I still don't see the point of putting garrisons in EVERY province because they simply don't hold long enough for reserves to get there, even on stratmove. If they could hold off the invasion for long enough for the reserves to reach and save the province then it might be worth it, but in my experience, by the time I've arrived with backup, the first province is lost anyway. So why have any garrisons at all, even in the ports? I guess if a port is VERY important, it'd be worth putting a full infantry division there, which will hold for longer, but militia/garrisons don't hold long enough to make any real difference.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
My garrison troops can defend coastal provinces relatively well actually. Do you keep your garrison troops tech'ed up? Meaning both doctrines and equipment?
I wouldn't put them in every coastal province. Just the ports.
And MIL or GAR can hold long enough to do a couple of important things.
1) Rebase NAVs and INTs to end enemy air superiority (if they even have it) and to run naval strike on the attacking fleet.
2) Rebase TACs and CAS so that if you retreat, you can immediately begin bombing the troops that land at full supply and fuel (rebasing a bunch of planes sometimes means they spend a day or two out of fuel and supplies, making them worthless; this ensures that does not happen). This will make it easier to push them back out again once the heavy ordnance shows up.
3) Send naval units to the sea zone from which the invasion is taking place. (If any are in range)
None of this even accounts for SRing all the assets you need to push them back into the ocean.
But of course I don't put just one lousy MIL or GAR division in a port to guard it anyway as I indicated earlier. That isn't really enough.
But lets assume you take France and Norway and GB is still alive and in force..your going to cover in force all those ports from Norway, Denmark, northern Germany, France etc... Who is left to fight? I cant see wasting all those resources for an invasion that may not come, at least there. And lets face it they arent going to just roll over and die, they will attack you elsewhere where you arent prepared. Better to let them land and destroy them. Yesterday while i was invading France, UK troops landed 3 times in Holland and i crushed every attempt...the lost MP alone is enough to hurt them. Its not like they are automatically going to take over your whole empire because they land some troops...
I agree, they aren't going to magically win the war by landing an invasion on your shore. And I agree that setting up to properly react to, and crush, invasions is perfectly viable.
But there is also value in permanently forestalling invasion or channeling it Italy or North Africa. Cheaply preventing invasion for years on end means that I can the west and put more pressure on the east.
And let's be honest with ourselves. The best way to prevent invasion in the west is to complete Sealion. If you remove all the potential air and naval bases in western Europe that the USA can use, that's even better than reacting to invasions.
But there is also value in permanently forestalling invasion or channeling it Italy or North Africa. Cheaply preventing invasion for years on end means that I can the west and put more pressure on the east.
And let's be honest with ourselves. The best way to prevent invasion in the west is to complete Sealion. If you remove all the potential air and naval bases in western Europe that the USA can use, that's even better than reacting to invasions.
Doctrines definitely yes; not with high priority though. From the equipment techs I make sure the ones that increase soft attack and defensiveness are roughly up-to-date.
Hmm, I never used GARs for anything else than holding off the enemy long enough so that better units can arrive. For me, as long as GARs deny the enemy access to a port for a while, they are doing a good job. It's not that MP spent on GARs is not recoverable - you can always disband them. ICdays cost is not such an issue, because IC is not really an issue for Germany in Vanilla after 1941. They are constrained by MP, not by IC.
. However, you probably also need to take Gibraltar in order to prevent the Allies from using it as a naval base. Don't know about Iceland, but conquering it shouldn't be a big problem, either. When this is done, you are safe in the West.
Yeah, the Sea Lion solves most of Germany's problems in the game
. However, you probably also need to take Gibraltar in order to prevent the Allies from using it as a naval base. Don't know about Iceland, but conquering it shouldn't be a big problem, either. When this is done, you are safe in the West.
- Stop bragging that you can beat the AI. If you want to present a decent defense strategy it should work vs. a human opponent.
- These threads always comes down to only INF or mixed INF/GAR strategy. Both ways have merits and disadvantages. Calling someone that uses the other one "stupid" makes you the stupid one because you can't see this.
- TFH will change the invasion system (I think). Hopefully to a more realistic modelling.
- Germany historically was facing a similar dilemma so I'm personally happy this dilemma is in the game.
I prefer the mixed INF/GAR with a mobile reserve solution. More bang for the bucks.
- These threads always comes down to only INF or mixed INF/GAR strategy. Both ways have merits and disadvantages. Calling someone that uses the other one "stupid" makes you the stupid one because you can't see this.
- TFH will change the invasion system (I think). Hopefully to a more realistic modelling.
- Germany historically was facing a similar dilemma so I'm personally happy this dilemma is in the game.
I prefer the mixed INF/GAR with a mobile reserve solution. More bang for the bucks.
Against the AI all you need to do is two INF on each port. In my current Germany game I wanted to simulate what I would try to do if I had a human UK. I put 2 INF on every port, plus 1 INF on every coastal province. I skipped holland and Norway so there's less coast to defend. I also have a couple corps in reserve in Luxembourg.
I ended up with enough troops to fininsh off the SU in June of 42 and still cover every single coastal province with infantry from Konigsberg to the border with Spain. Don't know how this would actually work vs human UK or US.
Cheers
I ended up with enough troops to fininsh off the SU in June of 42 and still cover every single coastal province with infantry from Konigsberg to the border with Spain. Don't know how this would actually work vs human UK or US.
Cheers
I keep 2inf+1art+1AA in all ports+province next to it.
And always keep kriegsmarine stand by to attack the attackers at sea. If you sink the transports those units will be lost as they have nowhere to retreat when landings failed. Against a nation like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and even France this can hurt them badly.
At the same time its good to keep some arm divs strategically positioned(Paris is a good option) and ready to move wherever the attack happens.
And always keep kriegsmarine stand by to attack the attackers at sea. If you sink the transports those units will be lost as they have nowhere to retreat when landings failed. Against a nation like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and even France this can hurt them badly.
At the same time its good to keep some arm divs strategically positioned(Paris is a good option) and ready to move wherever the attack happens.
It sounds very expensive MP-wise to use so many infantry divs just to guard ports, considering that most of the fighting will be done elsewhere.
i honestly think normandy landing should be a triggered event , you should have to plan it and do the landings once you have met requirments in infantry , armour etc , this letting the ai throw its army at den halder and lose most of its troops is extremely gamey and needs sorted asap , kinda ruins the ruins the game actually when you take more than 5 mins to think it out abit
The UK invasions aren´t "gamey".
The problem is the timing, the fact they don´t know how to retreat to transports... and above all, the fact that SU is so easy to be beaten, thus allowing the player to commit such a large army to the eastern front, finish soviets ASAP and then focus their attention on the west before the US can throw a decent invasion. If the Germans had a more real chance of stalling or at least taking longer to beat the SU, simultaneous large scale invasions by the US and UK could be a HUGE problem. Throwing 3 infantry divisions to the sea is one thing, another is throwing 15 including armored and mechanized ones, that landed in 4 different ports, with more being sent every day.
So to an extent is like juv said - beating the AI is easy so many strategies work, and no one should brag about it. Balance is pretty messed up (Germany with total mobilization in 1939, the silly Destiny choice that gives ubermensch strenght, etc etc)
The problem is the timing, the fact they don´t know how to retreat to transports... and above all, the fact that SU is so easy to be beaten, thus allowing the player to commit such a large army to the eastern front, finish soviets ASAP and then focus their attention on the west before the US can throw a decent invasion. If the Germans had a more real chance of stalling or at least taking longer to beat the SU, simultaneous large scale invasions by the US and UK could be a HUGE problem. Throwing 3 infantry divisions to the sea is one thing, another is throwing 15 including armored and mechanized ones, that landed in 4 different ports, with more being sent every day.
So to an extent is like juv said - beating the AI is easy so many strategies work, and no one should brag about it. Balance is pretty messed up (Germany with total mobilization in 1939, the silly Destiny choice that gives ubermensch strenght, etc etc)
I agree, but the devs wanted an AI that plays by the same rules as opposed to this type of events.
I think there could be some middle ground with some sort of long term strategic plans the players/AI can invest into an off map pool until some amount is reached, which would prevent the AI from being completely overwhelmed and stupified when it comes to planning for long range amphibious invasions.
There should be less ports overall in the game and anything less than a size 3 port should be removed unless it's the only port available for a country. It takes some major shipyard facilities to repair even the smaller warships so having the capability at all ports to repair battleships and land an invasion force is strange to me. I'm reasonably familiar with UK and if you tried to funnel an invasion through some of the ports you'd have ships queued up for a fortnight trying to dock. For example, Pembroke, Barrow, Bournemouth, Aberdeen, Inverness (arguably Lowestoft, Grimsby and Edinburgh also) are all really mainly just decent-good sized fishing ports. You need some way to simulate the Mulberry harbours though, which if provided, really means a viable invasion can be launched anywhere on the coast.
I think the main issue is strategic redeployment is too quick and being able to deploy directly into combat without any negatives to combat, as mentioned in another thread, means the player doesn't really NEED to have a credible defence for the french coast.
If you want to compare to real life, quote courtesy of wikipedia, then "By D-Day 157 German divisions were stationed in the Soviet Union, 6 in Finland, 12 in Norway, 6 in Denmark, 9 in Germany, 21 in the Balkans, 26 in Italy and 59 in France, Belgium and the Netherlands." Some, espcially in the east, were badly understrength. 59 divisions under Von Runstedt was 850k men, works out about 14.5k/division so not a million miles away from 10k effective fighting men in a HOI 3+1 div structure (allowing 4.5k for support troops, cooks, drivers, clerks etc). The armoured reserve for Von Rundstedt was circa 13 Armoured divs, I assume that means 46 infantry divs remained. There are 28 provinces to Brest and a further 15 to Spain, so 43 provinces in all. That would, incidentally, mean a HOI div on every province from germany to spain with 13 ARM div in reserve.
Imagine doing Barbarossa with 50% of your german troops based somewhere other than the Russian border.
I think the main issue is strategic redeployment is too quick and being able to deploy directly into combat without any negatives to combat, as mentioned in another thread, means the player doesn't really NEED to have a credible defence for the french coast.
If you want to compare to real life, quote courtesy of wikipedia, then "By D-Day 157 German divisions were stationed in the Soviet Union, 6 in Finland, 12 in Norway, 6 in Denmark, 9 in Germany, 21 in the Balkans, 26 in Italy and 59 in France, Belgium and the Netherlands." Some, espcially in the east, were badly understrength. 59 divisions under Von Runstedt was 850k men, works out about 14.5k/division so not a million miles away from 10k effective fighting men in a HOI 3+1 div structure (allowing 4.5k for support troops, cooks, drivers, clerks etc). The armoured reserve for Von Rundstedt was circa 13 Armoured divs, I assume that means 46 infantry divs remained. There are 28 provinces to Brest and a further 15 to Spain, so 43 provinces in all. That would, incidentally, mean a HOI div on every province from germany to spain with 13 ARM div in reserve.
Imagine doing Barbarossa with 50% of your german troops based somewhere other than the Russian border.
I see no point in even attempting to garrison the entire coastline, only a few VP locations and the significant ports that can sustain a viable invasion. Two divisions in the major sites, and one in the intermediate level ports (GARx2 or INFx2, with or without AA) should be sufficient to hold until a strong mobile reserve can arrive. your GAR will take several days to retreat, so even if you lose the province behind the port, your mobile reserve may still have time to recapture it before your retreating GAR arrives.
I've had a single 2xGAR+AA hold out for weeks against amphibious assault and air attack by the AI (a human player would have surrounded the port and hit it from all sides), but it would still have cost a human player several days of valuable time for the defender to reinforce, for the possible cost of one relatively cheap division.
Against landings at a Level 1 port or no port, you can generally rely on the mobile reserves to isolate and crush the invasion, or at least hold until sufficient force can be brought to bear.
As has been pointed out, there's no one definitive answer, just as there was none historically, but you can at least make it potentially expensive for the invader, by forcing them to risk being cut off from supply and destroyed.
I've had a single 2xGAR+AA hold out for weeks against amphibious assault and air attack by the AI (a human player would have surrounded the port and hit it from all sides), but it would still have cost a human player several days of valuable time for the defender to reinforce, for the possible cost of one relatively cheap division.
Against landings at a Level 1 port or no port, you can generally rely on the mobile reserves to isolate and crush the invasion, or at least hold until sufficient force can be brought to bear.
As has been pointed out, there's no one definitive answer, just as there was none historically, but you can at least make it potentially expensive for the invader, by forcing them to risk being cut off from supply and destroyed.
Great post.
As I said, there are huge balance problems in the game. One, as you nicely put, is that unlike real life such large garrisons are unecessary and therefore allow a very potent Barbarossa which the AI has no chance to repel, if Germany is human. Why they are unecessary? Because occupied countries are way too lenient, colaboration government is way too good (thus making partisan activy irrelevant; also, the extra IC in other occupation policies simply isn´t worth it because as we all are well aware off, the Achilles heel is MP, NOT IC) and the UK is too predictable with their invasion patterns. And even if they invaded Norway instead of a much easier country to reinforce (like Netherlands), so what? Norway has 0 strategic value in the game.
For example, in my game as Germany I´ve invaded SU in may, it´s july and I destroyed half of the 1220 brigades the SU started the invasion with. Doors are open to do Drang Nacht Osten before 1942. UK did invade Den Helder (herp derp), which did bring me a headache because I had garrisons but no mobile or infantry reserves to deal with them quickly. So I bought a corps form SU. Was that a problem? No because the soviets are dead already.
The crux of the problem is actually the Germany-SU balance.
It's leadership intensive, too. Each of those brigades cost 100 officers...
Beaga is partially right, though. Thanks to collaboration government, partisan activity is really not a big deal in any country that goes GiE or that is continuing resistance because you haven't forced a surrender.
However...
I will say that if the AI made use (or better use) of UR, then this wouldn't be a problem. While many players complain about how gamey UR uprisings are, I will say that the threat of such uprisings would force players to build and use a lot more suppression units. URs are easily rooted out by units with suppression, so if you had to wallpaper Eastern Europe to prevent the enemy from using URs, that would seriously drain IC, manpower, and leadership.
But as far as I can tell, the AI doesn't even use URs, or uses them so infrequently that it makes no difference. Which is too bad; it's a nice mechanic for these kinds of things.
i would keep a pz gr corps near Paris and if somehow i cant cope with the landings , you can defend alongside the rivers. It is a pretty smart move to build forts inland or even 2 3 provinces away from the coastlines.