Jump to content

Garrisons and A-bomb


Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

Hi Paul

There is one problem with this suggestion, in that if the railway network has been either cut off or badly damaged then operating the garrison out of the resource won't be possible, and players will find it rather frustrating if they can't replace that weak garrison unit with a fully armed Panzergruppe raring for battle. So we would also need to come up with an idea on how to resolve this issue, and perhaps garrisons will have to have some movement ability?

In the Pacific game we did introduce Japanese Corps with weak stats that are mobilized at various points in the game to act as garrisons in the Pacific islands and a few other places such as Hong Kong. Japan also has its Home Guard which is activated when the Allies approach the home islands, the intention here being to achieve some of the effect of garrisons, i.e. key areas are protected, while also avoiding increasing Japan's offensive potential too much early in the game.

In the Global game I think there is less need for divisional level garrisons than before, and some countries have Home Guards that mobilize in response to enemy advances, so although we may not have totally removed your desire for such a unit, I think you will probably find there is less call for it than before. But it's an interesting discussion nonetheless!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Paul

There is one problem with this suggestion, in that if the railway network has been either cut off or badly damaged then operating the garrison out of the resource won't be possible, and players will find it rather frustrating if they can't replace that weak garrison unit with a fully armed Panzergruppe raring for battle. So we would also need to come up with an idea on how to resolve this issue, and perhaps garrisons will have to have some movement ability?

In the Pacific game we did introduce Japanese Corps with weak stats that are mobilized at various points in the game to act as garrisons in the Pacific islands and a few other places such as Hong Kong. Japan also has its Home Guard which is activated when the Allies approach the home islands, the intention here being to achieve some of the effect of garrisons, i.e. key areas are protected, while also avoiding increasing Japan's offensive potential too much early in the game.

In the Global game I think there is less need for divisional level garrisons than before, and some countries have Home Guards that mobilize in response to enemy advances, so although we may not have totally removed your desire for such a unit, I think you will probably find there is less call for it than before. But it's an interesting discussion nonetheless!

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

Not a wasted discussion at all and I think I have a better picture of what you might be after. In fact I'd definitely say, hypothetically speaking of course ;), that if we were to introduce a divisional sized map the need for a Garrison type unit would make a lot more sense :)

In the end and when looking at a larger map a simple Garrison type, much like Cantona66 is suggesting, might just do the trick and I can actually see the fit there.

I know I've mentioned this before but seeing as we are only weeks away once everyone has a closer look at Global I think my hesitation to include it in this game will make a lot more sense as the scale is significantly different than previous releases as well as much smaller than a proper divisional sized map would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add my 2 cents:

I agree that garrisons would add realism to the game. I also agree with HC that you can't just allow unlimited garrisons as there would be no "cost" for governing ever-expanding territory. I agree that the solution is to allow garrisons, penalize the player with reduced corps, BUT allow for several (say 3 or 4) weak garrisons to be created at the cost of 1 corps.

I disagree when HC says that it would all come out the same (i.e., the build penalty for corps would be the same as having no garrisons but imposing the burden on the player of using corps units to protect cities). As it stands now, you have to use multiple corps, and sometimes air and army units to destroy many of the partisan units, so allowing the player to create multiple garrisons at the cost of one corps would be a much better bargain than forcing him to use corps and armies to extirpate partisans..

I also want to second a comment above that the partisan units (at least in the Pacific Theater game) are too uniformly powerful, especially given how numerous they are. They pop up right in major cities and then it can take a major effort to eliminate them. In some PT games I have played, they popped up in a capital city and "liberated" a conquered country.

I think partisan units should form outside major cities. Most partisan units should be a nuisance; a few could be more powerful, like Tito's partisans.

BTW, I can't wait for the game to come out. I also look forward to a good WWIII/Cold War scenario either as an expansion from Battlefront or via a mod.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...