn is three months long, it is enough time to repair a carrier.
For instance, the Yorktown took only 48h at Pearl Harbour before going to Midway.

I use the following rules to determine the cost:
2 IPCs for 1 point Att or Def. 1 IPC for ASW. 2 IPCs for 1 additionnal hit.
Examples:
CV (1+2)+2xfgts(3+4)= 17 points x2= 34 IPCs: 14 IPCs for the carrier + 2 IPCs for 1 additionnal Hit= total 16 IPCs
CVE (1+1)+fgt(3+4)= 9 points x 2= 18 IPCs:      8 IPCs for the carrier + 1 IPC for AntiSubWeapon = total 9 IPCs
CVL (1+2)+fgt(3+4)= 10 points x 2= 20 IPCs:    10 IPCs for the carrier +1 IPC for AntiSubWeapon= total 11 IPCs
CVB (1+3)+3xfgts(3+4)= 25 points x2 = 50 IPCs: 20 IPCs for the carrier /+ 2 IPCs for 1 additionnal Hit= total 22 IPCs

I do agree that it’s a little frustrating when all you have to escort transports is destroyers so you get no bombarding at all. I know that you are right that destroyers often shelled Japanese positions in support of landings. Perhaps a house rule where destroyers can bombard @ 1 would work? Then again, like BJCard said, even that may make them a little too overpowered for their cost.

Maybe, the only way to balance this is to require at least 2 destroyers (cost 16) to be able to bombard @1. A third one makes 2@1, a fourth one makes 3@1, and so forth.

I just learned that on many occasions during WWII (on D-Day) destroyers had made coastal bombardment.
Is their some ways to implement this possibility?

For instance, giving 2 destroyers a 1@2 on the first round of an amphibious assault.
Or giving a +1 on attack/DD to 1 Inf (like Art) for only the first round of a debarkment.
Same limitation on the number of bombarding ships, 1 ship/ground unit being offloaded from transport.

The idea is to keep it far less effective than cruiser and battleship bombardment without neglecting this historical capacity.

Any opinion on this topic?

I’m wondering about a way to add some flavor to naval combat in the Pacific (for 1942.1, 1942.2 or even Global versions).

Before every naval combat, allow 1 round of air combat between attacking and defending aircrafts.

All Fighters, Tac bombers and Strat Bombers attack and defend @1.

Hits are allocated separetly on a one on one basis. If one side outnumbers the other, then 1 aircraft can be targetted twice. Bomber are always the priority target. TacB are always second and fighter third.
Example 1, 1 Strat Bomber and 1 fighter attack 4 fighters. The third and fourth fighters defend @1, one against the Bomber and the other against the fighter.
If their was only 3 defending fighters, then the Bomber can be hit twice and only one time for the other attacking fighter.
Example 2, 5 fighters against 1 TacB and 1fighter. The TacB is targetted three times and twice for the fighter.

If two aircrafts targeting the same enemy aircraft get both a hit, the additionnal hit is pass to another target following the order of priority, so no “1” is lost.
Example 3, 8 fighters against 1 TacB and 2 fgts. The TacB and one Fgt is targetted three times.
�  �  �  �  �  �  �  � If only 2 rolls out of 8 get “1” and fall on the same Fgt, then the second hit is allocated to the TacB, not the second Fgt.

Thus, this rules will simulates how easier it was to shot Strat and Tac Bomber. And at the same time, they can still be screened by their escorting fighters if they outnumbered the opponent.

All attacking aircrafts must be part of this unique round of air combat.

The defending player get some choice to determine the number of defending aircraft:

If there is only 1 fighter (or TacB) on a carrier, then their is no aircombat (the aircraft is considered patrolling near the other naval units).
The naval battle is as usual.
If there is 2 fighters (or TacB) on a carrier, then 1 fighter is sent away against incoming attacking aircraft(s).

If there is 3 or more fighters, the defender can sent 1 or more aircrafts but must always keep 1 aircraft in reserve near the naval units. (So the defender always keep 1 aircraft that will fights normaly (at @4 or @3) screened by cheaper unit or a BB that absorbs 1 hit.)
In the 1940 version, if the sea-zone is near an airbase, the defender can scramble up to 3 fighters (no TacB) against the attacking aircrafts.

This first round of battle before the regular naval combat occurs, is it unbalanced in favor of the attacker?
Is it better to give to the defending aircraft a defense @2 to outweight the superiority numbers of the attacker ?

Does the defender choice too limited?
Instead let’s give the defending player the choice to send even his only aircraft (and all his aircrafts) but keep the defense @1?

Is it a real way to simulate the Pacific battles or just a sophisticated rule with no benefits?

What do you think of all this?

A other interesting way to create bunkers rules:
Post subject: Now that we have colored AAA guns, what can we do w/AA guns
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:22 am

AA1942 2nd edition has power specific AAA guns (colored anti air art). These new guns follow the rules for AA in Alpha+3 (fire up to 3 shots each, and can be used as a casualty). What can we do with the light gray AA guns (or old white relics) now that we will be buying AA42 to get the new sculpts including power specific AAA guns (you know your gonna buy it).

Here’s my take on it (knowing that much of this is other rules I’ve seen meshed together).

Use the neutral gray AA as an artillery bunker (or machine gun nest) to boost defenses of a territory (it would def a territory from all directions for ease). On a coastal tt it would def from amphib (Atlantic Wall), but would also def the same tt from other land tt as well to simulate the Siegfried or Maginot lines. On Iwo, or Okinawa islands they becomes dug in defenders for Japan, on Gib it helps to defend “The Rock”.

House rule:
An art bunker cost 5 IPCs, it is considered a facility so can’t move (it’s concrete, or dug-in). It has a built in unit (no need to station a unit with it). It fires a pre-empt kill shot every round @ 2 (enemy casualties don’t fire back). It fires in the beginning of the combat phase just before normal combat. In an amphib the bunker fires at the same time bombardment would happen, so it would get its pre-empt kill shot on the beach, but then could be taken as a casualty (didn’t want to add another part of the combat phase here). It can take one damage (save an inf), but if it is damaged it can no longer fire (like the built in unit was killed). It is never removed, and damage can be repaired for 1 IPC (manned unit replaced) during the repair phase. As a facility it stays with the territory (never destroyed), but you would have to knock out the built in unit defending in order to take control of the territory even if it is the only thing there. If captured you can repair it on your next turn for 1 IPC (re-man it).

Several would be placed at set-up (see below), but you could buy more if you like. 0-1 IPC tt get max of 1 bunker, after that the tt IPC value could dictate placement (cost 5 IPCs each).

For G40 I was thinking you could place one in the following territories, but I may have gone over board.

Germany- Germany (Berlin), W Germany, maybe S Germ, Romania
Russia- Russia (Moscow), Len, Stal, Caucasus
Japan- Japan, Okinawa, Iwo, Manchuria, maybe Caroline Is
UK/Anz- England, Gib, India, Malaya, maybe Kwang, Sidney, Malta, and/or Egypt?
Italy-S Ita and, N Ita
US- E US, W US (like they need it), maybe Haw and/or Phil
France- France , and Normandy (representing the Maginot line, but then Normandy becomes part of the Atlantic Wall.  WILD BILL

I was thinking about it in a different way:
Elite unit: Att: 1 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost 4, receive +1 att when paired with Art (same as Inf) or with an Arm (special ability).
After the first round and the rest of the battle, they  give +1 att to Art or 1 Elite unit.
So after the first round (of amphibious assault and coastal bombardment), if the Elite unit survive the defender rolls, it provides better targeting for Art (att:3). If their is two Elite units together, then both have +1 Att, thus getting 2 E. units Att: 2 Def: 2, as long as they are paired.
Thus, for example, after first round of battle,
1 “marine” unit gets Att:2 and 1 paired Art get Att: 3.
Also this unit paired with an Armor will get this same attacking punch
Marine Att:2 and Armor Att: 3 on the very first turn and keep it after.
(It can be a way to represent the used of some kind of amphibious vehicule to get on the beach and a better coordinate work.)

The idea is that unit is better trained to work with other kind of arms on the battlefield.
Alone they are almost like ordinary Inf, but with others, it becomes a more deadly and efficient group.

So, when a US Elite unit (the marines) makes an amphibious assault with an Arm, at first they Att: 2 instead of only 1 for regular Inf.

I don’t want to give an additional +1 att. to Arm, because the fantastic “4” seems restricted to bomber and BB in many A&A versions.
Since, this unit already receive a +1 Att when paired with Arm on the first round of a battle, it can demonstrates the better coordination of “Marine trooper” with tanks during an amphibious assault and after.
And it is possible to put on a transport 1 Elite Unit and 1 Armor, and get the same offensive punch (2+3) than 1 Art and 1 Armor, but you cannot put both units in the same transport.
Another tactical interest over Inf+Arm (1+3) at 9 IPCs!
USA will certainly see what’s in it for them.

I also prefer to give a basic Att:1 because I don’t think that an Inf unit alone, even better trained, was as deadly as an Art unit or the defending troops waiting on an island, not until they get a real foothold. Or, unless they were helped by Art or Arm on the first round (almost like any ordinary Inf).

Is this historically accurate about how the marines works on the battlefield? I don’t know, but I hope.

In game terms, I think it keeps the balance.
You can chose:       Inf+ Art, cost 7 for 4 attack points and 4 on defense.
Or you can prefer Elite + Art, cost 8 for 4 attack points on first round,
                                                         5 attack points after (if they survive the first
                                                          round) and 4 on defense.

This match of Elite+Art (8 IPCs) can be as effective on offense than Art+Arm (10 IPCs) but not on the first round and move only at 1.
Also, on defense, it’s only 4 points instead of 5 for Art+Arm.
Though, Elite+Arm (10 IPCs) can be as effective as Art+Arm (10 IPCs) for the same cost.
And alone, Elite unit is no better than regular Inf but cost 1 more IPCs, thus it keep Art an interesting buying because alone Art: att2/def2 vs E unit: att1/def2.
So nobody will buy only this Elite unit but it will keep interest in buying more Art.

What do you think about this different way to look at the marines?

Now I think we can introduce them in 1942.1, 1942.2 and even 1940.

Re: Do you want US Marines ?

How about an elite unit (marine, commando, SS, guard, etc.) the same ability for every country?

Elite unit: Att: 2 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost: 4, give +1 att. to one artillery or one tank, on the second round of an assault (amphibious or terrestrial). Think of it like the time to get used to the environnement and the geography of the terrain, or being able to reach and pass the shore to fight inland.

For example, if a marine unit paired with an artillery survived his first round of landing assault; on the second round, it attacks at 2, but artillery attacks at 3, instead of 2.
It is the same if it was teamed up with a tank. On first round, the tank attacks at 3, and on the second round it attacks at 4.
In summary, it works like artillery but gives better punch on costlier unit.

What do you think?

I was thinking about it in a different way:
Elite unit: Att: 1 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost 4, receive +1 att. when paired with Art (same as Inf) or Arm (special ability).
In addition on the second round of an assault give +1 att. to Art. (and even +1 att. TacBomber, max.: @4)

The idea is that unit is better trained to work with other kind of arms on the battlefield.
Alone they are like any ordinary Inf, but with others it becomes a more deadly and efficient group.

So, when a US elite unit (the marines) makes an amphibious assault with an Arm, at first they att. 2 instead of only 1 for regular Inf.
After the first round of coastal bombardment, if the elit survive the defender rolls, it provides better targeting for Art (Att @3) and TacB (Att. @4).

I’m now reluctant to give a +1 att. to Arm, because the fantastic “4” seems restricted to bomber and BB in many A&A versions.
Since, this unit already receive a +1 Att when paired with Arm, it can demonstrates the better coordination of “Marine trooper” with tanks during an amphibious assault and after.
I also prefer not to give a permanent Att @2 because I don’t think that an Inf unit, even better trained, is able to do as damage as an Art unit.

Is this historically accurate about how the marines works on the battlefield? I don’t know, but I hope.
What do you think about this different way to look at the marines?

Somebody else think about the same combination we tried to develop earlier:

Re: Idea: Entrenchment
� Reply #16 on: May 07, 2012, 04:13:24 pm �
This is a great idea but it would work much better in a game with a limited scope, say just Europe, and a heavy infantry focus with emphases on defensive warfare. So essentially you’ve got a great system for a WW1 themed game, I use a similar one in my home brewed WW1 game, but in that artillery has its own bombardment phase to try to knock out the trenches, A&A doesn’t work that way.

An idea I’ve used in a couple of home made A&A variants is to add the fortress (the blockhouses from D-day) facility. It can only be placed in a Territory with a victory city, costs 15 IPC and takes 3 hits to render in-operable (but can have up to six points of damage done to it). Unlike the other facilities (Airfield and naval port) it doesn’t have it’s own “built in” AA defense and it’s bonus is raising the defense of up to 4 infantry to 3 or less. Keeps it balanced and works well.  Clyde85

I found one of the influence in my way of thinking about pillboxes:

Re: Amphibious Assault Bonus
� Reply #7 on: July 07, 2012, 07:43:42 am �

0 Vote Down Vote Up
Reply with quoteQuote
Hi Inmajor,

You can’t bypass Japan. Control of all Axis capitals is an Allied victory condition. And yes, I would defend any threatened capital with a considerable infantry stack.

In terms of your suggestion: making every amphibious assault a modal choice for the defender between two options is (pardon my frankness) clumsy and time-consuming. Choose one mode and go with it. But I wouldn’t go with the first-strike option; and the original proposal of +5 free hit soaks seems extreme as well.

So what, you may reasonably ask, is my alternate suggestion for how to implement a defender-friendly house rule? Please see my contribution to the thread on Entrenchment, reworked slightly and posted below:

---

During the ‘Purchase Units’ phase, each player may choose up to 3 Infantry units in different territories under their control and pay 2 IPC for each. Put an ‘Entrenchment’ counter under those infantry units. Those infantry units cannot move for the rest of the game.

You may remove one ‘Entrenchment’ counter from the board instead of a unit each time these infantry are allocated as a casualties during defensive combat.

Only one infantry per territory may have ‘Entrenchment’ counters placed under it, and only one counter may be added to this infantry per turn.

If it turns out that Entrenchment becomes a dominant strategy, you could rename it ‘Engineers’, make it into a Weapons Development, and limit access in that fashion.

---

That way, the defence builds gradually, and you pay for it… Think of the effort, for example, in building up the Atlantic Wall, or the Maginot Line, or the cave complexes of Iwo Jima: these took time and resources to develop, and even then they didn’t function as an auto-nuke to the attackers (remember that each of these defences fell, when their time came).

Hope this helps,

MIR  Make_It_Round