Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul 'Papa' Hausser

Garrisons and A-bomb

Recommended Posts

I missed many units in the original SC, but it has improved over time. Still I miss two units.

Garrisons is an absolute necessary unit in a game like this. Historically no side almost never garrisoned a City with corps or armies.

They could also be named Militias/Volkssturm/Home defense, but the best would be to have them both.

A-bomb I remember was a wish many years ago, both as a research option as well as an unit.

Will Global Conflict feature any of these units?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as having these units available in the game, the answer is apparently no. If you look at the new manual for the Global game that is now available on the website for you to peruse, one can see on the relevant pages (10-16) that these two are not listed. Sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this scale, having Garrison units would likely provide too much clutter for the map as we've already scaled down some of the other available units for this release etc.

Garrison units in general can always be included but since it is generally a numbers game something else would have to give, i.e. if you no longer have to rearguard with a Corps or another similar unit, then we'd just have to lower the available builds for other types of units available for purchase now that Garrison units are available. Essentially the end result would be the same so we've just left it as is for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Garrison units in general can always be included but since it is generally a numbers game something else would have to give."

I don't agree at all, because Garrisons are not a “weak” corps. It’s a specialized unit only able to defend cities and some defense positions like larger forts.

It doesn’t even have to move outside the strategically/rail and sea transport system.

It’s disturbingly unrealistic then you can just walk into the enemy cities or i.e. the fortified squares in North Africa because the player or AI is forced to prioritize another city.

Even if it’s week it gives you time and binds enemy troops. This is the very reason the (in most cases useless) garrison unit existed to such a LARGE extent during WWII.

They just have to be distributed evenly among the warring sides. The option of having cities and forts left with no defense should not even be considered out of fears for "too much clutter for the map". Also it would make some islands and costal squares easier concurred then you the game designer are not forced to place whole corpses or armies there.

Please rethink this for the sake of the games need for basic realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For further games (i.e. SC3 or SC4), I would love garrison troops... may they be weak corps or whatever. Makes it more realistical.

I suggested here once to introduce these garrisons a upgrade for cities or ressources or tiles, just the way you can upgrade AA-Strength.

This way you wouldn't need new units and it would be much easier for the AI to use its units for attacks instead of garrison duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To a certain degree the need for garrisons depends on the scale of a scenario, and the length of time covered by a turn in the game. So, for instance where a turn equals just a day or a few days, I would agree that a garrison unit could buy time and might be a worthwhile feature.

However, in the Global game a turn equals a fortnight, and it is very unlikely that a small unit would be able to hold off a Corps or Army for that amount of time. Bastogne is of course an exception to the rule, but even here the defending force was both better quality and larger than the garrison equivalent I think is being suggested here.

From having played the Global scenarios quite extensively, the situation is that both sides need to prioritise and plan ahead, and providing they plan well they generally have enough for the most important areas. One tip is that leaving London empty is never a good idea, but then that has always been the case since the days of SC1!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Garrison units in general can always be included but since it is generally a numbers game something else would have to give."

I don't agree at all, because Garrisons are not a “weak” corps. It’s a specialized unit only able to defend cities and some defense positions like larger forts.

It doesn’t even have to move outside the strategically/rail and sea transport system.

It’s disturbingly unrealistic then you can just walk into the enemy cities or i.e. the fortified squares in North Africa because the player or AI is forced to prioritize another city.

Even if it’s week it gives you time and binds enemy troops. This is the very reason the (in most cases useless) garrison unit existed to such a LARGE extent during WWII.

They just have to be distributed evenly among the warring sides. The option of having cities and forts left with no defense should not even be considered out of fears for "too much clutter for the map". Also it would make some islands and costal squares easier concurred then you the game designer are not forced to place whole corpses or armies there.

Please rethink this for the sake of the games need for basic realism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the current implementation is the right one or the wrong one, rather that for the most part it seems to work well. Granted not everyone agrees with that assessment and that is fair enough.

But in its defense and specifically to my reference of how it is a numbers game, let me give you a game play example... right now with how Partisans are modeled, especially in Russia, you need to have rear guard units to cover these positions. Now these can be covered by any unit type and in most games, they are covered by Corps. This works well because as the German player they are only able to build so many Corps in game and as you expand you need to make the difficult choices on where you place these assets throughout the map, i.e. place them in cities, on the front line or in Partisan areas. Once you over expand you have to start making the difficult decisions such as do I leave this city unprotected? or do I use another unit type? or do I leave some partisan areas vacant? and so on.

The essence of all of this is to recreate the high command division of assets and the difficulty in dealing with an ever expanding empire so to speak. Now if we introduce Garrison units, for gameplay reasons, I would like to keep this strain on an occupying force intact. So if we offer more Garrison units to the player my preference would be to then reduce the number of Corps builds to compensate as otherwise it is easy to just cover all areas as needed and not feel the need to make any tough decisions.

In the end, at least when we were designing, the option of adding in Garrison units and making the necessary numbers adjustments began to feel like more of the same in terms of what we already had in place. Sure, Garrison units would be weaker and this may be more desirable but in essence you would be weakening your forces overall if we started to remove Corps to keep the numbers about the same. That has to be considered as well.

Now if on the other hand you want to keep it all the same but just add in Garrison units then it is of course not a numbers game anymore but we felt this was not as desirable either for the reasons described above where you no longer feel the need to make the tough decisions.

It's a tough call either way but like I said with what we wanted to achieve game play wise, we felt the current system worked out well enough.

Hubert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After considering this, I would think a combination of both Hubert's and XW's would be perhaps the best solution: Make upgrades to cities and resource locations up to the equivalent of a garrison, but of a very weak strength: say equivalent to Level 1, Strength 3. Too weak to offer much of a fight, but enough to keep enemy units from just walking in. Also would not be considered to be an actual "unit", but an upgrade. If a few Corp builds need to be reduced bacause of it, so be it. What do you think, Hubert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understand Hubert's reasoning, but I still think a garrison unit is needed according to the reasons I mentioned earlier.

There is also one more important aspect that makes the Garrison unit needed. It can also play the role as Volkssturm/Home Guard or equal weaker militia type units.

Especially for Germany with it’s expanding territory it’s important. Germany was heavenly dependent on weaker formations as Sicherheits, Volkgranadier, reserve, training and different static costal, fortress and garrison divisions. Many were formed out of one or more destroyed armies, corps or divisions. Germany had hundreds of these kind of divisions and they played an important strategically roll.

Thru the war they even outnumbered (!) the regular infantry and panzer divisions that made up corps and armies.

Also they were operating much more independent and often outside corps and armies organizations in contrast to regular divisions. That alone is a reason to add them to the game.

They’re as I see it the only important unit type missing in SC. To actually leave more than half of the German divisions/army out of the game is a serious mistake.

Best would be if you could transform weakened armies to full strength corps and weakened corps to full strength division. That would in many aspects be a good idea.

It could be used widely in scenarios and campaigns alike and would add to both realism and “flavor” for SCGC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps when you move into an unoccupied enemy facility you suffer some combat strength loss similar to when amphibious units are landing on enemy held territory?

How about that as a representation of a garrison, papa? Do you see a bit of contradiction in your thinking?;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After considering this, I would think a combination of both Hubert's and XW's would be perhaps the best solution: Make upgrades to cities and resource locations up to the equivalent of a garrison, but of a very weak strength: say equivalent to Level 1, Strength 3. Too weak to offer much of a fight, but enough to keep enemy units from just walking in. Also would not be considered to be an actual "unit", but an upgrade. If a few Corp builds need to be reduced bacause of it, so be it. What do you think, Hubert?

It's not a bad idea and I think once the game is released and played a bit everyone will get a better picture of how things have changed and what might be suitable or even needed and we can go from there.

I only suggest this as it is hard to compare this release to previous releases until it is actually played out as some items such as the scale seem to make a bit of a difference this time out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully understand Hubert's reasoning, but I still think a garrison unit is needed according to the reasons I mentioned earlier.

There is also one more important aspect that makes the Garrison unit needed. It can also play the role as Volkssturm/Home Guard or equal weaker militia type units.

Especially for Germany with it’s expanding territory it’s important. Germany was heavenly dependent on weaker formations as Sicherheits, Volkgranadier, reserve, training and different static costal, fortress and garrison divisions. Many were formed out of one or more destroyed armies, corps or divisions. Germany had hundreds of these kind of divisions and they played an important strategically roll.

Thru the war they even outnumbered (!) the regular infantry and panzer divisions that made up corps and armies.

Also they were operating much more independent and often outside corps and armies organizations in contrast to regular divisions. That alone is a reason to add them to the game.

The Luftwafffe had... ONE MILLION MEN... serving in the Fliegerabwehrkanonen.

AKA: The "flak."

I don't think we want 10-20 flak units RE-presented in this game, do we?

Not at this scale anyhow.

OTOH, you could make a mod that would indeed have them 88mm Flak doom-gun batteries all lined up and firing 4th-of-July kind of flames into the night skies.

They’re as I see it the only important unit type missing in SC. To actually leave more than half of the German divisions/army out of the game is a serious mistake.

I'd rather see separate Naval bombers myself. Which would cost more since the naval pilots required more specialized training than the others.

Best would be if you could transform weakened armies to full strength corps and weakened corps to full strength division. That would in many aspects be a good idea.

It could be used widely in scenarios and campaigns alike and would add to both realism and “flavor” for SCGC.

Not a bad idea, but currently beyond the capabilites of this game engine. Maybe down the glory road, eh?

For now, it's probably best to suggest that which CAN be done -- oh, a twitch or a tweak here and there, as opposed to something highly contrived (... IE, WRT RE-doing a lot of code) which we realize is now highly improbable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for A-bombs... why would you even want these?

Weren't used in GErmany. Nope, nix.

By the time they were actually inflicted on the non-combatants in Japan, the war was O.. V.. E.. R.

Only thing I can figure... some kind of awful thrill in visualizing a lot of peeps being vaporized???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Desert Dave,

Good point about the A bombs.

I think it just adds an awful lot of unnecessary, extreme results to the game and destroys any balance to it. Perhaps if SC were to eventually have a Korean War or later version of itself it would make more sense, but not in Global Conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Luftwafffe had... ONE MILLION MEN... serving in the Fliegerabwehrkanonen.

AKA: The "flak."

I don't think we want 10-20 flak units RE-presented in this game, do we?"

They are already in the game then you upgrade airdefences for cities.

To compare them with over 100 land divisions is not even worth an answer. Can we please try to keep the discussion serious?

Regarding a-bombs, of cause I never meant them to be a widely used unit in the game. Just a possibility if you put a lot of your research capacity on it. That would add a new “gambling” aspect to the game, be historical and force losing countries to capitulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not have the ability to research the A-bomb.It could depend on what territory you conquered as you would need the right resources for the bomb.In other words your tech.research would only have the potential to advance as you conquered the countries that had the resources necessary for the bomb.This would make it VERY expensive and time consuming like it really was.If someone wants to try it then why shouldnt they.

As far as the effect it would have that would depend on how many were dropped.I cant see a country continuing the fight if they get clobbered with four or five of them.It would also depend on the country being bombed overall situation(like the Japs were done and those bombs just made them quit sooner).The morale of the troops overall would start to decline in reality as the situation becasme hopless and the Atomic bomb would just dramaticlly speed that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe?

For all in favor of the on-board Atomic-bomb,

We might provide them with... little iconic mushroom clouds?

And a coupon so they could purchase

A new 100 watt set of by jove -> blow-you-over-and-way-away

Speakers?

So to better hear the sound and fury of it all -- the actual attack,

The astounding impact,

The wrack and scream and final ruin

Of our one and only atmosphere?

The animalized dreams and the vocalized nightmares?

The ever ongoing rush of the organic, and the inorganic alike

Melted to gorgeous slush... and flowing slow

Down the German and Japanese gutters?

[Though, certainly not! In American or British cities, for instance,

That wouldn't be historical.]

Sure!

Let's go for it! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we add the A-bomb, than we can add the german nerve agents as well, which would have been for sure Hitlers answer to an Allied A-Bomb drop on Hamburg.

Those agents were in stock, and the Allies had nothing like them.

I suggest we leave the A-Bomb out, after all we already have strategic bombers, which are already capable to bomb a city to ashes, even without an A-Bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At this scale, having Garrison units would likely provide too much clutter for the map as we've already scaled down some of the other available units for this release etc.

Garrison units in general can always be included but since it is generally a numbers game something else would have to give, i.e. if you no longer have to rearguard with a Corps or another similar unit, then we'd just have to lower the available builds for other types of units available for purchase now that Garrison units are available. Essentially the end result would be the same so we've just left it as is for now.

Hubert I have to agree with the small garrison idea to halt partisans from taking over entire cities and areas already conquered, the way it is now at least for me wrong or right I always turn off the partisan feature, always, so it does not matter if you put them in or not to me.

Bo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, in the larger map formats, garrisons are a good idea, like the way Nupremal uses them. I also agree with Hubert as with a smaller scope the unit density is important. One thing I found out when playing larger campaigns is that when you have a bunch of units on the map, pushing them around detracts from the enjoyment and become laborious after awhile. Better to leave the large unit deployments to the shorter turn scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can always look to add a Garrison unit type for future mods as you are right for much larger maps it can certainly make sense. As mentioned before, once this game is released I think everyone will have a better idea of how it still may not be appropriate for the current scale, but if the option exists then players can certainly change it as they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...