New Unit Suggestion

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • New Unit Suggestion

      Here is a suggestion for a new unit. Marines. I foresee them being a hybrid of paratroopers and commandos with a focus on offense and unarmored. Probably also give them reduced embarkation and disembarkation times. I know there are already a large variety of infantry tech branch units, but I feel Marines made valuable contributions to WWII and not including them is a disservice; especially in the Pacific theater. However in the interest of full disclosure, I’m not unbiased being a former Marine myself. In addition to the US, The British, Australians and Japanese also used Marines during the war. Allies should probably get a buff of some kind - probably hit points (they need all the help they can get). I would also say allies and pan Asian would have earlier access to upgrades.

      Marines certainly made more of an impact on the war than some units currently in the game such as railroad guns and rocket fighters. Perhaps that’s just my opinion however.

      Thoughts?

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Here is a suggestion for a new unit. Marines. I foresee them being a hybrid of paratroopers and commandos with a focus on offense and unarmored. Probably also give them reduced embarkation and disembarkation times. I know there are already a large variety of infantry tech branch units, but I feel Marines made valuable contributions to WWII and not including them is a disservice; especially in the Pacific theater. However in the interest of full disclosure, I’m not unbiased being a former Marine myself. In addition to the US, The British, Australians and Japanese also used Marines during the war. Allies should probably get a buff of some kind - probably hit points (they need all the help they can get). I would also say allies and pan Asian would have earlier access to upgrades.

      Marines certainly made more of an impact on the war than some units currently in the game such as railroad guns and rocket fighters. Perhaps that’s just my opinion however.

      Thoughts?
      Good idea. You are completely right, the marines did have a massive impact on the war, but they aren't in the game. Implementing them as you said, however, will just kinda take away the role of the conventional paratroopers. I'm sure they can have other abilities though, like 2x or 3x ship disembarkment speed and a better/different transport ship that's unique to the unit. Also, thank you for your service.
      Kind regards,
      Donk
      Bytro game addict and avid CoW player.

      "Þ" > "th"


      Display Spoiler

      Слава
      Україні!

    • Should it be implemted 23
      1.  
        Yes (18) 78%
      2.  
        No (4) 17%
      3.  
        Dont care (1) 4%
      4.  
        Not as here (0) 0%
      With this, navel landing will be better. I really like this idea with the disembarkation time. Well since you forgot the poll here is another one. :)
      Made without nuts :00008698:



      I want my lawyer :trust_me:

    • I think the marine role is, well, rolled into the infantry, commando, and paratrooper units. I do like the idea of a fast-disembarking unit, but don't see why it has to be a whole new unit. I'd rather see it added to an existing unit like the commandos - but I imagine it could be difficult to code that as all ship transports are treated the same AFAIK, so there would have to be some sort of check to see if the disembarking unit is only commandos.

    • I am struggling to understand how this would take away from paratroopers. Do players use paratroopers to take islands? I certainly see some overlap with combat stats, but I think unique abilities would be very different. Commandos have stealth, paratroopers have their airborne attacks, and marines would have reduced disembark times.

      I don’t think marines should have stealth abilities, they have a near total lack of subtlety.

      Marines could receive a boost in coastal providences, but that may be difficult to program as coastal providences include all terrain types.

    • over4night wrote:

      I want my lawyer. well back to this, I find this useful in pacfic landing and maybe d-day style landings as reduced disembarking time will do use all a favor against railroad gun defended beachheads.
      Just for the record, no marines were used in the Normandy landings, the entire force was regular infantry and paratroopers except for one ranger batallion.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      over4night wrote:

      I want my lawyer. well back to this, I find this useful in pacfic landing and maybe d-day style landings as reduced disembarking time will do use all a favor against railroad gun defended beachheads.
      Just for the record, no marines were used in the Normandy landings, the entire force was regular infantry and paratroopers except for one ranger batallion.
      True from an American perspective, but other countries participated in the war and Normandy as well. The British Royal Marines participated the landings. Keep in mind US marines trained the soldiers who would participate in the Normandy landings. Also consider how Normandy fit into the larger strategy for that theater. There were no additional amphibious landings planned in Europe. The intention of Normandy was to establish a beachhead to use to continue to push into the rest of Europe. Whereas the Pacific theater required landing after landing as part of a larger island-hopping campaign to get to mainland Japan.

    • Well Normandy was certainly not the only one, and not even the last one... there had been three major (Sicily, Salerno, Anzio) and several minor amphibious landings in Italy already; and operation Dragoon in Southern France would follow in August.

      And my eternal excuses to the Royal Marines... 5 batallions of them. Still, also much more infantry in the British/Canadian sector.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Well Normandy was certainly not the only one, and not even the last one... there had been three major (Sicily, Salerno, Anzio) and several minor amphibious landings in Italy already; and operation Dragoon in Southern France would follow in August.

      And my eternal excuses to the Royal Marines... 5 batallions of them. Still, also much more infantry in the British/Canadian sector.
      I'll admit, if you're playing this game for the European theater, the absence of marines is not noteworthy at all. If you're of the opinion WWII was a global conflict, I think their absence becomes more conspicuous. Again, marines participated in more campaigns in the Pacific theater than you can count. Marines are fairly specialized and have slightly higher attrition rates, so maintaining large numbers of them would not be practical. However, they functioned as very effective shock troops for amphibious landings, during this era. Even today, within the US military, marines continue to be useful enough that they are utilized in conflicts in land locked nations; consider recent operations in Afghanistan.

    • Oh I'm not arguing against marines at all. If their only advantage would be something like "easier invasion of a coastal province" I doubt they be used much though; most CoW invasions are actually not fought on defended beaches. Their use must be a bit more generic than that. So merging them with commando's and/or paratroopers might still be a better idea.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • I’ve only been playing call of war for about six months now. Regards of if it’s a new idea or not, I think it would add a little more to the game to have a unit with shorter times to disembark. My only hesitation with combining them with commandos is I don’t feel marines should have stealth and should be more oriented towards countering unarmored units. Commandos also have mountains as a preferred terrain, which I don’t see for marines. I think marines preferred terrain would be hills, forests and urban.

    • I always thought Marines would be a very useful addition to the game - basically infantry with :
      - Less HP
      - Better anti-infantry DEFENSE (not attack)
      - Worse anti-armor all around skills
      - Much shorter embarking and disembarking time (-50%)

      Also more expensive to build of course.
      Trust me, there are maybe cases where I wish I had such a unit, for instance to land in Suez once I control the Eurasian landmass (check my Tibet AAR). Paratroopers don't cut it, as it is easy to defend the possible landing spots with just some AA, while said landing spot being out of range of battleships.