• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What exact benefits do Marines give in amphib ops? I cant seem to locate the data... thx

From the unit data files (as of Semper Fi):

amphibious = {
attack = 0.50
}

river = {
attack = 0.40
}

marsh = {
attack = 0.3
}

Those are percentage boni... +50%, +40% and +30% respectively.
 
those bonuses are relative to the normal penalties though, so the effect is not always apparent when you look at a combat. When it comes down to it, even marines suffer a net penalty during an amphibious assualt, but that penalty is minor compared to what another unit, say stock infantry would face.
 
Yeah ive used them in certain circumstances (Gibralter, Malta etc...) not so sure theyre worth the investment after the initial invasion, especially if your a minor. thx
 
those bonuses are relative to the normal penalties though, so the effect is not always apparent when you look at a combat. When it comes down to it, even marines suffer a net penalty during an amphibious assualt, but that penalty is minor compared to what another unit, say stock infantry would face.

In fact, being relative to the normal penalties is an advantage for the Marine unit.

Example:

If a 10 SA Infantry unit got (let's say...) -70% for amphibious assault, it would only attack with 3 SA. The +50% Marine bonus would then allow a Marine unit to attack with 8 SA instead... nearly triple the Infantry's firepower.

If the normal penalty were not considered, it would be only 15 SA vs 10 SA (instead of 8 SA vs 3 SA)... not nearly as big an advantage.
 
Interesting. Thank you.

I too, the Mighty Corugi (!!!6!!!) am doubtful about the relative worth of marines. Other than the occassional (and imho extremely rare) need for direct assult on a coastal province, Marines simply do not seem to cut the mustard investment wise. I say this because of the relative ease and speed of landing ordinary infantry onto coasts and only then attacking ports for supply needs.

Seems to me that non-combat coastals landings onto enemy land are:

1) Way too easy to make with ordinary infantry.
2) And way too fast.
3) Plus they land fully operational with a full 30 day supply? Every ordinary infantry division carries a powdered Mulberry harbour in its backpack? Just add water. I think not.
 
For my benefit...Im playing Argentina and planning on taking Brazil via amphib landings as nearly all their VPs are on the shoreline. I may mix in a few marine divisions, but the cost of them (Argentina's MP also isnt very high), and what do i do with them after (they arent overly superior for the cost to me, not their value but my limitations in mp etc...) makes it doubtful id make too many. With most nations i keep like a Corps around of marines, this is sort of a special case for me. Thx guys...
 
When playing the USSR, I found Marines to be very useful... but not, unfortunately, for amphibious assault. I used a few full Corps of MAR/ENG to break the German defenses at river lines. MAR+ENG can more-or-less ignore Rivers, and with a bit of IC-whoring in the pre-war years, the USSR can easily afford them. The extra base-ORG was also quite handy.
 
I form my Marine Divisions as 1 x L Arm, 3 x Marines, 1x Engineer when I have superior firepower and amphibious equipment. That is probably a habit due to the Operation Sealowe amphibious bonus to L Arm in that DLC mod. I would suggest possibly adding a bonus to Amphibious for L Arm in vanilla.
 
I used a few full Corps of MAR/ENG to break the German defenses at river lines. MAR+ENG can more-or-less ignore Rivers, and with a bit of IC-whoring in the pre-war years, the USSR can easily afford them.

Actually for River Crossing assaults I calculate that 3xMAR+1xART is better than 3xMAR+ENG because while the penalty is still there especially for the ART support bgd but as it gets averaged out its impact is not enough to reduce the division fire power to lesser than or under the MAR+ENG combo. ENG are really weak while ART have very high fire power and while ENG eliminate the River Crossing penalty entirely for 3 or 4 X MAR Divisions, it is not enough to make up their miniscule fire power especially in relation to what ART has. So for river fighting ART is better to place in Marine Divisions, but for regular INF or MOT it does make sense to use ENG to do that because of their much higher innate river crossing penalties, however I think everybody makes the mistake to believe it is the same for pure MAR builds, when it definitely isn't the case.
 
But what about when you are combining Marines with heavy weapons? I could see perhaps 2 x ARM 2x MAR 1x ENG being worthwhile for a heavy division to mix in with your marines artillery combo.
 
I can't, but you can do what you like, although MOT or Mech are a better fit with ARM in a combo over MAR I would advise.
I was thinking as a heavy support for amphibious or river operations already being conducted by marines. Let's say one heavy Marines Division for each Marine Corps. Do you still use MOT or MEC in that instance? I haven't done the math behind this stuff and it seems like you have. I've just always created stuff like that either for role-play purposes or because of incentives provided by amphibious techs in mods.
 
those bonuses are relative to the normal penalties though, so the effect is not always apparent when you look at a combat. When it comes down to it, even marines suffer a net penalty during an amphibious assualt, but that penalty is minor compared to what another unit, say stock infantry would face.
In FTM its -10% until you research the ambhibious warfare equipment tech which removes the last 10%.

So Marines can indeed attack from the sea without penalty.
 
I wouldn't say that Marines are overrated and unnecessary by design. I think the larger problem is that the AI usually isn't capable of mounting an adequate invasion defense. As a result in many cases that on paper would appear to call out for a specialized force can instead be solved through intelligent use of standard infantry formations.
 
I wouldn't say that Marines are overrated and unnecessary by design. I think the larger problem is that the AI usually isn't capable of mounting an adequate invasion defense. As a result in many cases that on paper would appear to call out for a specialized force can instead be solved through intelligent use of standard infantry formations.
I agree with that.

In my multiplayer experience Marines are worth their weight in gold for both fighting in jungles/crossing rivers and gaining a foothold on hostile shores/ taking that all important port by surprise.
 
You can click on an individual brigade in the division screen, scroll down and see all the terrain modifiers of that specific unit type there. Hope this helps.

And yes, Marines are great at key locations.