USMC doesen't exist at game start

[Random Savage]

Before the war broke out, the marines were made up of 2 veteran brigades with experience in the Carribean. In the game however, they are not represented. Its true tht they were scattered and low in number, bit I still believe the US should start with 2 marine brigades and a marine brigade template.

 

[Deinhardt]

They might update that. Just like Germany got the 1936 battleship tech and 2 of them beauties lined up by the start of the game in a patch, America might get those Things you mentioned aswell further down the line

Give it some time.

 

[Meglok]

@podcat The US probably should have Marine technology. After all, they fielded Marine units in WWI. Remember Belleau Wood!

 

[xtfoster]

While I agree that there should be some representation of the USMC at start, I should point out that that Marine technology in game represents 'Amphibious Assault' troops, NOT Embassy guards and Naval infantry untrained in Amphibious tactics.

 

[Secret Master]

While I agree that there should be some representation of the USMC at start, I should point out that that Marine technology in game represents 'Amphibious Assault' troops, NOT Embassy guards and Naval infantry untrained in Amphibious tactics.

I agree.

In fact, the historical stuff the USMC did during the pre-war period to learn about, and get better at, amphibious warfare is why the USA gets a discount to MAR in the NF tree.

 

[Hansbroger]

Before the war broke out, the marines were made up of 2 veteran brigades with experience in the Carribean. In the game however, they are not represented. Its true tht they were scattered and low in number, bit I still believe the US should start with 2 marine brigades and a marine brigade template.

Not to mention previously kicking down the door in China, continued police action in China, police action/advise and assist in the Philippines. The USMC had been constantly at work over the decades leading up to the Second World War. Agreed there should likely be a brigade template.

 

[Jmland]

US Marines in WW1 compared to US Marines in WW2 is apples and....well crabapples.
In WW1, the amphibious assault capability was virtually nil.
Note that this is different from "naval landing" which is basically unopposed.
Yes, I agree that the Marine Bdes (there were actually a number of additional separate units, single Bn's, plus the on ship detachments etc) should be on the ground at the start of the game. But what made the Marines what we think of today as Marines, was developed post Jan 1936, both doctrine and equipment.

 

[jamesd]

From a very quick look, it seems the USMC had 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th & 6th Infantry Regiments and 10th Artillery Regiments active on 1st Jan 1936. From what I can tell they were all under strength, just as the regular army units were at that time. Best representation may be as a 3 or 4 units using the garrison template with 3 x Inf. One of the good things with the upcoming patch/DLC will be the ability to combine units, meaning that these units could be combined into a larger Marine template later on after its been researched. I note that in terms of the development of landing craft, the British started in WWI with the Japanese following in 1937 and the US after that, so there's probably enough justification to represent them as infantry rather than marines in 1936.

With the addition of the marine corps, and mechanised cavalry, at game start the US should probably lose all those pacific garrison units.

 

[Random Savage]

Looking at all the replies here, I agree that it would make sense to represent them as smaller infantry units with additional veterancy. Possibly a focus tree addition which converts the "Infantry Marines" to "Regular Marines" without taking a toll on their veterancy status could be added. I think it'd be pretty nice if some battle-hardened units from around the world were represented as "Veterans" or "Seasoned" at game start to reflect their combat experience, (outside of the already mentioned marines) such as the French and British units which dealt with the largest revolts, some individual Japanese units dealing with China (and the region) and probably some units from smaller nations dealing with other conflicts. Most of these would probably be more deserving of the "seasoned" status rather then the "veteran" status, the exception of course being the Australians after their experience in the 1932 Emu war.