Special forces: are marines really worth it?

[Caesar15]

No, mostly because the 5 or 6 marines divisions were needed for an offensive in the Pacific (the US were pushing in both Europe and the Pacific simultaneously). Transporting the marines to the other side of the Earth and back was not practical. The Pacific war involved fewer combat troops than the European theater and involved dozens of landings on small islands, the marines were better used there.

Yeah, and D-Day went well without marines. Marines aren't necessary for every invasion, only certain invasions. As you said.

 

[potski]

I know normal Infantry did most of the work on D-Day. My post was more a tongue in cheek indication that it was not only the US who had marines and multiple countries were involved in D-Day .

Yes, D-Day wasn't a US operation. Hollywood please note

My point is just to set the record straight from earlier that the Allies didn't need to bother with marines at D-Day because the USMC weren't there. But nor were the Royal Marines in large numbers. I would argue this is because the operation used other special/elite forces, British commandos, US Rangers and British and US airborne. Paras/gliders were not really possible in the Pacific, and gliders can't be launched from bases too far away from their destination.

Budding HOI4 commanders of the three great naval powers can mix their forces, depending on the operation. There is very little additional cost to create some marine formations, taken overall, especially if you don't create them at full Div strength. And Japan even gets Marines already researched and an SNLF unit built when the game starts.

Special forces can be used in other operations, and can be mixed with infantry, even tanks. It was done IRL and can be done in HOI4.

One other issue that might be interesting to look at, given this issue of the greater org of marines. All three countries used their marines as garrison forces for protecting their naval bases. They might be very useful to defend a few of your most vulnerable ports from invasion. Expensive garrisons, but if it prevents losing Hawaii, Truk or Singapore, then it might be worth it.

 

[Kovax]

The other factor to take into account is that if you're using Mountain troops, Engineers, or other special forces, building a few Marines may not require you to research any doctrines that you aren't already going to need anyway.

If playing Italy or a few of the Balkan countries, Mountain troops are almost certainly worth the expense. At that point, adding a Marine division or two for river crossings or other difficult terrain, or just for their potentially higher ORG in key situations, might be VERY viable, even if you really don't intend to make ANY amphibious assaults. If you don't need mountain troops or other special forces, and don't intend to do a lot of naval operations, then they're probably a needless expense.

 

[Denkt]

The question is if more org is worth 20 more production cost per infantry battalion, if you remove the extra org then the game will not have that problem.

 

[kalauer]

The question is if more org is worth 20 more production cost per infantry battalion, if you remove the extra org then the game will not have that problem.

As far as we know right now, I would build Special Forces as just that: Units for special Tasks. And in case I don't want to undertake these missions, I'd come to reason how my Manpower vs. IC pool lookes like. But it seems unlikely that Special Forces will make up for a large share of your infantry. Which all seems quite reasonable.

But I also think that extra ORG is justified, assuming they have Special Training by default, even without going through the training-mechanics HoI4 has.

 

[Denkt]

If you are a country that have alot of resouces but not that much manpower, maybe the USA then you will probably not field normal infantry because marines are just better at everything.

 

[Munin]

Thx for clearing that up

Given the design changes in HOI4 such that your SF infantry Doctrine advances aren't so split out from your reg infantry there's no advantage to go mono force composition like in HOI3.

From what's been shown as it is primarily an equipment penalty and increased training time to get more Org for most countries the use will be much more situational.

Early game it makes alot of sense with very little armour in play and a long build up time to have tonnes of elite light infantry around to keep up operational tempo.
As the war progresses and you start to become capacity constrained the extra equipment penalty will likely be more meaningful, and later technology wrt artillery etc will make the Org loss less and less of a problem as the increased soft attack/hard attack will be worth it, especially factoring in combat effectiveness to manpower ratios.

Japan is still one exception where I think a monolithic marine force could be advantageous (short of some LL armour/motorised to seize Eastern Russia). You really don't have the research cap to do, air, land and sea, so sacrificing land stuff makes sense. Due to the supply constrained nature of Asia good light infantry makes sense. Mobility comes from your Navy, not trucks. Even capturing Burma and India in HOI4 is still going to rely on pinning Allied forces in combat followed by a succession of naval invasions to take ports behind the front lines to complete the encirclement.

In this case having an all marine force that can fight longer and further than infantry backed by artillery makes sense. Though you'd have to really push the infantry anti-armour technology so you don't bounce off a bit of light armour holding a port...

I don't agree with Japan, your first fight is in China & maybe even russia: you will be deep in China territory where your marines are useless. Unless you are referring to the bonus from jungle warfare for marines (not sure where this is confirmed), I m not that sure that marines are that good of an advantage in the early game for Japan. In later game, sure yes!

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

Thx for clearing that up


I don't agree with Japan, your first fight is in China & maybe even russia: you will be deep in China territory where your marines are useless. Unless you are referring to the bonus from jungle warfare for marines (not sure where this is confirmed), I m not that sure that marines are that good of an advantage in the early game for Japan. In later game, sure yes!

*laughs* are you suggesting that you would be better served walking from Manchuria to the French Indo-China border? You have access to >3/4 of the VP's along the coast and yet you argue walking there is better?

Finally, deep in country (China, Russia, India et al) they are vastly superior as they have a higher org for the same supply consumption. Their only down side is that they are light infantry and as such will bounce hard from Armour and mixed divisions.

 

[Secret Master]

I don't agree with Japan, your first fight is in China & maybe even russia: you will be deep in China territory where your marines are useless. Unless you are referring to the bonus from jungle warfare for marines (not sure where this is confirmed), I m not that sure that marines are that good of an advantage in the early game for Japan. In later game, sure yes!

Given the number of locations Japan can attack from the sea even when fighting China, Japan would get plenty of use out of MAR against China if they only used MAR to help seize the coast.

There are also rivers in the interior of China that need crossing.

And French Indo-China is one big jungle with tons of coastline, so....