On Garrison Battalions

[Noble713]

So what are Garrison Battalions supposed to represent? I just can't wrap my mind around the rational for damn near every country having these "speedbump" infantry battalions placed in their cities.

Are they police? If so, why do they eat up active military personnel and resources? If they represent the highly militarized internal security/police forces of countries like China and Russia, then liberal democracies probably shouldn't have them at all.

Are they civilian paramilitaries? Wouldn't they then just spawn as partisan units?

Are they supposed to be actual military organizations that just sit around cities? Besides many countries not having such a setup, wouldn't light infantry battalions be a better representation? Even partially developed countries have SOME kind of motorized transportation.



So as others have suggested, at the very least they should probably be trimmed down in SR2020, if not outright removed, but I'd like to see where the Goats were coming from before I advocate any heavier changes.

[Balthagor]

Garrisons are a basic infantry battalion slightly better than Conspcripts. While they may not be very powerful, having them in important cities keeps opposing troops from blitzing your territory. They also don't cost much so other than the argument or reducing total number of battalions per region, I'm not sure why they would need ot be removed.

We don't use light infantry because these are supposed to be defensive units without the mobility of something like light infantry.

Some of these units are abstracted for gameplay.

[Eric Larsen]

Chris,
Garrison units are nothing but garbage. The AI does not need static infantry to guard anything because most of the AI's mobile units just sit around and do nothing until attacked anyway, even at the most difficult and aggressive settings. I found every scenario to be rather boring because too many were just swamped with these garbage garrison units and not good modern units.

SR2010 was supposed to be about future warfare and futuristic weapons systems but that seemed to be a big tease. Showing and telling us of spiffy new futuristic weapons and then dumping a ton of garbage garrison units on the map just wasn't my idea of a fun future wargame.

Please don't make this mistake in SR2020. Garrison units are useless junk and I always scrap them on the first turn to free up manpower for good modern units plus save money. I sure hope that the SR2020 scenarios are less in quantity and more in quality. I also hope that I won't have to waste from several hours for a very small scenario to 20 or 30 hours for a large scenario and region just to do the first turn because I'm so busy figuring out what garbage to scrap and what good stuff I need to get to the borders and to take those large stacks of some type of units like arty or good AA and have to redistribute them around my region properly.
Eric Larsen

[Balthagor]

I'll float this idea around the rest of the team, but I'm confident I've logged more game hours in play time than you have and, while I have at times scrapped the garrisons, I've also used them in some cases to keep some active troops while I store my expensive forces to save money. They may not be the best troops but every unit can serve some purpose (even if they are just speed bumps, in MP I've faced blitzs where they allowed me the time to get quality troops into position).

[Il Duce]

In 2010, I used to start out scrapping all of the high-manpower/low-effect units as quickly as possible. Later, setting all debate of their value, relevance, or the probablility of their existence aside, I slowed down my pace of recycling somewhat - and it had nothing to do with finding these units useful, but more with wanting to minimize my buildup early on to keep my econ stable.

Playing a moderate to large region [where you are in the top 5 to 10 buildcap players], I don't think that people really understand how much those first year builds just trash your economy. Even with out closing bases, I began to be much more selective in builds - for instance, I would only build on 30-50% of my slots. Or I would only build long queues on outposts [single slots] and leave the larger bases idle [depending on where I wanted thing to end up - or even shut them down to get buildcap lower]. In some cases I would produce nothing but a engineer regiment [3 btns] at each 3-slot base and then leave the bases idle as supply sources, using the engineeers to accelerate infrastructre builds and then reinforce weak spots on the lines. In some cases the next step would be to build supply depots to simulate the presence of 3-bases which I could de-activate.

Although this lead to some 'cliffhanger' moments, watching everyone else build as quickly as possible, but using a lot of careful negotiation - backed by my stable econ and relatively non-belligerent posture, It was only a matter of time before everyone else would be at each others' throats and doing trade deals with me, and then - research completed and lots of good designs traded for - then I would commence to build armies that really nobody had the time, money, nor manpower to resist.

I kinda hate those garrison units, but they were manpower in the bank in this strategy, and I tended to trade out as needed [two of these garrisons could populate about 6 special forces units - which I didn't have the design for at the start of the game anyway]. This sort of thing has nothing to do with history, doctrine, or even storyline - it was just a solution to the problem as posed with the assets at hand.

[Noble713]

Garrisons are a basic infantry battalion slightly better than Conspcripts. While they may not be very powerful, having them in important cities keeps opposing troops from blitzing your territory. They also don't cost much so other than the argument or reducing total number of battalions per region, I'm not sure why they would need ot be removed.

We don't use light infantry because these are supposed to be defensive units without the mobility of something like light infantry.

Some of these units are abstracted for gameplay.

Hmmmm, in that case I suppose the aforementioned "Interior Police" model of China is the closest real-world approximation. I wouldn't advocate removing them from the game entirely, but (given my clearly biased slant towards realism) they are certainly something that I think only a few countries would actually have. I mean, the US doesn't have entire units of foot-mobile active duty troops randomly sitting around its cities.

Before I used to feel a little guilty deleting them in the scenario editor (not really understanding what they were for), but now I won't. Thanks for the insights!

[Balthagor]

...I used to feel a little guilty deleting them in the scenario editor...

I think you made some comment earlier that you were having troubles with editor. If so, post your questions in the scenario forum and I'll try and help you out.

[Eric Larsen]

I don't think that people really understand how much those first year builds just trash your economy. Even with out closing bases, I began to be much more selective in builds - for instance, I would only build on 30-50% of my slots.

Il Duce,
We think alike. I used to fill every build slot at the beginning of a game too because I thought I needed to keep up with the AI Jonses. Now on the first turn I only build stuff I really need where there is little in the way of a better unit. I build engineers, bridging units, and other things that may be in short supply from the setup.

On the first day I'm more interested in what new unit designs I want that I can pick up in trade. That's why I don't fill my build slots up on turn 1 anymore because on turn 2 I have newer unit designs and now I have empty build slots to take advantage of that. (Hint hint I sure hope the new improved SR2020 AI will think that way too)

In my last game I had kept my garrison units as California because I remembered all that ballyhoo about partisans. After conquering the Northwest I discovered that partisans are nothing but a hoax. I found that my large investment in infrastructure and law enforcement plus keeping my people happy in the low 40's of approval made partisans moot. After I figured that out I scrapped all my garrison units that I'd split in half to garrison newly conquered towns and cities.

I've found that maintaining a smaller mobile force with combined arms capability is the way to go. Even when conquering a new region the first thing I do is scrap the garbage and any superfluous bases. Maintaining a higher military efficiency is much more affordable when you keep your bases and units streamlined and scrap ones you just don't need.

As to what would make a good garrison I found special forces and man carried AT like the Javelin or Trigat are especially excellent fighting in urban terrain. So if you want a less mobile garrison force then go for the special forces and leg AT units. They are hard to kill in urban terrain and dish out some serious damage. I now am very careful not to attack leg AT units in urban areas with hard target type units, now I use only soft target infantry plus lots of arty.
Eric Larsen

[Feltan]

I think people will rethink the value of inexpensive garrison units (be they police, gendearmes, internal police, militia, etc. (Note: I am perfectly happy considering the unit an abstract representation of any of these forces.)) when two conditions are met:

1. Playing a second or third tier country with a long coastline.
2. When the AI is fixed to actually conduct amphib assaults.

As a major player on the offense, garrison units are virtually useless crap. We can all agree on that. However, for the less well off nations such units can provide an important deterent.

Regards,
Feltan

[tkobo]

I still use garrison units on occasion when i play as a very poor region(or too stretched).
I use them ,well,as garrisons.

Especially when i am advancing early in a game,becuase they make a cheap effective low tech "police" force to keep the guerilla population down in occupied lands.

Like Feltan ,I also suspect that if the AI becomes more proficient in its attacks, more people will sprinkle a few garrison units in their force mix.
Especially if guerilla forces get more str (can spawn more than one in a particular place,stay in play til end of scenario, and than can move around)

[Il Duce]

Long borders, deep borders....
As defined today, Russia spans some 11-13 timezones, thousands and thousands of klicks of primarily land borders. It is inevitable that you will have 'weak' sectors advancing this across the Gobi and the Balkans and Norway and everywhere else. Pushing even 500 klicks deep and pausing will net you LOTS of partisan/Guerilla activity in some areas - this ain't like North America where you can leave a skeleton force as you progress and concentrate south - increasing landmass while reducing land border size all the way to Central America.... Partisans are no hoax, although they are not a major threat either. I find I must allocate two entire special forces divisions [of four brigades] just to 'smokejump' on these guys nearly daily, and it often takes as much as forty-eight hours just to deploy on them, due to distances and maintining existing force integrity.

I would lke to see 'garrisons' more clearly defined as 'Nat Guard,' 'MP,' and possibly a few 'Embassy Security' and 'Border Patrol' btns - but then, I can also live without a zillion diverse units in the lists too. [BTW - you can always split a garrison of 700 and get 2 tidy 350-person btns that work acceptably.]

I think the goats have used them 'appropriately' to represent or augment forces [like border patrol and customs, otherwise not represented in the game] in a general way - consistent with game play and scenario design. I think further insistence on doctrinal or historical accuracy is probably irrelevant, and likely to be ineffective.

[BigStone]

I still use garrison units on occasion when i play as a very poor region.....

I even use conscripts .....

[tkobo]

Big,how do they hold up againts the guerillas units ?

If they can do the job, without too much losss, Ill probably give them a try.Dont know why i havent yet.

[BigStone]

Well .. it's a long time ago i played the game ..
So i don't know exactly how the perfomance was. But in my last campaign ( Albania / highest diff lvl) i used the conscripts in the front line and if irc .. they did a good job ! Holding up attacks so i could send in reinforcements in time (that sort of tactics )

[geminif4ucorsair]

Hmmmm, in that case I suppose the aforementioned "Interior Police" model of China is the closest real-world approximation. I wouldn't advocate removing them from the game entirely, but (given my clearly biased slant towards realism) they are certainly something that I think only a few countries would actually have. I mean, the US doesn't have entire units of foot-mobile active duty troops randomly sitting around its cities.

Not really.....the People's Armed Police (PAP) do not have the light armoured vehicles - usually 4x4s - that are represented in Garrison units possession in the game. For example, alot of the world's light armoured 4x4 vehicles are not represented in the EquipmentList options because they are indeed part of the Garrision units oufitting.

Hence, these 'city-dwellers' as some might call them, are still useful for retaining control of one's cities and territory early in the game when economics must place in reserve more expensive units, and in gaining permanent control of conquered territory when they are moved in after one gains cities & lands - moving Garrison units into such land's prevents their being returned to the enemy by default, and it adds to such factors as Civilian Approval, Loyalty and helps prevent such events as breakaway territories.