Airborne Infantry vs. Marine

[stormbind]

Warning: I have forgotten what the unit is called, and don't have Civ3 on this computer so no way of checking

Civ3 has two specialist troop types:

Marine (for transports)
Paratrooper/Airborne Infantry (for hellicopters)

Playability: There is very rarely a need (or even oportunity) to deploy both of these specialist troop types!

Realism: There is a blurring between Commando, Paratrooper and Marine operations. Transports operate Hellicopters, and deploy all unit types!

It seems to me that both Realism and Playability would benefit from merging these two specialist troop types into one.

Complication

Marines exist throughout history, whereas Paratroopers/Airborne Infantry exist only from WW2 (or Advanced Flight).

Solution

1. Merge both modern era units into the universal Commando unit.
2. Reserve Marine for age of sail, and have Marine upgrade to Commando.

 

[mastertyguy]

I think you can put any foot unit in helicopter.
Anyway, I agree this idea. Marine are useful, especially on 1 tile island, but paratrops are useless. All infantry units should able to operate landings with a penalty, but marines would just have no penalty doing it. A marine/paratroop upgrade would be good, since it would be the only rason to build paratroopers. Maybe, if you are at war when you can resaerch the tech, advanced fllght and amphibious (? I don't remember the complete name) are no more necessary. Paras should be harder to kill.

 

[stormbind]

Historically, which technology was required to build the earliest marines?

Note: The following is extracted from the discussion below

[INDUSTRIAL AGE]
+ IMPERIALISM (requires Nationalism) = Marine
[MODERN ERA]
+ ADVANCED FLIGHT = Commando (upgrade Marine)

Making Commando hard to kill with inreased combat stats, or retreat feature like fast moving troops have?

Disambiguation

Marines are soldiers equipped and trained for amphibious assault against land and surface targets. 1755 appears to be an influencial year for Royal Marines.

Commando is a broad-reaching generic term including but not limited to Special Forces, Paratroopers and Marines.

 

[stormbind]

Wikipedia suggests the following. I'll add USMC in a moment.

1664, The first unit of English naval infantry was formed

1672, the name "Marines" first appeared in official records

1755, His Majesty's Marine Forces, were formed under Admiralty control

1802, they were titled the Royal Marines

1804, The Royal Marine Artillery (RMA) was formed as a separate unit

1923, separate artillery and light infantry forces were formally amalgamated into the Corps of Royal Marines

No data on their 19th Century and earlier roles. It may have been very similar.

Early 20th Century, the Royal Marines' provided shipboard security, boarding parties, small-scale landings, and manned gun turrets on warships.

First World War, conducted amphibious landing at Gallipoli in 1915, and the raid at Zeebrugge in 1918.

Second World War, first ashore at Namsos in April 1940, seizing control for a landing by the British Army two days later. 1942 the Royal Marines infantry battalions were reorganised as Commandos, joining the Army Commandos.

Coincidentally, it seems my Commando idea was spot on

 

[Grohan]

Marines or naval infantry has been used in ancient age Greece. But because naval infantry operations have been throughout history one of the hardest military operations marines weren't widely used by then.

 

[stormbind]

Now the USMC

1775, originally created as the "Continental Marines" during the American Revolutionary War. They served as landing troops for the recently created Continental Navy.

1783, Dispanded

1798, Re-formed

Mexican-American War (1846–1848) and assaulted the Castillo de Chapultepec and were placed on guard duty

Sadly, this wikipedia article is packed with waffle and not very good for uncovering what the marines did, or when they did it. Definately active throughout wars, but article lacks specifics.

 

[stormbind]

Marines or naval infantry has been used in ancient age Greece. But because naval infantry operations have been throughout history one of the hardest military operations marines weren't widely used by then.

It would seem so, but what discovery made marines suddenly more effective?

1755 appears to be the single most influencial year in development of the RM, when they were formed under Admiralty instead of Army command, and finding why it was done may expose the key political, logistical or technological discovery.

 

[rhialto]

I agree that by the late modern era these two unit types should merge, but not before. Yes, usually, you wont have reason or opportunity to deploy both, but what if, for some reason, your research stagnates at that point? If you keep the unit lines separate, you leave in an opportunity loss decision when teh player must decide which to build. Remove teh distinction between these two and you remove that decision.

 

[Grohan]

Maybe Imperialism increased need of marines. Imperialistic nations needed to quell rebellion somewhere in the world and they didn't know what kind of resistance their troops would come upon (maybe the rebels have fortified the shore). So imperialistic nations needed special forces aka marines to carry out the operation.

But don't trust me, I'm not an expert

 

[stormbind]

I would like to see the forking decision come earlier in the game, and I think there may be a discovery leading to a political or logistical decision in 1755. I'm trying to find what that might have been

Imperialism is a good idea!

Maybe a fork in the technology tree at:

Nationalism (Riflemen) --> Imperialism (Marines) --> [dead end?]

I put this in the history forum to see what the boffins come up with

Usage: Bombard Riflemen (4/6) with Frigate or Ironclad (depending on your strategic decisions) and attack directly from Galleon with Marine (4/4) ... sounds about right?

 

[NP300]

Paratroopers could become more useful if they had greater operational range. I am trying this on my game. I have Jet Bombers in my mod with range of 14. And Bombers with range 8. So I gave paratroopers range 8 and modern paratroopers range 14. The idea is that you could use bombers to redline(I disbaled lethal land bombard) the defenders in a remote city and then take it with paratroopers.

Helicopters would be useful if they could move along with ground units and transport them out, instead of just deploying the troops. I considered taking away the "immobile" tag from helicopters so that they could go with the land forces. But then the helicopters could move over the sea, like in Civ2, which is annoying.

 

[Xen]

@Stormy- Marines in the sense of groud troops travellign by ship, and doing lightning, commando style fighting, or full blown invasions as a long history, most notable for an Orgnized state doing such, woudl be first Athens, and then Rome, both of whom used thier marines as a major tacticle advantage in thier wars.

 

[stormbind]

Yes, but I seek the event that turned Sea-going Infantry into Specialist Marines (suspect it was in 1755).

US Navy highlights activities of the Royal Marines in 1915 as their case study, source of inspiration, and argument for the need to maintain the USMC.

Royal Navy highlights 1664 as the year of founding, but they were not specialists! These early "pre-marines" were much like the Greek & Roman temporary recruitment of regular infantry for boats.

1704 Gibraltar was perhaps the biggest assault conducted by "pre-marines" and this event might have been the case study for First Lord of the Admiralty George Anson...

George Anson (1697—1762) was the most experienced sailor of his age. He circumnavigated the globe in HMS Centurion between 1740 and 1744. He was First Lord of the Admiralty from 1751 to 1756 and from 1757 to 1762. During this time he was largely responsible for building a more professional navy, introducing reforms to the dockyards, updating the Articles of War — which details the professional codes and expectations of the Navy — and starting the Corps of Marines .

It might have been George Anson who "discovered" the need for specialists. Sea-going infantry already existed, but he made them specialist, professional and permanent Marines.

I site this small event as being a major source of his inspiration, but there may have been other events. He was like an 18th Century Francis Drake...

On 20 June 1743, Anson captured a superior Spanish galleon due to its being heavily laden with merchandise and its crew, being three times the number on Centurion, were untrained in armed combat. Anson returned to Spithead on the 15th June 1744 with £500,000 of treasure. Anson was promoted to Rear Admiral in acknowledgement of his good service and good fortune.

Marines hold a different role to that of regular infantry.

 

[Xen]

Yes, but I seek the event that turned Sea-going Infantry into Specialist Marines (suspect it was in 1755).

US Navy highlights activities of the Royal Marines in 1915 as their case study, source of inspiration, and argument for the need to maintain the USMC.

Royal Navy highlights 1664 as the year of founding, but they were not specialists! These early "pre-marines" were much like the Greek & Roman temporary recruitment of regular infantry for boats.

1704 Gibraltar was perhaps the biggest assault conducted by "pre-marines" and this event might have been the case study for First Lord of the Admiralty George Anson...



It might have been George Anson who "discovered" the need for specialists. Sea-going infantry already existed, but he made them specialist, professional and permanent Marines.

Marines hold a different role to that of regular infantry.

the 20th legion (Victrix, eventually granted the title "Valeria Victrix" in honour of being the legion commanded by Valerian on his rise from humble man of common birth to the purple of the Imperial throne) was a specialty legion in that they were full Marines, and no sea going infantry; thier most famosu action was that they spearheaded the invasion of Britian, which, coinicdentlly, was also the last time Rome needed a major full-time marine force for a large scale campaign.

 

[stormbind]

The men who spearheaded the invasion of Britain landed at a soggy marsh (somehow called a harbour) at Chichester. I know because I lived there and visited the "harbour" which supports a few small yaughts and rowing boats.

Afaik, on arrival, all they did was land and unload their stuff. They seem to have picked a quiet spot.

I don't see what being a man of humble birth has to do with it, and I dispute your claim that those men played the equivalent role to that of modern marines. I would describe those invaders as sea-going infantry because they were not trained in 1. bording actions, or 2. amphibious assault.

 

[rhialto]

The romans certainly had boarding actions as a standard tactic. Their war galleys were fitted with a device called a corvus, essentially a big spike on a hinged platform to prevent a prey vessel from escaping. You don't have those if you aren't gonna do a boarding action.

The landing in Britain was unopposed by good luck, but they used their marines because they had no reason to assume it would be unopposed, aerial reconnaissance photography being somewhat underveloped in that era.

 

[Xen]

The men who spearheaded the invasion of Britain landed at a soggy marsh (somehow called a harbour) at Chichester. I know because I lived there and visited the "harbour" which supports a few small yaughts and rowing boats.

Afaik, on arrival, all they did was land and unload their stuff. They seem to have picked a quiet spot.

I don't see what being a man of humble birth has to do with it, and I dispute your claim that those men played the equivalent role to that of modern marines. I would describe those invaders as sea-going infantry because they were not trained in 1. bording actions, or 2. amphibious assault.

thier were two different "invasions" of briatina; the first little more then a another grab at quick fame by smashing another group of barbarians, as he had quashed the Celts and Germans in the years prior; however, if you thinbg that each invasdion only had one point fo entry, your sorelly mistaking the Roman military for incompetence; thier were three seperate invasion points for the real invasion of Britian under emperor Claudius, and thats merelly the intial landing, and base camp estbalishment a campign isint a single landing, and thier were multiple points in the campign(s) for Britannia in which marine forces were essential, partially because of thier lighter equipment

 

[Landmonitor]

The idea is that you could use bombers to redline(I disbaled lethal land bombard) the defenders in a remote city and then take it with paratroopers.

I did the same thing in a continents map to take out an island fairly close to me. My transports were busy supplying a war on another continent so I used helicopters to drop off Infantry and TOW Infantry while paratroopers were dropped onto mountains further away. They just walked around trashing roads and mines in stacks of 6+ which the AI didn't want to attack, and by the time I landed mechanized troops, the Island was mine except for the capital.

I also like marines for landings, makes taking small islands quicker. I would keep both troop types in, but include a later, much more expensive unit which could do both, but that you couldn't upgrade to. I like diversity though. I just liked to fly in a mixture of marines, infantry, moden para, and TOW infantry in a big mixture to give variety.

 

[stormbind]

OK, fine!

Timeline including everything of the above discussion:

66 - Marines (soldiers who attack from tyremes & longboats)
1664 - Marines (with firearms who attack from sloops)
1704 - Marines (early case study for large amphibious landings)
1755 - Professional Marines (with firearms who conduct amphibious assault)
1915 - Professional Marines (USMC case study of RM for opposed beach landings)
1942 - Commando (merging of marine & army paratrooper units)
1964, 1982 - Commando (case studies for combined commando operations)

Personally, I would still like to call all those pre-1755 "pre-marines" because although they may have performed the same tasks, they were not well equipped or specially trained.

Both Roman & British need for Marines might have been Imperialism. This is a logical extension to Nationalism which Civ3 has mid-game. Creation of professional marines in 1755 coincided with an update to the Articles of War (1749, 1755, 1757).

The following stub on the technology-tree seems prudent to me:

Nationalism (Rifleman) --> Imperialism (Marine, Articles of War) --] dead end

---

Having Nationalism mid-game is odd. There are strong signs of nationalism throughout history and it does not have a connection to Riflemen.

Imperialism has to come after Nationalism. Having Marines with rifles and donning funky uniforms would look neat.

Articles of War ushered in a new era especially for maritime warfare. They extend the rule of law and command structure in overseas military, and are used as a model for later militaries. It could be a small wonder...

 

[MarineCorps]

Now the USMC

1775, originally created as the "Continental Marines" during the American Revolutionary War. They served as landing troops for the recently created Continental Navy.

1783, Dispanded

1798, Re-formed

Mexican-American War (1846–1848) and assaulted the Castillo de Chapultepec and were placed on guard duty

Sadly, this wikipedia article is packed with waffle and not very good for uncovering what the marines did, or when they did it. Definately active throughout wars, but article lacks specifics.

Currently the USMC acts as shock troops. They are the elite of the American military with the Army being a bunch of *******. The day of Amphib landings by special troops are over. Marine units around the world are mostly eltie troops with more general roles then in the past.