Shouldn't Marines be Navy units?

[Simon Marques]

You could get a thousand disagrees, all from people who've played ten times longer and ten times better, and you wouldn't even notice, would you?

What matters is democracy, I pointed something that seemed incoherent within the historical proposal chosen by the developers and part of you disagree and so I'm learning about what the majority likes and what the majority does not like.

Don't treat my posts with prejudice, I'm still learning about the community, I only have three posts, of which only two propose an upgrade in the historical background.

 

[Simon Marques]

A passing glance at the game would have told you that the only command-levels are army-groups and armies. Seeing how large those formations are in the game, you might even push them up a level. The only time an army-sized force was ever commanded by an officer from the Marines during WW2 was when Roy Geiger took over command of 10th army on Okinawa after General Buckner had died. This lasted for five days.

So no, even when disregarding the obvious problem of mixing up land and sea-command for no apparent reason, the Marines still shouldn't be under any different command than they are in the game, because the command-levels that do exist where exclusively filled by army personal.

In Iwo Jima were used 3 divisions of the corps of marines subordinate to the fifth amphibious corps, the word itself presupposes a Corps of Armies which in its use was generally based on the use of several divisions added to one or more air forces and one or more fleets all of the navy, this force was not commanded by any army officer.

The battle of Iwo Jima is a classic example of how the U.S. organized its marine corps.

Forces used in Iwo Jima:

V Amphibious Corps
>>>3rd Marine Division
>>>4th Marine Division
>>>5th Marine Division
>>>7th Air Force
>>>5th Fleet


Holland Smith
He was a general in the State Marine Corps during World War II. He led the V Amphibious Corps in the assault of Gilberts, Marshalls and Saipan, and Tinian in Marianas.

The smallest unit in the game where you can use an officer is a corps of armies or simply an army, the game allows you to put a general under the command of at least one division that is attached to an army.

 

[noobermenschen]

never in any nation has there been a case in which a unit of Marines came under the command of an Army officer, at least that I know of.

Que? US marines had their own officers and NCOs, but commonly fought alongside US Army units under Army command such as at Bladesnburg (1814), Chapultapec, Manassas and Belleau Wood. The 4th Marine Regiment fought at Corregidor under General Wainright.

(Ex-Marines might note that Manassas, also known as First Bull Run, is not often mentioned in the telling of tales, since it was not a particularly glorious chapter in the history of our beloved Corps )

During the Pacific Campaign the Army's 7th and 27th Divisions fought under Marine command, with considerable feuding between Marine general Holland M. Smith and various Army generals, which came to a head on Saipan when Smith sacked Ralph Smith, commander of the 27th (The War of the Smiths). The 1st Marine Division fought under MacArthur at Cape Glouchester, and as was noted the Marine divisions on Okinawa fought under 10 Army (Buckner, then Geiger, then Stillwell). The Marine divisions that fought on Iwo Jima would have fought under 6 Army (Krueger) for Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu.

To be fair, one thing that would actually be nice would be the addition of some SNLF commanders in game.

I don't think many SNLF commanders attained the rank of Rear Admiral and none higher (at least as SNLF commanders). SNLF (which were sailors under the command of naval officers) were organized as battalions, which were sometimes grouped into combined SNLF, equivalent to a brigade or regimental combat team. Many of the larger naval garrisons that defended various islands were base forces, not landing forces. Naval garrisons fought under Army control if the island was under Army command (nominally at least, Japanese Sailors on Luzon ignored Yamashita's orders to withdraw into the interior and instead fought for Manila to the death, destroying much of the city).

 

[Simon Marques]

US marines had their own officers and NCOs, but commonly fought alongside US Army units under Army command such as at Bladesnburg (1814), Chapultapec, Manassas and Belleau Wood. The 4th Marine Regiment fought at Corregidor under General Wainright.

Although I found this information useful, 1814 is very far from World War II, it should not serve as an example to be followed in a game on this subject.

During the Pacific Campaign the Army's 7th and 27th Divisions fought under Marine command, with considerable feuding between Marine general Holland M. Smith and various Army generals, which came to a head on Saipan when Smith sacked Ralph Smith, commander of the 27th (The War of the Smiths). The 1st Marine Division fought under MacArthur at Cape Glouchester, and as was noted the Marine divisions on Okinawa fought under 10 Army (Buckner, then Geiger, then Stillwell). The Marine divisions that fought on Iwo Jima would have fought under 6 Army (Krueger) for Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu.

Well, according to the records in the last research I did, in Okinawa the 10th Army and the 3rd Corps of Amphibians are shown, just like Iwo Jima, but I did not succeed in finding out which was the general commander of these operations.

 

[George Parr]

In Iwo Jima were used 3 divisions of the corps of marines subordinate to the fifth amphibious corps, the word itself presupposes a Corps of Armies which in its use was generally based on the use of several divisions added to one or more air forces and one or more fleets all of the navy, this force was not commanded by any army officer.

The battle of Iwo Jima is a classic example of how the U.S. organized its marine corps.

Forces used in Iwo Jima:

V Amphibious Corps
>>>3rd Marine Division
>>>4th Marine Division
>>>5th Marine Division
>>>7th Air Force
>>>5th Fleet


Holland Smith
He was a general in the State Marine Corps during World War II. He led the V Amphibious Corps in the assault of Gilberts, Marshalls and Saipan, and Tinian in Marianas.

The smallest unit in the game where you can use an officer is a corps of armies or simply an army, the game allows you to put a general under the command of at least one division that is attached to an army.

That's just gibberish.
The game differentiates between theaters (no leader assigned), army groups and armies, which consist of divisions. Corps play no role at all. Nor is there such a thing as "a corps of armies". An army consists of corps, not the other way round.

There was not a single point in time during the war where the Marines were actually operating on a scale that is similar to an army. And only once was a general from the Marine Corps assigned to lead an army. This was a temporary assignment after the former general had died, and it ended when General Stillwell arrived to take over command of the 10th army.

Since the game doesn't have any command structure below an army, and the Marine Corps never had an army of its own during the war, it therefore is perfectly logical to keep naval infantry under a general command. Especially when you consider that the armies in the game can actually be far larger than an army really was during the war.

All that is beside the point though, because you are conflating stuff that isn't connected. The game doesn't have "The Army", "The Airforce" and "The Navy", instead it has land formations, air formations and sea formations, all kept apart and used in combat interactions that are barely connected to each other. Sea formations represent all combat made by ships, they do not include men who invade beaches, because men aren't ships, and ships don't land on beaches, at least not on purpose. The only case that can be made, is that some leaders, like Roy Geiger, should be available as leader in the land-warfare branch, maybe with the invader skill that enhances naval invasions. Because that's exactly what these skills exist for, and that's exactly the place Marines fight on: land, not sea. They might temporarily engage in combat while still being in water - that's the point of a naval invasion after all - but they aren't meant to fight things on the sea, they engage enemies who are on land, and they do try to take that land, in prolonged operations of land combat.

 

[Simon Marques]

That's just gibberish.
The game differentiates between theaters (no leader assigned), army groups and armies, which consist of divisions. Corps play no role at all. Nor is there such a thing as "a corps of armies". An army consists of corps, not the other way round.

There was not a single point in time during the war where the Marines were actually operating on a scale that is similar to an army. And only once was a general from the Marine Corps assigned to lead an army. This was a temporary assignment after the former general had died, and it ended when General Stillwell arrived to take over command of the 10th army.

Since the game doesn't have any command structure below an army, and the Marine Corps never had an army of its own during the war, it therefore is perfectly logical to keep naval infantry under a general command. Especially when you consider that the armies in the game can actually be far larger than an army really was during the war.

All that is beside the point though, because you are conflating stuff that isn't connected. The game doesn't have "The Army", "The Airforce" and "The Navy", instead it has land formations, air formations and sea formations, all kept apart and used in combat interactions that are barely connected to each other. Sea formations represent all combat made by ships, they do not include men who invade beaches, because men aren't ships, and ships don't land on beaches, at least not on purpose. The only case that can be made, is that some leaders, like Roy Geiger, should be available as leader in the land-warfare branch, maybe with the invader skill that enhances naval invasions. Because that's exactly what these skills exist for, and that's exactly the place Marines fight on: land, not sea. They might temporarily engage in combat while still being in water - that's the point of a naval invasion after all - but they aren't meant to fight things on the sea, they engage enemies who are on land, and they do try to take that land, in prolonged operations of land combat.

The use of 3 divisions, one fleet and an air force seems to me to be well equivalent to an corp of the army.

About the term "a Corps of Armies" can be the problem of language, often I can not find the right word to describe what I want to express, I'm sorry.

The "XXIV Corps" was made up of 4 divisions and the "III Amphibious Corps" by 3 divisions, so they are equivalent units, I must have been mistaken with the words, in fact I wanted to express that the Marines were subdivided into corps equivalent to an army corps.

The term army in the game is quite subjective, since to be an army would require at least 6 to 8 divisions and the game allows creating armies with a single division. The game also allows to create divisions with a smaller scale than a historical division, both points of formation of units of the game are not historical. So there's no way not to notice the lack of coherence within the game. I never use 8 divisions in an army since the command points are not enough, I prefer 4 to 6 divisions to save, so I always have points to get the attack or defense bonuses. At least that's what I noticed when I played.

 

[Flipity]

Want your seperate command...here is how. Create a new theater. Place Marine units in new theater. Call them Marines. Call the new theatre Navy. You can even do the same for the Airforce as well.

There, done. Nice and separate from Army command. Not really historically accurate, but that is what you want.

 

[Simon Marques]

Want your seperate command...here is how. Create a new theater. Place Marine units in new theater. Call them Marines. Call the new theatre Navy. You can even do the same for the Airforce as well.

There, done. Nice and separate from Army command. Not really historically accurate, but that is what you want.

The thing is very generic, I thought that the game contained the three forces, well I was wrong, they are three modes with a limited interaction. That's why I make these posts, without that I would never know. As I said on another occasion, I'm new to the community and the game, so I don't know all about the game, after all, a question is not offensive.

The game is not the seventh wonder of the world, but it provides some entertainment.

 

[Anaraxes]

it is not coherent to place divisions of Marines under the command of army officers.

Some of those "army" officers in game -- often the ones you'd want to put in charge of your marines -- weren't army officers in real life. Whoever is commanding marines is a marine officer, kind of by definition. The branch is just a label.

As so many have said, the important thing from the game point of view is whether or not it appears in the list of land units or (as you seem to desire) appears in the list of ships. Marines are a lot more like an army division than they are a light cruiser. I've never had any trouble finding my marines, what with their special commanders, unique division icon (the anchor), and the ability to sort the army list by type.

 

[xtfoster]

To be fair, one thing that would actually be nice would be the addition of some SNLF commanders in game.

When you consider that commanders in game are those (for the most part) that commanded Corps or Larger units (so minimum Lieutenant General/Vice Admiral or equivalent Chujo maybe Shosho if you stretch), and the largest SNLF units were only 2-3k (roughly 2-3 battalions in game), the likelyhood of seeing any SNLF commanders is slim to none.

 

[Axe99]

The thing is very generic, I thought that the game contained the three forces, well I was wrong, they are three modes with a limited interaction. That's why I make these posts, without that I would never know. As I said on another occasion, I'm new to the community and the game, so I don't know all about the game, after all, a question is not offensive.

The game is not the seventh wonder of the world, but it provides some entertainment.

There's nothing wrong with asking The issue you bumped into here was the way the mechanics worked. As has been well explained, marines in-game (and generally IRL) represent soldiers trained to fight on land, or onto the land, with some specialist skills and training to support this. Naval units, on the other hand, represent ships. Making the marines ships means it would be impossible for the marines to fight on land (or, beyond the coastal bombardment bonus, against land units at all), and would mean they instead fought other ships (something that marine units generally didn't do, other than those that were part of a ship's company manning some of the guns - and HoI4 doesn't disaggregate within a ship's crew for role and training - there's a chance (but only a chance ) this would be too much even for me, at least at the HoI4 level ).

It's important to remember that a game that accurately simulated all the details of WW2 would take millions of people six years to play. There has to be abstraction, and in this case where the abstraction best falls in terms of gameplay mechanics is fairly clear, at least as far as I can tell.