Ruges wrote:I think first we have to decide what garrisons are.
Are they regular infanty? (just stationed at the city)
Are they reservists? (IE like the US's army reserve)
Are they armed civilians? (people who live in the city but take up arms to defend against an aggresor)
Becouse of this it depends on how strong they should be, how fast they should construct, and what they should be able todo.
There was a request to start a new thread based on this post.
To answer some of what the current system does, the intention is for these troops to be more like reservists because they come from the reserve personnel pool, not from the population of the city.
Feel free to discuss the system and potential changes for future consideration.
IMO, garrisons are called-up reservists and should remain in that roll. My only request to BG is that when a region falls that ALL garrisons immediately disband and their personnel returned to the national population or total reserve count.
Ruges wrote:I think first we have to decide what garrisons are.
Are they regular infanty? (just stationed at the city)
Are they reservists? (IE like the US's army reserve)
Are they armed civilians? (people who live in the city but take up arms to defend against an aggresor)
Becouse of this it depends on how strong they should be, how fast they should construct, and what they should be able todo.
There was a request to start a new thread based on this post.
To answer some of what the current system does, the intention is for these troops to be more like reservists because they come from the reserve personnel pool, not from the population of the city.
Feel free to discuss the system and potential changes for future consideration.
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[.]
IMO, I consider garrisons to be different styles depending on the regions they come from. In many other regions, they would represent the police forces as well as armed civilians (IE militia,security guards and even gang members etc..).
In some of 3rd world regions these garrisons are comprised of men under the control of warlords, drug lords, terrorist groups etc.. Too bad they didnt have thier own internal power struggles.
And in other regions they are well trained but poorly equiped men whos primary functions is to protect the goverment, its officials/leaders and/or serve as its police force. A military unit mainly for defense and security.
In some regions it may be a combination of all the above.
I really dont see them as reservists. Reason being is that there too many of them in some regions to be just reservists,especially during peacetime. They also dont move from the city unless they are pushed out. Players will lower garrisons to fill the need of new units but not sure if the AI regions do this. So basically the "reservists" stay in their home city at all times.
the intention is for these troops to be more like reservists because they come from the reserve personnel pool, not from the population of the city.
I wondering how hard it would be to have them based on city population or even a combination of city populations and reserve pool.
If the intent is to portray reservists or part-time/partially trained conscripts and the like then they I say keep them as is, but reduce their close combat effectiveness and suppression requirement.
In many countries where there is a full or partial mobilization (Iraq, US, Britain etc), there are units whose task it is to defend local areas, key infrastructure etec. (a great book regarding this idea is the "Last Ditch", from Britain circa 60s)
They are by definition a defensive, or preventative measure to deny sabotage, espionage, maintain order and assist local law enforcement in a time of flux. They fight from prepared positions, estbalish check points, conduct mounted and dismounted patrols. They operate in small groups and depend on active forces (if avaible) to provide air support, mobilitiy, overall command and control (the big picture) and robust logisitics.
When confronted with superior numbers or significant combat power they defend (if possible), delay, attrit and retrograde (run).
As they exsist now in game, they are too capable. Having been in several situations involving these types of troops from different countries, I respect the desire and design to have them be close combat masters, but it isnt nearly realistic.
I support reduced close combat skill for garrisons, (Lower than regular "leg" infantry), maintain the abillity to retrograde away from cities while suppressed (and therefore into open terrain), and accordingly reducing their open terrain combat skills. (maybe even drastically, since they are in a rout and operating antequated equipment, assuming said country mans and equips its active force first and best). I support reducing the suppression requirment, which would force them to move out of positions faster, which would be realistic, and I also support having a portion (percentage/random?) of the uncaptured garrisons to morph into partisans, with similar combat power. (low open terrain and higher close combat skills)
the effect would be to have a decent short fight in the city, (determined by number of garrisons) then a retrograde where they would be at a severe disadvantage and would have no choice but to a. die, b. turn into partisan or c. disband and reenter the reserve pool.
Are they regular infanty? (just stationed at the city)
Are they reservists? (IE like the US's army reserve)
Are they armed civilians? (people who live in the city but take up arms to defend against an aggresor)
I think that we should rule out regular infantry. They don't train in barracks- they spawn in cities and facilities.
I think that the manpower pool adequately abstracts reservists too. Bring them up to speed is covered by the build time or regular units. Reservist formations take time to gear-up.
For me they best represent local malitas. Varied according to region. As I stated in the last thread- think of faluja and Hezbolah in the Lebanon. In somewhere like the states they can represent a mixed band of para military types.
My knee jerk reaction is to agree with lowering their combat stats. But on reflecting on Faluja and Israli experience in Lebanon I'm not so sure. Ideally what I would like to see is them limited in number. Not spawned everywhere. Just key cities and odd cases like faluja. I don't know how/if BG would implement that. And their manpower should be upped to represent the amount of casualties they take for thr damage inflicted. And their build time increased drastically. Several thousand of defenders can turn up from around the world even; but it takes much longer.
We need to figure out a way to keep garrisons from stacking up in massive numbers across the globe. I would highly prefer to do that before we get into discussions of exactly what kind of infantry they are and how strong or weak they should be, or how long they should train/cost, etc.
We need to figure out a way to keep garrisons from stacking up in massive numbers across the globe.
Are you talking about the pushed out stacks or the total amount of garrisons everywhere ?
I would highly prefer to do that before we get into discussions of exactly what kind of infantry they are and how strong or weak they should be, or how long they should train/cost, etc.
Defining what they should represent would be the 1st step in figuring out how to do deal with how they stack. Whether they be pushed out stacks or still in the box.
Is there anyone who doesnt think a big problem with them is the amount of them that end up on a map ?
I think that is the problem, too many garrisons world wide which results in alot of the pushed out damaged garrisons that sit there almost forever. Would/should they disband ? go for repairs ? get scrapped ? Something else ? Kinda all depends on what type of unit they are representing.
That's actually quite an easy one - limit garrisons by population. Sure, a 10 million metropolis could have 10 garrison units, but a town of 10.000 people should get a maximum of one. Maybe even none at all actually, one could come after 50.000. Then, tie in the exposed garrisons into the normal military AI and they won't stay in one huge stack.
Keep the build time longish (6 weeks) and they won't accumulate so quickly.
From a game mechanics viewpoint Reducing open terrain fighting abilties, decreasing suppression requirement might still leave a lot of garrison units outside of cities but they would be easy pickings. (as they should be in the context the DEVs have laid out)
i also agree with the population cap idea, (per city) though a requirement for MINIMUM population or certain type of infrastruture might simulate real world use better. (IE a village cant have a garrison due to limited population, UNLESS they had a uranium mine, military goods factory or industrial goods factory present (key infrastructure, those were just a few possiblities off the top of my head) then the AI could station a garrison there.
That's actually quite an easy one - limit garrisons by population. Sure, a 10 million metropolis could have 10 garrison units, but a town of 10.000 people should get a maximum of one. Maybe even none at all actually, one could come after 50.000. Then, tie in the exposed garrisons into the normal military AI and they won't stay in one huge stack.
Keep the build time longish (6 weeks) and they won't accumulate so quickly.
That would be an improvement. Also I'd limit them to cities, not facilities.