Marines

[sam44hill]

Are Marines useless?

1) Extra embarked sight and defense is great, however I escort embarked units with warships which also have sight and defense.
2) Amphibious is not bad, but I play with a fairly small, highly trained army and my units usually have this promo by this time.
3) Nothing upgrades to them and they upgrade to nothing.

While I would like to propose a new, complex method of upgrading units based on promotions game-wide, I will settle by suggesting that GWI with the Amphibious promo upgrade to Marines which would upgrade to (Mech Inf) for now.

 

[Polisurgist]

My main issue with Marines is that they come at a time in the tech tree where there's way less differentiation between actual marines and actual infantry. A late Renaissance / early Industrial unit that has similar promotions to the Atomic Era Marine would be great and add another element to naval warfare right when that's the main event.

But the point where they are right now...no one wants to be building a bunch of new units right there, and certainly not weaker units when you have ships that can attack almost as well.

 

[sam44hill]

A late Renaissance / early Industrial unit that has similar promotions to the Atomic Era Marine would be great and add another element to naval warfare right when that's the main event.

A Marine that comes in-between Riflemen and GWI perhaps?

 

[amphreded]

The only time I use them is when they're gifted from militaristic city-states. They're pretty good to take for capturing cities in another continent but otherwise I feel they're quite limited in use.

 

[HerrDoktor]

Amphibious being available so easily, less strenght and no further upgrades make Marines pretty much useless. I remember in Civ IV they were crucial for any sea invasion.

 

[Polisurgist]

A Marine that comes in-between Riflemen and GWI perhaps?

I was thinking even if it were a parallel track like it is now, just showing up earlier, it would be worth it.

Actually, bringing this over to the talk going on about Frigates in another thread, if there were better coastal defenses, an early Marine unit would be really useful in countering them...

 

[CaptainPatch]

A Marine that comes in-between Riflemen and GWI perhaps?

Truly amphibious infantry didn't appear until WW2. Prior to then, landings were usually SNAFU affairs where the landing troops were VERY vulnerable. Along about the Vietnam War they were shifted more to airmobile helicopter-borne infantry. So, I'd keep Marines where they are and then have them upgrade to Air Cav about the same time Helicopters become available.

 

[Infantry#14]

I would recommend combining the marine and paratrooper into the XCOM. Arent marines nowadays special forces?

 

[Barghaest]

I think they're cheap enough to be worthwhile. I tend to keep a few embarked with my navies for capturing coastal (or sometimes inland) cities after I bombard them with my carriers/battleships. Since they have Defensive Embarkation they can't be steamrolled in the water either so you don't have to keep em bottled up under your ships.

I've enjoyed using both them and the paratrooper despite having to build them as fresh units.

 

[Byzantine Bomb]

Not necessarily, Infantry#14. There are many nations that have a marine based military branch, they typically don't operate like SAS, US, CAG, etc.

 

[Drakarska]

Truly amphibious infantry didn't appear until WW2. Prior to then, landings were usually SNAFU affairs where the landing troops were VERY vulnerable. Along about the Vietnam War they were shifted more to airmobile helicopter-borne infantry. So, I'd keep Marines where they are and then have them upgrade to Air Cav about the same time Helicopters become available.

Not entirely accurate. Amphib ops dated back to the Egyptians (I do agree with the SNAFU part though), and by WWII there was a concerted effort to improve tech/training for those type of ops. By the Viet war time, USA had a highly specialized Amphib routine (namely LSD's, LST's, and LHA's) that was used until the current era od LCAC's and TSL's.

 

[Adder]

All they require is a little strength boost so they have like 5 more or something then infantry.
This makes them an option over infantry while not excluding infantry who can still promote where marines cannot.

 

[sendos]

All they require is a little strength boost so they have like 5 more or something then infantry.
This makes them an option over infantry while not excluding infantry who can still promote where marines cannot.

This. I think a 25% attack bonus might be nice for the marines, even though it might overlap with janissary a little.

 

[georgie]

Not entirely accurate. Amphib ops dated back to the Egyptians (I do agree with the SNAFU part though), and by WWII there was a concerted effort to improve tech/training for those type of ops. By the Viet war time, USA had a highly specialized Amphib routine (namely LSD's, LST's, and LHA's) that was used until the current era od LCAC's and TSL's.

What do those acronyms mean?

 

[Browd]

This may be useful: http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/acronym.htm

 

[CaptainPatch]

Part of the perception of just how powerful Marine amphib operations were overlooks the fact that they ALWAYS landed with a very significant numerical superiority over the local defense. Also overlooked was just how bloody most of those landings were, despite that numerical advantage. Tarawa, Bougainville, Kwajalein, Iwo Jima, etc. all involved some significant casualties to the Marine attackers, despite the fact that the Marines had a huge numbers advantage. In short, you would NEVER see anything like a 1-to-1 assault.

In general, it would probably be appropriate to eliminate the no-force-reduction of the amphib units, and definitely make the units more susceptible to damage. But factor in a strength bonus because Marines are such a potent military force, in and of themselves, compared to run-of-the-mill Infantry units.

 

[Byzantine Bomb]

At least it isn't like Civ III when they were one of two units that could attack directly from a troop transport in the sea.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

Amphibious being available so easily, less strenght and no further upgrades make Marines pretty much useless. I remember in Civ IV they were crucial for any sea invasion.

In Civ IV, infantry upgraded to marines, then to mech infantry.

All they require is a little strength boost so they have like 5 more or something then infantry.
This makes them an option over infantry while not excluding infantry who can still promote where marines cannot.

They come at such an awkward time, and are weaker than the infantry unit that came before them. They need to be at least a little stronger than infantry.

 

[ahawk]

Personally, I often build a couple of Marines per game. Why?

Well, if I have to attack another continent, why not build a couple and let them lead the attack? If I have a small, highly-promoted army, I like to let the Marines go in first and soak up damage, which they excel at even if caught in the seas. On the other hand, if I have a large army that I just built after finishing factories, then my units likely won't already have Amphibious yet. So, I tend to build a few Marines either way.

Of course, this assumes that you are in a situation that requires embarking. I wouldn't build Marines simply to attack across rivers, as artillery/airpower can simply clear the opposite bank of the river first before I move across it myself. It's really when I have to cross oceans that I find myself building Marines, as I don't always have enough oil to really support my assault with battleships or planes, and on land I always at least have artillery by the time I have Marines.

 

[Drakarska]

What do those acronyms mean?

Sorry, lol, my ex-navy came screaming through. Browd supplied a nice translator though. Will attempt to reign in my inner swabbie for the future