Page 1 of 1
SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 24 2017
by geminif4ucorsair
* 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.
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 24 2017
by Balthagor
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?
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 24 2017
by Zuikaku
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?
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 shoul'd suffer moralle and/or organisational penalties. homeland garrisons shoul'd stay tough.
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 24 2017
by Draken
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.
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?
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 shoul'd suffer moralle and/or organisational penalties. homeland garrisons shoul'd stay tough.
This get my vote
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 24 2017
by geminif4ucorsair
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.
I would also agree this issue of Supply.
* 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.
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 25 2017
by Zuikaku
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...]
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).
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.
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:
* 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.
In WW1? Wasn't the Aussies and IJN tasked with securing German Pacific colonies??
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 25 2017
by GIJoe597
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.
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 25 2017
by SGTscuba
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.
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).
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 25 2017
by Draken
Of course, I have to support bringing back the training system! Been waiting for it for, what, 7 or 8 years?
![[_]O](./images/smilies/oups.gif "[_]O")
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 25 2017
by SGTscuba
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 26 2017
by geminif4ucorsair
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?
In my view, this is a closer value for 1900 Garrison's.
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.
-------
Re: SRGW - Garrison's too strong
Posted: Sep 26 2017
by geminif4ucorsair
Zuikaku wrote: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.
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.
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??
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.
It's only a test game to see how various mechanics and units perform.
