SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators
-
- General
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: Jun 08 2005
SRGW - Garrison's too strong
* The U.S. is at war with Germany (as are several other countries).
One of the issue experienced during an U.S. assault against German-controlled atolls in the Pacific is that there
Garrison units are far to powerful, relative to the reduced attack ratings for INFANTRY, which are reduced from those included in SR-49/SR-36 games. In these attempts to seize the atolls is that the U.S. lost an average of 4 x Infantry units versus each Garrison unit.
* Garrison units of the World War One era were little more than militia, often manned by over-aged soldiers called back to duty from earlier era's and wars.
* SOLUTION. Reduce the defense rating of Garrison's, to fit the era.
One of the issue experienced during an U.S. assault against German-controlled atolls in the Pacific is that there
Garrison units are far to powerful, relative to the reduced attack ratings for INFANTRY, which are reduced from those included in SR-49/SR-36 games. In these attempts to seize the atolls is that the U.S. lost an average of 4 x Infantry units versus each Garrison unit.
* Garrison units of the World War One era were little more than militia, often manned by over-aged soldiers called back to duty from earlier era's and wars.
* SOLUTION. Reduce the defense rating of Garrison's, to fit the era.
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22107
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
I've moved the post because this should have some validation by the community before making this kind of change. I know that you know your stuff, but I'd like buy in of others first.
Combat stats are
Close/Soft/Hard/Fortification/Ground Defense/Tactical Air Def/Indirect Def/Close Def
1900's Garrison
C/S/H/F - G/T/I/C
3/3/1/0 - 3/2/3/4
1900's Infantry
4/4/1/0 - 3/2/3/4
What are the new suggested values for the garrisons? This?
3/3/1/0 - 2/1/1/2?
Does anyone think that the current values are fine?
Combat stats are
Close/Soft/Hard/Fortification/Ground Defense/Tactical Air Def/Indirect Def/Close Def
1900's Garrison
C/S/H/F - G/T/I/C
3/3/1/0 - 3/2/3/4
1900's Infantry
4/4/1/0 - 3/2/3/4
What are the new suggested values for the garrisons? This?
3/3/1/0 - 2/1/1/2?
Does anyone think that the current values are fine?
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
I think that garrison alues are fine. The problem with atolls is (I think) that infantry is unloaded directly into enemy held close defense hex (without artillery support). After few rounds of combat infantry units are without supply, while garrison do not run out of supply.Balthagor wrote:I've moved the post because this should have some validation by the community before making this kind of change. I know that you know your stuff, but I'd like buy in of others first.
Combat stats are
Close/Soft/Hard/Fortification/Ground Defense/Tactical Air Def/Indirect Def/Close Def
1900's Garrison
C/S/H/F - G/T/I/C
3/3/1/0 - 3/2/3/4
1900's Infantry
4/4/1/0 - 3/2/3/4
What are the new suggested values for the garrisons? This?
3/3/1/0 - 2/1/1/2?
Does anyone think that the current values are fine?
If we lower garrison stats ,we'll again have rather useless garrisons all over the map and blitzkriegs and easy victories as result. Personally I think tougher garrisons give us more interesting and historicall gameplay (blitzing all over the world is no longer so easy).
And regular infantry shoul'd really suck in doing opposed amphibious landings in WW1 era.
Also, most German overseas territories were very poorly defended. Yes, there were garrisons in the Pacific, but their morale was extremely low.
Proposed solution: - significantly lower moralle of all garrisons spawned/raised by colonies (that woul'd also be wery historically accourate). So colonial garrisons shoul'd suffer moralle and/or organisational penalties. homeland garrisons shoul'd stay tough.
Please teach AI everything!
-
- General
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Jul 14 2004
- Human: Yes
- Location: Space Coast, FL
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
This get my voteZuikaku wrote:I think that garrison alues are fine. The problem with atolls is (I think) that infantry is unloaded directly into enemy held close defense hex (without artillery support). After few rounds of combat infantry units are without supply, while garrison do not run out of supply.Balthagor wrote:I've moved the post because this should have some validation by the community before making this kind of change. I know that you know your stuff, but I'd like buy in of others first.
Combat stats are
Close/Soft/Hard/Fortification/Ground Defense/Tactical Air Def/Indirect Def/Close Def
1900's Garrison
C/S/H/F - G/T/I/C
3/3/1/0 - 3/2/3/4
1900's Infantry
4/4/1/0 - 3/2/3/4
What are the new suggested values for the garrisons? This?
3/3/1/0 - 2/1/1/2?
Does anyone think that the current values are fine?
If we lower garrison stats ,we'll again have rather useless garrisons all over the map and blitzkriegs and easy victories as result. Personally I think tougher garrisons give us more interesting and historicall gameplay (blitzing all over the world is no longer so easy).
And regular infantry shoul'd really suck in doing opposed amphibious landings in WW1 era.
Also, most German overseas territories were very poorly defended. Yes, there were garrisons in the Pacific, but their morale was extremely low.
Proposed solution: - significantly lower moralle of all garrisons spawned/raised by colonies (that woul'd also be wery historically accourate). So colonial garrisons shoul'd suffer moralle and/or organisational penalties. homeland garrisons shoul'd stay tough.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
-
- General
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: Jun 08 2005
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
I would also agree this issue of Supply.Zuikaku wrote:Balthagor wrote:I've moved the post because this should have some validation by the community before making this kind of change. I know that you know your stuff, but I'd like buy in of others first.
I think that garrison alues are fine. The problem with atolls is (I think) that infantry is unloaded directly into enemy held close defense hex (without artillery support). After few rounds of combat infantry units are without supply, while garrison do not run out of supply.
If we lower garrison stats ,we'll again have rather useless garrisons all over the map and blitzkriegs and easy victories as result. Personally I think tougher garrisons give us more interesting and historicall gameplay (blitzing all over the world is no longer so easy).
And regular infantry shoul'd really suck in doing opposed amphibious landings in WW1 era.
Also, most German overseas territories were very poorly defended. Yes, there were garrisons in the Pacific, but their morale was extremely low.
Proposed solution: - significantly lower moralle of all garrisons spawned/raised by colonies (that woul'd also be wery historically accourate). So colonial garrisons should suffer morale and/or organizational penalties. homeland garrisons should stay tough.
* VIEW POINT. Personally I think tougher garrisons give us more interesting and historicall gameplay (blitzing all over the world is no longer so easy).
This maybe more entertaining but it also delays the historical aspects and success of blitzkrieg assaults that come at later historical times; so I would disagree against tougher garrisons unless they are in fully Supply. [see Comments below...]
* AAR. After getting a large Civilian Cargo ship into the immediate hex, for @ two turns, Infantry in the assault role get their full green (supplied) color, but then that goes away almost immediately.
And, defending Garrisons remain out of supply status, yet continue to attack and decimate attacking Infantry.
* HISTORICAL. In fact, the US Army and Marines did land heavy artillery (105 & 155-mm) on secondary atolls that were not defended and then used them to bombard primary objective islands that were under assault. It worked well.
But, in SRGW you cannot land this heavy artillery to support the assaulting Infantry.
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
And how many blietzkrig campaigns were a success? 2-2,5. And the main reason for this was technical and numerical superiority (Poland) and low moralle (France and Low countries).geminif4ucorsair wrote: This maybe more entertaining but it also delays the historical aspects and success of blitzkrieg assaults that come at later historical times; so I would disagree against tougher garrisons unless they are in fully Supply. [see Comments below...]
Don't know about the rest of the players but don't want to see any more of these useless garrisons that were less than bump of the road. Taking any garrisoned city was not challenge at all. In later stages of the game, garrisons were something that can be easily brushed aside, without any planning or support.
Moralle and maybe DAR shoul'd have bigger impact on garrison efficiency.
Are you sure it is out of supply??geminif4ucorsair wrote: * AAR. After getting a large Civilian Cargo ship into the immediate hex, for @ two turns, Infantry in the assault role get their full green (supplied) color, but then that goes away almost immediately.
And, defending Garrisons remain out of supply status, yet continue to attack and decimate attacking Infantry.
In WW1? Wasn't the Aussies and IJN tasked with securing German Pacific colonies??geminif4ucorsair wrote:
* HISTORICAL. In fact, the US Army and Marines did land heavy artillery (105 & 155-mm) on secondary atolls that were not defended and then used them to bombard primary objective islands that were under assault. It worked well.
But, in SRGW you cannot land this heavy artillery to support the assaulting Infantry.
Please teach AI everything!
-
- Board Admin
- Posts: 2918
- Joined: Sep 29 2008
- Human: Yes
- Contact:
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
I have no issues taking atolls/islands as they are now. However, I do use proper fleet support and not Merchant Marine. I have an amphibious capable ship land the Marines and it also unloads supply for them, even in a single hex atoll. I have never lost a unit to Garrisons during invasions.
https://www.youtube.com/user/GIJoe597
Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
-
- General
- Posts: 2550
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
I was going to say something like this. If you look at the US invasions in WW2, they had massive naval support and marines equipped to land, rather than just throwing infantry divisions at the problem for the most part. LVT's also help. I don't think it should be any different for WW1 based scenarios. If I recall correctly, the garrisons in WW1 were smaller than the Japanese had during WW2 so less fire support would be needed, but troops trained in amphib warfare should be used still. Of course, the alternative is to bring back the training system so we can give units experience in these things (bonus's etc).GIJoe597 wrote:I have no issues taking atolls/islands as they are now. However, I do use proper fleet support and not Merchant Marine. I have an amphibious capable ship land the Marines and it also unloads supply for them, even in a single hex atoll. I have never lost a unit to Garrisons during invasions.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
-
- General
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Jul 14 2004
- Human: Yes
- Location: Space Coast, FL
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Of course, I have to support bringing back the training system! Been waiting for it for, what, 7 or 8 years?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
-
- General
- Posts: 2550
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Try more like 12-15 years, I'd only just gone into high school when 2020 came out without training. Your an old man now (and so am I it seems)Draken wrote:Of course, I have to support bringing back the training system! Been waiting for it for, what, 7 or 8 years?
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
-
- General
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: Jun 08 2005
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
In my view, this is a closer value for 1900 Garrison's.Balthagor wrote:I've moved the post because this should have some validation by the community before making this kind of change. I know that you know your stuff, but I'd like buy in of others first.
Combat stats are
Close/Soft/Hard/Fortification/Ground Defense/Tactical Air Def/Indirect Def/Close Def
1900's Garrison
C/S/H/F - G/T/I/C
3/3/1/0 - 3/2/3/4
1900's Infantry
4/4/1/0 - 3/2/3/4
What are the new suggested values for the garrisons? This?
3/3/1/0 - 2/1/1/2?
Does anyone think that the current values are fine?
Remember, most of these are equal to militia, armed with single-shot rifles (in the U.S. case, they would likely be Springfield Model 1863, maybe some Spencer repeater 0 either long barrel or Cavalry version) (both also sold to France, or Remington Rolling Block (also sold to Egypt and Greece as .44-.433 Spanish, US Marines as .50-cal., and a 0.52-calibre Remington ZOUAVE for cavalry); in Japan, common we the Tsuneyoshi Murata Type 13 (1880) and earlier Type 1875; in Germany and a host of others, the Mannlicker-series). By 1914, these were totally obsolescent rifles, and units that had them would be correctly rated lower than standard infantry.
-------
-
- General
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: Jun 08 2005
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Historically, yes. But playing the U.S. and wanting a secure route to the Philippines, meant the effort had to be made against the several German atolls.Zuikaku wrote:As noted in another post, the U.S. begins without either AO (oiler) or any suitable amphibious assault (APA/AKA) type ships, so you use what you have; in this case, the best ship with the most capacity were the AE Civilian Cargo ships, which also had to be built first. Otherwise, its the "one-battalion capacity" merchant ship.geminif4ucorsair wrote:
* AAR. After getting a large Civilian Cargo ship into the immediate hex, for @ two turns, Infantry in the assault role get their full green (supplied) color, but then that goes away almost immediately.
And, defending Garrisons remain out of supply status, yet continue to attack and decimate attacking Infantry.
Are you sure it is out of supply??geminif4ucorsair wrote:
It's yellowish color to me meant it was severely depleted, if not out.
Wasn't the Aussies and IJN tasked with securing German Pacific colonies??
It's only a test game to see how various mechanics and units perform.