Marines?

[Ant]

Just looking at the unit list and I see marines there. Odd choice for WW1 I wasn't aware that there were really any major actions involving marines. Gallipoli, the biggest amphibious operation, was mainly standard infantry.

On the other hand there was quite a lot of use of mountain troops on both the Italian and balkans fronts, yet they aren't in.

I'd have thought that mountain troops were a far more appropriate unit to have included instead of marines.

Are we being a bit Americanocentric with this game?

[Bill101]

Hi Ant

Not at all! One unit that played a significant role at Gallipoli, and that also served at Antwerp in 1914 was the Royal Naval Division which was formed largely from naval ratings, raw recruits, and Royal Marines.

Of course, the US Marines did play a role in France, but there are also the German Marines who fought in Flanders and the French Fusilier Marins who served on the western front.

Rest assured that these aren't going to play a massive role in the game, but they will be putting in an appearance here and there.

[Ant]

Hi Bill

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I'm aware of roles played by marines in WW1 but, as you mentioned, it was never a big role. On the other hand Mountain divisions played a huge part in the fighting in the mountainous regions of the Italian and Balkan theatres. Most of the major European nations involved in WW1 had very large specialised Mountain formations, they were pretty de rigueur during the WW1 period.

I suppose I'm not really questioning the inclusion of marines as much as the exclusion of mountain troops essentially. I think they're far more deserving of a role in a strategic WW1 game than marines are. If we can get both then great, if it's an either/or then we should have mountain troops without doubt.

[Arinvald]

I completely agree with Ant.

[Chargin Smith]

U.S. Marines played a significant role in WW1. Belleau Wood was a huge Marine assault where the Marines got their nickname "devil dogs".

[Emperor Elliott]

USA in general had a very insignificant role in the ground war in WW1 in general. The marines may have been a significant role in USA's insignificant part in WW1. So that is one reason why marines should not be included in SC WW1.

[Minty]

Ant,

British marines had small but very significant roles in the firts half of the war. This was for the simple reason that they came under the Admiralty's command and thus were Sir Winston's personal Army. Sir John French in charge of the much larger BEF reported to the the French allied command. Thus if the British wanted to do something small and independently the Royal Marines who were extremely mobile and politically available so got to do it.

Their power was not in numbers or fighting spirit. simple mobility. they could be landed anywhere the Royal navy was dominant ie anywhere in the world with a coast except the Baltic or black sea) in sharp contrast to the slow big battalions. without Royal marine landing in Belgium in Autumn 1914 it is likely that many of the channel ports would have been cut off but advancing gemrna units that had to then wheel in and were then defeated outside paris.

Similarly they achieved great success when the Dardenelles were first breached destroying many of the fortifications on land, however they were reembarked and by the time larger allies forces arrive the turks had heavily reinforced.

Not sure how they could fit into the SC engine but they should be attempted in a WW1 game. For the US they were of some importance as the US army was relatively small and inexperienced compared to the marines who again were able to be deployed overseas more quickly. in the US's role they they served simply as regular infantry.

[Arinvald]

Ant never has minimized the role of anyones Marines, he was simply pointing out that Mountain units played a larger role. If Marines are included; as they are and should be; then Mountain units should also be included.

[Ant]

Ant never has minimized the role of anyones Marines, he was simply pointing out that Mountain units played a larger role. If Marines are included; as they are and should be; then Mountain units should also be included.

Exactly. For all the part played by marines in WW1 then multiply that by ten for the role played by mountain troops.

When I looked at the unit list for this game I was happy to see marines in there, until I noticed that there was no mountain troops. I simply can't see why you'd include marines in a WW1 game but not mountain troops.

[Stalins Organ]

And did the Marines actually play any specialised role, other than being a separate army for Winnie? They were available to go to Antwerp when other units were not, they were not a factor at Gallipoli, did US Marines ever operate as other than regular infantry?

Why should the be differentiated other than by name? DO they actually have a specialised function that they fulfil?

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Ant,

To answer your question more specifically, we didn't purposefully exclude mountain troops, rather we just made use of the existing 'Special Forces' slot to include Marines for the WWI release.

Was this an oversight? Perhaps, and not that we did it on purpose but with so much going into this project, so many details and facts and figures having been researched it is a bit surprising that we didn't think of everything so to speak

Hubert

[Ant]

ok. Thanks for the reply. I'm sure I'll enjoy this game anyway. Mountain troops or not

[Hubert Cater]

Glad to hear it

[patrat618]

USA in general had a very insignificant role in the ground war in WW1 in general. The marines may have been a significant role in USA's insignificant part in WW1. So that is one reason why marines should not be included in SC WW1.

while the usa's role in ww1 may not be as significant as say france, britains or russia's, i would hardly call 2 million troops in france by the end of 1918 insignificant.

[Stalins Organ]

Uh...yeah...what Patrat said - anyone who thinks the US had an "insignificant role" in WW1 really hasn't studied their history very well!