Discussion of the Garrison System

Talk about on-going development of Supreme Ruler 2020 here. What would you like to see in updates or in a future Supreme Ruler title?

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Locked
Saarud
Lieutenant
Posts: 91
Joined: Oct 29 2002

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by Saarud »

Garrisons are way to overpowered, but it seems that this will change and I am glad for that. In general I think the garrison system is a good idea but imho it's implemented wrong. While I would like garrisons to stay but much, much, much weaker (more of a speed bump) I would also like regular infantry back. Most poor nations irl base their military on a regular infantry and without them the game just seems wrong to play for example Eritrea or such nation.

Also all "leg" infantry units shouldn't just have a movement of 5 kph. All over the world even in the most poor nation their military units aren't just walking where they are going. Generally military trucks are used but even other civilian vehicles are used when the military moves. So I would like to increase the speed of all "leg" infantry to atleast 20 kph but preferably even 30 or 40.
User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2688
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by George Geczy »

Saarud wrote:I would also like regular infantry back.
There are still the standard "Conscript" units, as well as the more general-purpose "Light Infantry". For most militaries, the Light Infantry would be the standard type of high-quantity general-purpose infantry unit.
Also all "leg" infantry units shouldn't just have a movement of 5 kph. All over the world even in the most poor nation their military units aren't just walking where they are going. Generally military trucks are used but even other civilian vehicles are used when the military moves. So I would like to increase the speed of all "leg" infantry to atleast 20 kph but preferably even 30 or 40.
At first glance I didn't like this idea much, since for infantry with transport you have the "Light Infantry" type. However, we do consider the "occasional transport" situation when we model towed units (artillery, anti-air) which generally have a speed of about 20 km/h to simulate the 'towing'. Given that, it would not be unreasonable to put the speed of infantry to 20 km/h to simulate 'trucking'. As well, if they were the same speed as towed units, they would work well together, as well as simulating the fact that the trucks carrying the infantry would tow the equipment.

-- George.
User avatar
Uriens
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 588
Joined: Oct 05 2005

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by Uriens »

Just to drop in my 2c;

Reducing the strength of garrisons itself would probably be more in favor of player then in favor of AI. Personally, all my border cities have at least 1 artillery (usually towed) unit, 1 anti tank unit, and at least one infantry unit, preferably with good close combat defense. So far I have yet to lose a single city to AI. Garrisons don't do the much work for me, regular units do. Reducing garrison strength would not have any effect on my own defences but it would have a huge impact on my ability to overwhelm AI regions.
Other suggestions look better though, increasing time necessary to produce a garrison unit is a good, logical and realistic idea. Right now, in a city, 1 unit is generated at the start of each day and then it takes some time for them to reach full effectiveness in there. Increasing time for them to generate (like 1 unit every 5 days) would significantly lessen their abuse and frequency.

Another great point made here is that AI needs to be rearrange its garrisons more 'dynamically' according to the situations. I don't remember seeing AI reduce it's garrisons in the city - ever (although I didn't play very long so I might be wrong). If AI would focus on placing garrisons in cities that are close to the front line and maybe on the cities where partisan units may appear, it would significantly reduce its reserve/money drain it has now. Just have AI garrison cities that are close to the border and some large ones(500000 pop at least) +capitol (against paratroop attacks).

However, AI needs to be more agile with his artillery units as well. So far it seems that 2020 AI is significantly better at placing his artillery units then 2010 AI was but it still does that very rare. Probably the best choice for him is to try to place at least 1 artillery unit at each border town (where he would place garrisons as well). It would significantly boost AI's ability to defend since artillery not only does ranged damage to the whole unit stack but it adds suppression enemy units making them less effective and more vulnerable to enemy attacks. I had a situation while I was playing Moscow yesterday where I attacked Lening ... I mean ST. Petersburg and was using mostly infantry units there because of lots of close combat hexes. While I had little trouble taking most of his strong points, fighting near capitol was a different matter. Due to the artillery AI placed in capitol and surrounding cities I took heavy losses while I was attempting to take it. I had situations where full stack of vodnik infantry and btr-3 units moved next to a city, got suppressed by artillery and then got hit by defending garrisons. Due to the suppression, 3-4 units in stack would immediately retreat taking heavy damage leaving the rest to fend for themselves. Simply put, straight charge was a bad idea. If AI utilized his artillery units more, it would need less of the garrisons to defend itself properly. I guess, what I'm trying to say is that AI should use more of the regular units (Artillery, AT, AA) to place in the border city and less rely on static garrisons. It would make game more dynamic and AI more effective.

Not sure if it was mentioned but garrison units increase maintenance costs and better handling of garrisons and defenses would significantly lessen AI burden on economy.
catatonic
General
Posts: 1113
Joined: Jun 03 2009
Human: Yes

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by catatonic »

Saarud wrote: Also all "leg" infantry units shouldn't just have a movement of 5 kph. All over the world even in the most poor nation their military units aren't just walking where they are going. Generally military trucks are used but even other civilian vehicles are used when the military moves. So I would like to increase the speed of all "leg" infantry to at least 20 kph but preferably even 30 or 40.
George is correct. Leg units are just that - foot-soldiers. Speeding them up would make them very un-realistic in that it covers up the fact that you did not provide transportation for them. All of them can be air-lifted and most can be air-dropped. They all have "Air Transport" and "Sea Transport" orders.

I don't enjoy micro-managing them and I have a suggestion for improving this which I outline below. But I do approve of the principal.

In SR2020 all of the different specialized units need logistical support in order to work efficiently. Marines need amphibious ships, cargo planes and helicopters to work effectively.

You should use trucks and helos to move your leg units. If you keep a supply of free-roaming Blackhawk helos and give the Defense Minister control of them then they will automatically take your foot-guys anywhere they ask to go. This includes Anti-tank teams, field guns and those lousy FIM teams.


George:

IMHO there are two things missing from the game in this respect:

1) Armored personnel carriers (APCs) that actually carry foot soldiers.

2) A "Land Transport" command.

I know that SR2020 APCs have a realistic crew size of 13 soldiers and that their intrinsic stats reflect the fact that they discharge riflemen onto the battlefield and have a mounted machine gun.But most of the land-tansport available for ground-pounders is soft - offering them very little protection.

In my mod I offer 9 different real APCs that will transport ground-pounders. However, the problem from a modders perspective is that once you give and APC the "transport" capability, the game re-classifys it as a Transport/Supply unit, despite the fact that it is a strong figher, and has an infantry unit ID number.

BG did a great job of implementing the "Air Transport" and "Sea Transport" orders. I was disappointed when I discovered that the "Land Transport" hotspot has nothing to do with transport. You should certainly re-visit this.
"War is merely the continuation of politics [diplomacy] by other means"
General Carl von Clausewitz - 1832

"Defense: De ting dat keeps de cows off de road."
Catatonic - 2012
User avatar
Ufllee
Sergeant
Posts: 18
Joined: Nov 17 2008
Location: Germany/USA

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by Ufllee »

Catatonic's point would make since if the units simulated in game weren’t Battalions. Having to "micro-manage" the transport of a light infantry battalion using another Blackhawk (AV) battalion is not the focus of the game as I see it nor the way the DEVs designed it. The Devs have obviously gone to great pains to take battalions and all the personnel and equipment variables within them and whittle that down to a series of numbers that reflect (generally) the sum of all their parts. A light infantry battalions MTOE (the breakdown of what they own) comes with all the various trucking equipment the Commander needs to move it from point A to point B on the ground. Granted it’s in the back of poorly armored Deuce and half trucks and HMMWVs. (15 and 26 each respectively) For longer moves, (theater or operational level) they absolutely do depend on sea and air lift.

I agree with increasing the ground speed movement of light infantry and the like. It is realistic, and most importantly in keeping with the intent of the DEVs as they have described their unit concept. (EG these things are complete Battalions)
A bench mark speed would be whatever speed the transport battalions currently move at, since they (at least in US terms), use the same or similar equipment.
catatonic
General
Posts: 1113
Joined: Jun 03 2009
Human: Yes

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by catatonic »

Ufllee wrote:Catatonic's point would make since if the units simulated in game weren’t Battalions. Having to "micro-manage" the transport of a light infantry battalion using another Blackhawk (AV) battalion is not the focus of the game as I see it nor the way the DEVs designed it. The Devs have obviously gone to great pains to take battalions and all the personnel and equipment variables within them and whittle that down to a series of numbers that reflect (generally) the sum of all their parts. A light infantry battalions MTOE (the breakdown of what they own) comes with all the various trucking equipment the Commander needs to move it from point A to point B on the ground. Granted it’s in the back of poorly armored Deuce and half trucks and HMMWVs. (15 and 26 each respectively) For longer moves, (theater or operational level) they absolutely do depend on sea and air lift.

I agree with increasing the ground speed movement of light infantry and the like. It is realistic, and most importantly in keeping with the intent of the DEVs as they have described their unit concept. (EG these things are complete Battalions)
A bench mark speed would be whatever speed the transport battalions currently move at, since they (at least in US terms), use the same or similar equipment.
The discussion is not about "Light Infantry Batatalions". These units are mobile - they already have trucks to transport them. The discussion is about non-mobile foot soldiers such as Marines, Conscripts, Foreign Leagion, Special Forces, Green Berets and Airborne.

The "DEVS" obviously DID intend for us to move foot-units using supplementry logistical unts such as trucks and helicopters. That is exactly why these foot-unit move so slowly and have such a limited range of travel per day. You do not get to use them unless you provide the necessary logistical support , i.e. trucks and helicopters.
"War is merely the continuation of politics [diplomacy] by other means"
General Carl von Clausewitz - 1832

"Defense: De ting dat keeps de cows off de road."
Catatonic - 2012
Hundane
General
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sep 11 2008

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by Hundane »

The discussion is about non-mobile foot soldiers such as Marines, Conscripts, Foreign Leagion, Special Forces, Green Berets and Airborne.
Actually this discussion about the garrison system.
For the AI, a garrison unit is often requested in a place where the AI would want to place a defender infantry (such as a light infantry or conscript) if Garrisons were not available.
Do I understand this correctly? Would having a no garrisons option increase the AI's movement of units away from thier building locales ? Would the AI, instead of ordering a garrison , order a new unit to be built and/or order a completed unit sent to defend the hex ?
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by tkobo »

Hundane wrote:
Do I understand this correctly? Would having a no garrisons option increase the AI's movement of units away from thier building locales ? Would the AI, instead of ordering a garrison , order a new unit to be built and/or order a completed unit sent to defend the hex ?
Thats the way its supposed to work.But the AI still sends units to guard locations that have garrisons, and the garrisons becuase they dont always prevent a city from being captured before they pop dont do their job as well as a real unit....
And its supposed to free the player from having to micro ground units into all the locations he wants protected.

Another problem is the build ratio,which often isnt weighted enough on ground combat units,making it so there is a shortage of real units to send to war,even with garrisons.Its worse without them though, as more ground combat units are tied up guarding hexes.

Which is why (build ratio) so many of the encampments around "key" hexes is so far tilted with large amounts of art and anti air, and little ground combat units.

If the build orders for regions adapted and adjusted (better) due to type of units already in existence,alot of this wouldnt be a big issue.The Ai should see they have far too many of a type of unit, and stop making them.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
Saarud
Lieutenant
Posts: 91
Joined: Oct 29 2002

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by Saarud »

George Geczy wrote:
Saarud wrote:I would also like regular infantry back.
There are still the standard "Conscript" units, as well as the more general-purpose "Light Infantry". For most militaries, the Light Infantry would be the standard type of high-quantity general-purpose infantry unit.
This thread is about garrisons so this might be abit OT. But what I really meant with my post above was that since I don't consider garrisons actual units I would like nations infantry forces to actual be units in the game. I'm at work right now so I can't see the exact unit number but if you take Eritrea for example they have like maximum 10 units of light infantry and conscripts in game while they should have something like 100 units or so going by irl. I do understand that this would slow down the game enormously so I don't expect this to happen but hopefully you will atleast think about this in future games. Not everyone is interested in just teching fast and using the best units available. My preferred playing style is to actually trying to simulate conflicts of different kind and when you play Eritrea you really should have loads of infantry.

Besides I'd like more kind of regular "Leg" units. ;)

Sorry about that... back to discussing Garrisons.
User avatar
Ufllee
Sergeant
Posts: 18
Joined: Nov 17 2008
Location: Germany/USA

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by Ufllee »

Hullu Hevonen wrote: Here, when you enter your conscription, you get a basic training (5 weeks) then you specialize in something, in total this is minimum 6 months. With almost any specialization you can get tasked whit garrison tasks. Eg. frontline infantry, tanks squadrons, artillery can be tasked whit this. You simply do as your told[.]

As I re-read this topic, two things pop to mind;
1. Do we even need garrisons in the game? If you took them out would it make the AI better? (e.g. forcing it to work harder create more units)

2. If they are value-added, should they be more similar to garrisons/conscripts as Hulla notes and only be available to AI or players at a time of war or at at a certain DEFCON level? (e.g. DEFCON 3 and above)
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by tkobo »

Since your gonna be delving into supply and cities, how about airfields also ?

Perhaps consider making it so aircraft can always land at airfields,but that supply is only available when the airfield is functional ?This would prevent alot of the loss issue,but still allow a penalty to airfields newly captured .As the aircraft though safely landed,would be pretty much stranded there til more supplies came along.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Uriens
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 588
Joined: Oct 05 2005

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by Uriens »

Ufllee wrote:
Hullu Hevonen wrote: 1. Do we even need garrisons in the game? If you took them out would it make the AI better? (e.g. forcing it to work harder create more units)
I don't think so. You didn't have them in the 2010 and after start of the war all you had to do is defend against initial attack. After then, when most if not all AI units were either destroyed or being repaired you had a free reign over his cities. He would usually had flower-like defences of artillery and aa units around his bases as only defense left in his country. At least with garrisons AI has time to repair and make new units while garrisons fend off attackers. Actually, introducing garrisons is a step in right direction in making AI harder. It could use some more tuning, as it was already mentioned in this thread, but they definitely are a good feature to have.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by Balthagor »

Uriens wrote:...I don't think so. You didn't have them in the 2010...
That's incorrect, they were buildable units just like everything else.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by tkobo »

Im pretty sure Uriens means as they are now, IE they were NOT buildable at the city,thereby bypassing the military fabs and the need to micro them into place.

And we already know, the AI does worse holding its territory without them, as we have the first game to show us example after example.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Uriens
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 588
Joined: Oct 05 2005

Re: Discussion of the Garrison System

Post by Uriens »

Tkobo is right, that's what I meant. Sorry for not being clear there.
Locked

Return to “Development - 2020”