Paul 'Papa' Hausser

That you can't move a garrison unit then no train/rail is available is good and realistic, but blocking Panzer-korps is bad and unrealistic. Good point Bill! Unfortunately all recourses, fortifications and costal squares are not connected to the railway. Therefore they have to be able to move if Hubert choose to have a unit. Stacking is not an option, so we have to choose between a city/resources upgrade and a moveable garrison/week division. Both could be used as volkssturm/home guard then the heart land is threatened and both (right?) can protect cities, recourses and fortifications. But only a unit can guard a costal square. We don't want them to move around and clog the map or take part in attacks. BUT if they’re week enough and not upgradeable - who wants to move them around(if it’s not absolutely necessary like in Bills example) or attack with them(never)? They will only be useful for defense, if entrenched over time in the same place. If Hubert chooses an upgrade it has to be visible on the city/recourses/fortification on the main map. In that case I suggest a hoisted country flag. Is that possible without too much work?

Hubert, I agree that even if a division unit is preferred for its future usability, it doesn’t add up with the current values. Changing them would be too time-consuming related to that we’ll achieve. Then I started this thread I said we couldn’t ignore over 50% of the divisions Germany had during the war. And I stand firm by that. BUT, even if they there classified as divisions, most of them acted as garrisons in cities and defense lines. They acted outside corps and armies, they were usually static, had the oldest equipment and lower manpower than normal divisions. I think we should go for strength 10, HQ like, non upgradable garrison unit. That will make it easier and still be historically correct. I still think they should be a unit and not a city/resource upgrade. I suggest its icon to be one guard standing in front of a sentry-box. Could you make a unit that only could be moved with strategic movement that includes cities, recourses and fortifications? If it’s doable we have a pretty neat solution. I felt worried I stole your time for nothing, but this could be a game enhancer well worth the (hopefully little) extra time spent. /Paul

Hubert, Maybe it should be like a HQ with the following exceptions: ST+SR=1, AA+BA=1 or 2, NA+CA+UA=1, SD+AD+BD+CD=1 and cost=60MMP If it's considered to be a garnison/fort unit it should maybe have better air and navy values (+1) and cost 75 MMPs.

Dave 1) Naval Bomber It would be great, but it's not more important than a garrison/divisional unit. 2) Mechanized Isn’t that already included, like motorization level 2?

Hubert What is your opinion then it comes to the partisan unit in relation to a divisional unit? Rannug Your suggestion is great for a pure garrison unit. Also, a partisan unit can be stronger then a garrison but not a division. But don’t you think a divisional would be more versatile?

Thanks for those words Hubert.

" ...their stats could hypothetically be of any value and it still wouldn't change their inability to attack." Then I suggest a divisional unit. Since Special Forces already exist, they can cover elite divisions like the German SS or US marine. That leaves us with ordinary divisions. Since we’re crippled somewhat then it comes to what values we can give this new unit, it will not be to exact. If a corps had a SA of 10 instead of 1 it would be different. That means the unit will be something ranging from a garrison unit thru volkssturm/home defense to a regular division. With that in mind my suggestion is as follows: TT=Soft, ST=1, SL=2, SN=1, AP=2, SR=1, OR=-, SA=1*, TA=0, AA+BA=3**, NA+CA+UA=2*** RA=-, SD+TD+AD+BD+CD=0****, ND=0, UD=-, RM=- *) If Corps is changed to 2 it would make sense. This will also make it possible to have a 1:2 ratio instead of a 1:3 ratio and therefore keep the increase of the overall number of units limited. Let’s say that out of 20 corps you remove 10 and add 20 divisions. That means SA 20*2=40 changed to 10*2+20*1=40. The total SA value will be the same. **) I would prefer 2, but they can’t be weaker than partisans. Maybe partisans should be 2? It you choose 3, I think corps should be 5. ***) I would prefer 1, but they can’t be weaker than partisans. Maybe partisans should be 1? ****) If we want to profile it as a defense unit it should have 1 and - again - should it be weaker than a partisan unit? I thought I could give a more clear answer, but after going thru the online GC manual page 157-159 this was the best I could provide. I hope it could be of any help or at least something to discuss around. /Paul

Hubert, I found the statistics on page123 in my old SC2 manual. Are those figures still valid? Also I’ve some more questions before I’ll come with my suggestions. Will you create a garrison type of unit or a divisional? Can a unit with 0 in SA even attack? HQ and transports can’t. If that’s the case we’re talking about a garrison unit. Please answer those questions and I think I’ve a pretty clear picture of how a garrison or division unit values should be. Thanks, Paul

Hubert, please see my answer two reply’s above.

"I'd be willing to discuss it further if you are equally inclined." Thanks Hubert! If I can be to any help, I’ll do my very best. “I encourage your friends to participate as well in the discussion” I’ll also try to get some of my friends involved. “I guess my question to you is how you feel about the above type of adjustment if we were to introduce Garrison units and if you would approach it differently?” As I mentioned earlier I’ve not played the game since the Patton expansion was released, so I’ve forgotten the unit statistics. There can I read the values for corps, armies and so on? I need that info to be able to come with helpful answers. Spontaneously I feel that maybe the approach should be differently then what you suggested. “For example in Weapons and Warfare Germany normally uses its Corps for this task and if I were to introduce Garrison units I would then prefer to lower their Corps builds to compensate, i.e. in Fall Weiss Germany can build 20 Corps and if let's say it could build 5 Garrison units then I would lower the Corps build to 15. This of course is just a general example of how I would prefer the math to be but it could also be something like 10 Garrison units and then only 10 Corps and so on.” As I see it, garrison units attack values should be very limited and therefore only considered a defense unit. If you add defense units the “attack momentum” in the game will be slowed down. If you “compensate” only with lesser corps for instance, that in fact is a potential attack unit, you just worsen this effect. I think instead you have to increase the overall attack values corresponding to little bit lesser then the added defense values. At the same time the number of corps should be lowered to reflect a balance in manpower. I think in the German case that you could add six garrison units and remove two corps, thus a 3:1 ratio. After I’ve seen the statistics I’ll try to advice how to balance the overall attack/defense capability. If it turns out to be too complicated we should consider the garrison more like a division with an attack value reflecting only its smaller size. In that case you can have a 3:1 or 2:1 ratio with just a small or no other overall attack value compensations. This solution has the benefit of giving us a more versatile unit. It could play the role of a volkssturm/home defense/militia unit and so on. If added readiness and strength, it could potentially play the role of historically famous and/or significant divisions like Azul. I think we should choose this road. Please remember that this is just my spontaneous view with no support in either statistics or simulated game play.

My friends and I bought several copies of SC2 then it came. Just like me, they did complain about the lack of a garrison/divisional unit. Still we bought WaW then it came, because we wanted to support the development effort. At the same time I wrote regularly at the Forum to share our concerns. Later then Patton and Pacific were released, still without a garrison/division unit, we gave up and didn’t even bother to buy the game anymore. I also left the Forum. I got very excited then I saw that GC was on its way, because a global campaign has always been a dream besides a bigger European map and divisional units. I got my friends attention to this and to my posts at the Forum. For the third time we feel disappointed. We don’t feel we need to support the game since WaW, because we’ve pointed out the need of garrison/divisional units so many times over the years with no success. We can wait for a bigger European map and an a-bomb as well as a new organization system that includes divisions and still buy the game to support its development – again. But we’ll not buy the game if it lacks a garrison/divisional unit, which are an absolutely necessary unit. We also feel that it should’ve been included a long time ago and the fact that it hasn’t feels a little bit nonchalant to us as players. If it’s not included then GC is released, we’ll wait until it’s included in a patch or a mod as Hubert wrote. Otherwise we’ll wait to the next game in the series. Sorry, but that is just how important a garrison/divisional unit is for realism as well as game play to us. This text is supported by: Andreas, Chris, Eric, Gustav, Kristian, Raul, Richard and Vavra.

"Dieppe or even D-Day" They took casualties because there were enemy units/divisions present. Now you can suffer losses even then you land in areas there no enemy would be present. Both these issues could be solved with the existence of Garrison/Static divisions/units.

"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.

First of all, no units on corps or armies levels can be rendered completely "combat ineffective" because of aerial bombings. Secondly there is not one single case I heard of there a corps or army have to reorganize in a city far away and change descriptions because of aerial attacks. Thirdly, doesn’t SC have combat readiness to reflect this? We’re talking strength here, were the actual number of soldiers and equipment is the most important component. And how about the absurd losses then you land at a costal square? What is you “explanations” to that? This was the reason we left this forum many years ago. It’s quite tiresome to hear diehard fans coming to the games defense no matter how correct and important the critics are. That only leads to that the game doesn’t evolve as fast as it could and therefore became uninteresting for me and many other players. Luckily, Hubert is more open minded and interested in constructive critic.

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.