Do you feel your respective Nationality is Represented Well?

['Ol Fezziwig]

I am sure that the Marines held themselves to be "the elite" of US forces, but there certainly never was, nor is, any consensus outside the Corps to that effect.

Famous person #1: "The Marine Corps is better than the Army. Why?"

Famous person #2: "A smaller organisation, of picked men"

FP1: "What do you mean,picked men?"

FP2: "We have a high proportion of re-enlisted men and have room for few recruits. We keep standards high, mental and physical. Your recruiting sargeants ask us to send them those we reject. Most of all we really train recruits, in the two great centers at San Diego and Parris Island. Your people don't really ground men in basic soldiering."

FP1: "Perhaps the Army is too big for that."

FP2: "Size wouldn't matter, if they wanted to train them. You should have more of your people take a look at our boot camps."*



Famous person #1: George C. Marshall
Famous person #2: Chesty Puller


from MARINE! The life of Chesty Puller.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

It would be hard to come up with any definition of "shock troops" in which Marines would somehow qualify but Paratroopers would not.

In some senses, this can be true. I am taking the term "Shock Troops" along the Soviet manner. Paratroops, of any nation, are more rightly classified as "light infantry" rather than "heavy infantry". This distinction also goes back along the paths of military history throughout the ages.

Of course, paratroops can be used in a 'surprise attack' manner, but typically they aren't dropped into an attack situation for obvious and not so obvious reasons. They were not expected to fight for prolonged periods of time on their own due to logistic limitations. MARINES certainly could be said to have this limitation, but were more heavily armed and supported initially reducing the impact of more lengthy engagements.

Once the initial shock of a para landing is over, they cannot be expected to stand long in the face of a concerted counterattack without rapid reinforcement/resupply. MARINES would tend to be more like the Ray-O-Vac bunny after the initial assault and less vulnerable than paratroopers.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

BTW, I would also use the 6-6-7 for US Para's.

Yeah, but the 4 range and assault fire bonus plays up the aggressive nature of paratroopers. A 6 range might tend to make them sit back and plink their enemies more than actively seeking them out to rip their entrails out.

 

[wrongway149]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]Yeah, but the 4 range and assault fire bonus plays up the aggressive nature of paratroopers. A 6 range might tend to make them sit back and plink their enemies more than actively seeking them out to rip their entrails out.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes 'realism' must be considered in the context of likely player tactics!

Players are more likely to use 747s in a realistic manner than if the paras were 667s.

Another good example of this is the Russian 527 cavalry in ' Debacle at Korosten" . The greater FP represents sabre-weilding old-school horsemen, and the 2 range makes the Russian player more likely to close in and chop up the German infantry-- thus using thier advantages in an historically accurate manner, rather than a 'gamey' sort of way. (This even though most Russian cavalry at the time were rifle-equipped, and this particular scenario does not appear to be researched well enough to suggest otherwise.)

That's what we mean when we say: "Design for effect!"
:thumup:

 

[wrongway149]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]Famous person #1: "The Marine Corps is better than the Army. Why?"

Famous person #2: "A smaller organisation, of picked men"

FP1: "What do you mean,picked men?"

FP2: "We have a high proportion of re-enlisted men and have room for few recruits. We keep standards high, mental and physical. Your recruiting sargeants ask us to send them those we reject. Most of all we really train recruits, in the two great centers at San Diego and Parris Island. Your people don't really ground men in basic soldiering."

FP1: "Perhaps the Army is too big for that."

FP2: "Size wouldn't matter, if they wanted to train them. You should have more of your people take a look at our boot camps."*



Famous person #1: George C. Marshall
Famous person #2: Chesty Puller


from MARINE! The life of Chesty Puller.[/QUOTE]

A good book on the subject (although it uses recent models) is called 'Corps Business" and suggests that the values and practices that make the USMC special can be applied in a business environment for similar success. After reading it, I do believe this culture would be much more difficult to instill and support in a larger organization than a small one.

:joy:

 

[sunoftzu]

USMC morale and Amphib assaults.

Hi there all,

I'm not going 'history and the facts are on my side' arguement here. Instead I'd just like to to discuss some of my experiences playing Marines and Amphib invasions in ASL.

I have played quite a few amphib scenarios from Gung Ho and a few other TPP (unfortunately, I never got to see BRT, so I can't comment for that), and the recollection I have was that the 8 morale being raised to 9 for the seabourne assault 'fanatacism' tended to throw the game out of whack.

I've played the Japanese Seabourne Assault scenario (A55 The Cat Has Jumped) from the old ASL annuals quite a few times (I'm guesing 8+), and it didn't tend to suffer that problem. This is a really great scen, btw. Good intro to the G14 rules.

However, in the case of Marines, non-pinning 9 morale plus a little smoke is just about impossible to meaningfully oppose, and in the games that I played in, the Japanese defenders had a tendancy to quickly withdraw from the beach (after taking pot shots at the LCs and/or Amphip AFVs), so as to be more 'compeditive' with them in the Jungle.

Whilst this was the 'common sense' thing to do in ASL games, it didn't really grab me as a very good simulation of the situation, and it gave me the impression from ASL that the Marines have a fairly cushy time of it.

And that's definitely not my understanding of the USMCs WWII experience.

I have 2 possible suggestions that some people might like to reflect on to solve this.

1/ Lower the late war USMC (348/668/768) good order morale by 1. Leave the 458 and 558 as they are. Someone posted an article saying that the USMC was quite concerned the the mass drafting would compromise the USMC 'spirit' and quality. They certainly did a marvelous job of preserving that. Nonetheless, I understand that there was a slight drop in quality (but certainly not the emotional spirit - but 'believing' in your own invinciblilty, and being invincible are not the same). Having 8 dropping to 7 (as opposed to the 6 for the drafted Army) might be one way to reflect this.

You must remember, the forces any nation gets to train in peace time are always vastly better than those that it has to hurridly raise in a time of war. You are never going to get the luxury of being able to train and prepare on ideal terms. And since the USMC were going in early, they would have no doubt been put under more stress than most.

Don't worry, the next suggestion is a lot easier (and it won't cut off anyones 'flag').

2/ Put a cap of 8 on the fanaticism. Then we might see some fighting on the beaches for a change. I imagine the Marine rah-rah types will favour this one, as it suggests that 'Marines are equally tough on air, land, and sea'.

Last word from me, This post was meant to stimulate peoples thoughts on the playability of USMCs in seabourne assults. It's not about USMC vs Paras/Rangers.

I really couldn't give a damm who had the biggest.............................um...................flag.

I just want the Japanese to return to the ASL shore and duke it out with me there.........

Take care all.

John.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

Hi there all,


However, in the case of Marines, non-pinning 9 morale plus a little smoke is just about impossible to meaningfully oppose, and in the games that I played in, the Japanese defenders had a tendancy to quickly withdraw from the beach (after taking pot shots at the LCs and/or Amphip AFVs), so as to be more 'compeditive' with them in the Jungle.


I just want the Japanese to return to the ASL shore and duke it out with me there.........

Take care all.

John.

My experience with seaborne invasions has been quite different. Seaborne troops get slaughtered. The time I played Bloody Red Beach, half my Marine invasion force never made it across the beach & into the hinterland. Even those crummy Japanese 12.7 AA guns ripped me apart with ROF3 (despite LVTs being hulldown in water). The Japanese have MMGs, HMGs, 20L atr, 70*, 90 MTR, 12.7AA, any of these things has a good chance of killing any vehicle with 1/0 armor. It's definitely a fun scenario for the Japanese. On the surface it appears way Pro USMC with 26 768 squads, but the Bloody-Red-Beach title pretty well sums that scenario up for me the time I played it. It's better to kill the guys wading/on beach because they take casualty reduction instead of breaking. Once they get inland they'll just break & rally normally (with no loss, so it's easier to kill them outright when wading). IMO, I think the thing you can't do as the Japanese in this scenario is to let the Americans get ashore unhindered, no doubt the Japanese will lose with that strategy. Of course, it's been over 10 years since I played this one, but I remember getting hammered well by all the small things (MMGs, ATRs, 12.7) ... made me realize how very weak those LVTs (0/1 AF, large target) really are.

 

[Tater]

I would tend to consider that this describes many Americans too...:laugh:
Eisenhower, Schwartzkopf would then be German and JFK Irish, and all Americans, excepted native Americans would be British, Spanish, etc.

Any person born in the USA is a "native" American...unless the definition of "native" has changed recently. Thus, all the people you noted (Eisenhower, Schwartzkopf, JFK) are/were native Americans. Nappy was not born in France. In fact, if Nappy had been born about a year earlier (France purchased Corsica in 1768...Nappy was born in 1769) he would have been Italian in name as well as by ethnic origin. Even today Corsica is not one of the "régions" of France but is actually a "collectivité territoriale". So it is somewhat questionable as to whether current Corsicans are considered French. :smoke:

 

[Robin Reeve]

Any person born in the USA is a "native" American...unless the definition of "native" has changed recently. Thus, all the people you noted (Eisenhower, Schwartzkopf, JFK) are/were native Americans.

OK. I wanted to say "Indians" and I was too much PC...
Note that A Schwartzenegger was not born American too, or was he?

Even today Corsica is not one of the "régions" of France but is actually a "collectivité territoriale". So it is somewhat questionable as to whether current Corsicans are considered French. :smoke:

But Corsica is a département (it used to be two, coded 2A and 2B, but they have been regrouped).
You are right about the fact that Bonaparte Napoleon was born Italian before Corisca became french.
BTW, Joan of Ark was not French either, as she came from Lorraine...

 

[Tater]

OK. I wanted to say "Indians" and I was too much PC...
Note that A Schwartzenegger was not born American too, or was he?
But Corsica is a département (it used to be two, coded 2A and 2B, but they have been regrouped).
You are right about the fact that Bonaparte Napoleon was born Italian before Corisca became french.
BTW, Joan of Ark was not French either, as she came from Lorraine...

She was also not a Frenchman...:smoke:

 

[sunoftzu]

Good to see someone else's reply (and a discussion of a specific scen).

'Bloody Red Beach' is a great fun scen to play, and there is no doubting the inherent weaknesses of the LVts. However, just because you hit one, it doesn't mean you've struck the jackpot - I recall the CS numbers being quite decent (but it nonetheless accumulates CVPS towards the magic number of instant Japanese victory).

Naturally, LVT killing is the order of the day for the Japanese. Use every LATW you have. I got to play this scen 4 times (twice as each side), and managed to win (once) as Japanese by scoring the 100 cvps (the majority being from KOed LVts). Maybe our playing style differs from yours. I remember the approach being to calculate the move so that the LVT would actually come to a stop, so that the inf could unload (the following move froma stationary afv) in some safety, lay down smoke, etc for the others.

While this exposed the LVTs to a few more at shots, it also allowed the LVTs to bring their enormous ammout of mg fp to bear in the DFPh, shoud the Japanese try to go for LVT kills (and we found the USMC more often than not were comming out on top).

There was really no mad scrambling around the beach at all. Mostly assault moves, and you're not going to make much of an impression vs 9 moralers that don't pin if you don't get a few decent negative modifiers to apply. -1 might not be enough. You also need 2mcs to even get close to a 50/50 chance of a failed mc. 9 moralers are going to pass the majority of MCs/1MCs thrown their way.

It was 8 years ago that I played those, but I don't ever recall marines getting cut down in swathes on the beach (although there was a tendancy to go for leaders - wounding the leaders was vg for slowing down their inland push later). Just very high morale units swatting off masses of 4-8 fp attacks......

Marines are not the only 9-morale seabourne assaulters I've used. I've used British 648s and 458s in "Vaagso Venture" (G27, 1941 Commando raid) and "Mike Red" (A 79, a small D-Day landing). But the G27 landing is only opposed by 4 mmcs, and there's tons of cover available, and A79 is so difficult to assault (I'm not sure the Brits could get it done with 10 morale!), so they might not be such good examples to study. I hope nobody thinks that I'm trying to pick on the marines. I otherwise enjoy using marines in ASL - who wouldn't?

The truth is, I really like the seabourne rules, but playing with squads that hardly ever break just doesn't make for much of an enjoyable game.

 

[Maedhros]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]CORRECTION: The MARINES swarming the beach at Tarawa are 668s (with a few Scout-Sniper 768s present), NOT 768s. Nice of the resident thorough, OBJECTIVE historian to correct that oversight...[/QUOTE]

6-6-8? 7-6-8? What's 1 FP between friends? :smoke:

 

[JoeCleere]

One of the things that I questioned about ASL was the rather "bullet-proof" nature of elite troops. ATS and TCS have more attrition built into the IFT, so I have begun to use the ATS casualty markers in ASL. It works like this:
When a morale check is called for, roll a third die. If the roll is a six, mark the targeted unit with a casualty marker. If the unit was already broken, place a casualty marker on it if it fails a morale check. If the squad already has a casualty marker on it and its broken, and it fails another morale check, reduce it to a half squad.
In other words, squads could take four "hits," and half-squads two.
The casualty marker has no effect on the squad or half squad other than to signify that it has undergone a loss and another hit would reduce it to a half squad or eliminate it in the case of a half squad.

The chances of incurring casualties goes up as the morale checks become more severe.
Morale Check: Place a casualty marker on a die roll of six
+1 Morale Check: " " on a die roll of five
+2 Morale Check: " " on a die roll of four
+3 Morale Check: " " on a die roll of three
+4 Morale Check: " " on a die roll of two

When taking morale checks, I roll three dice, with the third die being the casualty roll. K and KIA results are handled normally. When there is more than one unit in a targeted hex, use random selection to determine who takes the casualty. Leaders become more vulnerable to being wounded.

So far, the effect seems more realistic and eliminates the ability of elite troops to absorb fire and come out of it unscathed as long as they pass a morale check. It introduces a bit of variability in results. A unit may pass a morale check, but still incur casualties. Likewise, a unit may break, and suffer no casualties. Broken units are not as vulnerable to reduction to half squads or elimination. Attrition is both more variable and more gradual.

 

[Flarvin]

One of the things that I questioned about ASL was the rather "bullet-proof" nature of elite troops.

So far, the effect seems more realistic and eliminates the ability of elite troops to absorb fire and come out of it unscathed as long as they pass a morale check. It introduces a bit of variability in results. A unit may pass a morale check, but still incur casualties. Likewise, a unit may break, and suffer no casualties. Broken units are not as vulnerable to reduction to half squads or elimination. Attrition is both more variable and more gradual.

I believe you are failing to grasp “design for effect” nature of ASL IFT combat. Elite troops are not “bullet-proof” because morale has no affect on KIA or K result (or even a MC roll of 12). Elite MMCs are reduced/eliminated by those results just the same as Inexperienced MMCs.

The MC result does not mean that causalities were taken; it just means that an event has occurred that could cause the MMC to pursue survival instead of completing the mission. These types of events have less affect on elite (higher morale) troops then inexperienced ones. What that event entails is not important to the level of command that a player represents, just if it affects the MMC (which is basically abstraction in a nutshell).

ASL is a game which uses abstraction (heavily) to hump an uncountable number of possibilities to a single die/dice roll. I believe the “design for effect” nature of ASL represents the ability to Elite troops to take higher levels of punishment and still represent a coherent fighting force, while inexperienced troops would just melt away.

Flarvin

 

[Tater]

So far, the effect seems more realistic and eliminates the ability of elite troops to absorb fire and come out of it unscathed as long as they pass a morale check. It introduces a bit of variability in results. A unit may pass a morale check, but still incur casualties. Likewise, a unit may break, and suffer no casualties. Broken units are not as vulnerable to reduction to half squads or elimination. Attrition is both more variable and more gradual.

That's just great...now, please explain what in the h#ll this has to do with ASL? :nada:

Maybe you should check out the "Bastardized Games" forum.