Garrison command options: guide for every situation

[seattle]

The new garrison orders are wonderful and work perfectly for the most part.
Let's discuss how to best use them in this topic.

First I want to start with one major nuisance that should be fixed:
When using garrison orders, the a.i. sometimes recklessly ships units through hostile waters from A to B despite having a land connection available. Once I lost a dozen units before I noticed that crap!
@podcat Please introduce a "no ship transfer" option to the garrison commands!

Now to the main part of this discussion: how to best utilize the garrison command options.
1. The Atlantic Wall strategy: disable all options but "defend ports" and select all coastal regions.
--> you will need very few units to defend a long coastal line against invasions. In addition, construct coastal and land forts (3 levels should suffice and are dirt cheap) in each port. Why land forts? The a.i. (humans) will often invade next to a port and then attack that port. By building both forts, you are safe and can starve huge invasions with minimal effort!
--> suggested template: 6 infantry with engineer and artillery support (AA optional).

2. The anti-partisan force: disable all options but "partisan" and select all provinces with partisan activity
--> Zero micromanagement for an easy partisan control.
--> suggested template: 6 cavalry with MP support

3. The Maginots: disable all options but "fort" and select the fortified border region
--> impenetrable, immovable, cheap and stout defenders.
--> suggested template: see Atlantic Wall + AT support.

4. General home defence: disable partisan and coastline (the latter is never ever useful), use any army
--> Quick and easy way to create a defence in-depth. I found it to be quite efficient as Soviet Union to defend against Barbarossa. Use it on one field marshal army of some 50 divisions and select all regions from the border to somewhere relatively deep into your territory. You should still have the usual frontier defence, but the additional garrison order will prevent a sudden collapse of a blitzkrieg attacker. You will have each airport, each victory point, each fort etc. defended to slow down the invader.
--> suggested template: any

---------------------------------

Please comment and add your suggestions!

 

[Dalwin]

Some useful and interesting tips.

There is one refinement I would like to see in the UI for garrisons, even more than your suggestion involving sea transport. I would like for there to be an option between covering only the ports and covering all of the coast. This setting should be such that it covers the ports and only those sections of coastline directly adjacent to ports.

 

[seattle]

Some useful and interesting tips.

There is one refinement I would like to see in the UI for garrisons, even more than your suggestion involving sea transport. I would like for there to be an option between covering only the ports and covering all of the coast. This setting should be such that it covers the ports and only those sections of coastline directly adjacent to ports.

I don't think that would be efficient at all. You would approximately save 50% of units compared with "cover the entire coastline", but at the same time need twice the amount troops compared with "cover only ports" (because you also cover left and right of it).
Plus: the enemy will save a ton of manpower because the invasions will be stopped before the land on the shore. Building lvl.3-4 coastal and land forts in each port, garrisoned with a stout defender will effectively nullify any successful invasion with the added benefit of starving the entire invasion force which now has nowhere to retreat.

 

[Dalwin]

I don't think that would be efficient at all. You would approximately save 50% of units compared with "cover the entire coastline", but at the same time need twice the amount troops compared with "cover only ports" (because you also cover left and right of it).
Plus: the enemy will save a ton of manpower because the invasions will be stopped before the land on the shore. Building lvl.3-4 coastal and land forts in each port, garrisoned with a stout defender will effectively nullify any successful invasion with the added benefit of starving the entire invasion force which now has nowhere to retreat.

On this we disagree.

Clearly one wants to hold the ports. Neither of us disputes that. You prefer to fortify them and I would rather have a few more units in their vicinity. Both are methods of trying to accomplish the same thing.

 

[seattle]

On this we disagree.

Clearly one wants to hold the ports. Neither of us disputes that. You prefer to fortify them and I would rather have a few more units in their vicinity. Both are methods of trying to accomplish the same thing.

Of course they are. Your method will not only cost a ton more resources, but also three times the manpower and that is the most precious resource!
Building lvl3-4 forts on the other hand... that's done in a few weeks with 0 follow-up costs. That's the beauty of forts, especially with the new system: a level high enough to defeat any attacker is dirt cheap and they don't have maintenance costs.

 

[Secret Master]

This setting should be such that it covers the ports and only those sections of coastline directly adjacent to ports.

I'd like this option too, for a specific reason...

Of course they are. Your method will not only cost a ton more resources, but also three times the manpower and that is the most precious resource!
Building lvl3-4 forts on the other hand... that's done in a few weeks with 0 follow-up costs.

Manpower isn't the most precious resource anymore for all countries. Even Germany should be able to build tons of divisions without going past Service by Requirement.

And depending on the time at which you order construction, that CIC might be better put to some other use. Sure, in 1943, I can probably afford to build an Atlantic Wall as Germany, but if I force France to surrender in 1939, that CIC had damn well better be building either synthetic plants, MIC, or something more useful than forts. I need those items in place by the end of 1940, or the window closes on the value of adding IC or synthetic oil to the Reich.

Tier I infantry kits aren't terribly difficult to build. The divisions guarding the ports do not need to be full-powered infantry divisions. They can be crappy 6xCAV. I can put 2 in the port, and one on either side. Or I can put a full powered infantry division in the port, and put crappy CAV on the flanks.

The goal is to buy time so that the panzers can defeat the invasion, not hold until the bitter end. If the divisions on the flanks buy you 12 hours for the cost of 200 infantry kits (or whatever), it can end up being cheaper in the long run than forts if your nation is set up a certain way.

 

[seattle]

Manpower isn't the most precious resource anymore for all countries. Even Germany should be able to build tons of divisions without going past Service by Requirement.

I forgot that in vanilla manpower is indeed not precious at all. Was used to mods that penalized higher conscription laws.

The goal is to buy time so that the panzers can defeat the invasion, not hold until the bitter end.

That's the big elephant in the room: do we want to prevent the enemy from landing or merely delay the invasion?
If I understood @Dalwin correctly, then he wants the port adjacent units to prevent a landing. You want to buy time for the panzers to rush in.
I want something entirely different: I want an unopposed landing that gets nowhere and thus leads to complete and utter destruction of the entire invasion force. That is best achieved by allowing a landing while at the same time denying access to a port that would be able to sustain said landing.
--> minimum investment on my part in terms of both manpower and resources while inflicting maximum casualties on the enemy.
In your argument, you would achieve the same level of destruction if and only if you deny the invaders access to a port. If your panzer only drive the invader into the sea by port, then they won't get destroyed!

 

[Secret Master]

I want something entirely different: I want an unopposed landing that gets nowhere and thus leads to complete and utter destruction of the entire invasion force.

Well, that's what my strategy ended up accomplishing in Overlord I in my last MP game.

I'm not buying time for the panzers to prevent capture of the port. I'm buying time for the reaction force to surround the invaders so they can be destroyed completely. I don't want him evacuating.

The goal is to make sure the invaders do not take enough provinces to allow them to do four things:

1) Cycle divisions in and out of combat. If all provinces they control can be put into combat, there is no way for him to save divisions that lose ORG. It might take four months to wipe them out (as happened when I played China), but they will eventually die.

2) Build additional ports on the off chance they lose the original one.

3) Own enough of the state to control airfields.

4) Have the port secured and no adjacent provinces controlled by me (the defender) so that they can evacuate the invasion Dunkirk style.

Also, by making them fight for the provinces that flank the port as well as the port, the port will be trashed and the infrastructure will be trashed. Even if they secure enough of the state to gain an advantage in terms of logistics (VPs are present to provide supply or whatever), the infrastructure will be shot to hell so that logistics will not be in their favor.

 

[Riktol]

In my current game as Germany I'm running a combination of 1 and 2, with something like 100 divisions required. Yet even though my main threat is human Soviets, I still have constant landings by the Allies (all AI, just a 2 player game) to deal with. Not only do they land in France and the Benelux but I'm also having to drive them back when they land in Italy and occupied Greece. The US hasn't joined the war yet and my existing 24 divisions comprising my strategic reserve are stretched thin, as the landings can be up to 30 divisions, which I'm sure you can imagine can easily beat a division or two away from a port no problem.

I think the simple fact of the matter is that garrison orders are good for positioning units according to the certain rules, but a major invasion needs far more to stop it.

 

[dave1233]

The new garrison orders are wonderful and work perfectly for the most part.
Let's discuss how to best use them in this topic.

First I want to start with one major nuisance that should be fixed:
When using garrison orders, the a.i. sometimes recklessly ships units through hostile waters from A to B despite having a land connection available. Once I lost a dozen units before I noticed that crap!
@podcat Please introduce a "no ship transfer" option to the garrison commands!

Now to the main part of this discussion: how to best utilize the garrison command options.
1. The Atlantic Wall strategy: disable all options but "defend ports" and select all coastal regions.
--> you will need very few units to defend a long coastal line against invasions. In addition, construct coastal and land forts (3 levels should suffice and are dirt cheap) in each port. Why land forts? The a.i. (humans) will often invade next to a port and then attack that port. By building both forts, you are safe and can starve huge invasions with minimal effort!
--> suggested template: 6 infantry with engineer and artillery support (AA optional).

Unless i'm missing something, a human will just land to either side of the port and possibly attack the port with a naval invasion at the same time. Forts or no forts, 15 width isn't going to hold very long at all against 160 width and the fight should barely damage the port. As people above have stated, it seems to make more sense to have a strong mobile reserve and use your costal defence units to buy time for the reserve to arrive

 

[Dalwin]

I forgot that in vanilla manpower is indeed not precious at all. Was used to mods that penalized higher conscription laws.



That's the big elephant in the room: do we want to prevent the enemy from landing or merely delay the invasion?
If I understood @Dalwin correctly, then he wants the port adjacent units to prevent a landing. You want to buy time for the panzers to rush in.
I want something entirely different: I want an unopposed landing that gets nowhere and thus leads to complete and utter destruction of the entire invasion force. That is best achieved by allowing a landing while at the same time denying access to a port that would be able to sustain said landing.
--> minimum investment on my part in terms of both manpower and resources while inflicting maximum casualties on the enemy.
In your argument, you would achieve the same level of destruction if and only if you deny the invaders access to a port. If your panzer only drive the invader into the sea by port, then they won't get destroyed!

Mistake me if I am misremembering, but didn't you recently say that you have not played MP? If that is correct that is the entire source of our difference. I cannot lure a human into stupid landings that leave entire armies trapped and out of supply. Having the extra units near the ports is more expensive to setup initially I do not dispute that. It also leaves me with combat troops already in the area for when they are needed. Time is more precious in containing a player led landing than an AI one.

 

[cellinis]

1) Cycle divisions in and out of combat. If all provinces they control can be put into combat, there is no way for him to save divisions that lose ORG. It might take four months to wipe them out (as happened when I played China), but they will eventually die.

As someone who plays SP-only, I'd really like to see AI capable of doing this.

Excellent write-up by @seattle but I agree with @Dalwin ; I too would love to see a command that allows me to defend the left and right of a port. Playing Expert A.I. I've often had invasions that succeed because the AI actually attacks around the ports and if you aren't paying attention, often manages to get 2-3 province deep footholds in your territory.

 

[seattle]

Mistake me if I am misremembering, but didn't you recently say that you have not played MP? If that is correct that is the entire source of our difference. I cannot lure a human into stuip landings that leave entire armies trapped and out of supply. Having the extra units near the ports is more expensive to setup initially I do not dispute that. It also leaves me with combat troops already in the area for when they are needed. Time is more precious in containing a player led landing than an AI one.

Absolutely correct! I can't judge how it would work against human players. Everything I write about HoI4 is only concerning the a.i.

@dave1233
I also have a small panzer reserve stationed in France to respond to any invasion. Usually 4-5 divs suffice. I found the combination of stout defenders (template focused on defence), entrenchment bonus, strong leader and forts to be pretty powerful. Of course a full-fledged, human controlled D-Day will require more to hold the lines.

 

[seattle]

Well, that's what my strategy ended up accomplishing in Overlord I in my last MP game.

The goal is to make sure the invaders do not take enough provinces to allow them to do four things:

1) Cycle divisions in and out of combat. If all provinces they control can be put into combat, there is no way for him to save divisions that lose ORG. It might take four months to wipe them out (as happened when I played China), but they will eventually die.
2) Build additional ports on the off chance they lose the original one.
3) Own enough of the state to control airfields.
4) Have the port secured and no adjacent provinces controlled by me (the defender) so that they can evacuate the invasion Dunkirk style.

Interesting points that don't really happen when fighting against the a.i.

I wonder though how many divs you need on home defence during Barbarossa. I have no idea how early dangerous invasions begin in MP. I would assume though that deploying so many defensive troops along the Atlantic coast will reduce your offensive power against the Soviets considerably.

 

[dave1233]

Interesting points that don't really happen when fighting against the a.i.

I wonder though how many divs you need on home defence during Barbarossa. I have no idea how early dangerous invasions begin in MP. I would assume though that deploying so many defensive troops along the Atlantic coast will reduce your offensive power against the Soviets considerably.

I think to point is more you reserve is what throws the enemy back so you port garrisons can be like 8 or 10 width pure inf, maybe 5 in a decent port or something, basically just stacking org. That prolongs the battle allowing your reserves to get to the fight. As for how many divisions, it probably depends a lot on how the war has gone previously and you wold probably be better asking a more experienced germany player

 

[Praetori]

I would like a garrison command to defend the coastline based upon best intel on where the actual invasion is planned (from the battleplanner). Encryption/Decryption roll and prioritize vs assigned divisions (as far as can reasonably be gleaned). The same should go for the attacker. The AI should scrub invasions if the forces arrayed against the invasion is high and there are no free ports. It can do this in land-land-battles (such as not attacking through the Maginot or other well defended positions) but is completely retarded when it comes to naval invasions.

 

[Secret Master]

I wonder though how many divs you need on home defence during Barbarossa.

Well, since that game is over, the original plan for defending Western Europe (after France, Spain, Switzerland, and Portugal fell) was something like this:

24 Category B 40 width infantry divisions (they have low priority on equipment, but have the same INF and ART battalions top tier infantry divisions do; they lack support companies like LOG or MAINT)

100+ CAV suppression divisions. These are 3-6 CAV. Their job is to suppress and cover ports/coastline. They also have low priority on equipment, and most of them were taken out of the division training queue at 20% completion, so their XP is crap. They are crap at fighting, but keep in mind that they are CAV, so they move faster than INF. 4 CAV divisions in a state can quickly become 40.

4 Pazner divisions.

There was a separate force of Romanians and Hungarians covering Jutland, because the Soviets amphibiously invaded Copenhagen during the first week of Barbarossa. They held it throughout the war, so I had to cover the straits.

The Italians had some MTN in Spain and infantry formations scattered around. Some of these forces retired to Italy when the Italian boot was lost.

The panzers spent a lot of time in Italy as well, after the Allies took the boot. When we retook the boot and liberated Rome (for the Axis), the panzers went back to France, along with some of the Italians.

Against Overlord I, we bagged 29 divisions. Would have bagged more, but the Soviets saved the British divisions that landed in Jutland by forcing the straits at considerable cost. The three invasion points were in southern Spain, northern Spain, and Jutland. Model was in charge of the Garrison theater and earned his monocle.

Overlod II cost us the war. The 4 panzer divisions were posted in Brittany by the AI (because I was an idiot) and were lost early. We tried to delay them, but I horribly miscalculated Soviet strength in the east. I discounted the British threat until it was too late to repel the invasions by keeping all panzers in the east to head off what I thought was going to turn into the war winning offensive (along with 55 Hungary divisions sitting in the Balkans to stop an attack that was never going to come). But it wasn't the garrison scheme that lost the war; it was my refusal to take the invasions seriously and send enough forces to stop it. The CAV and Category B formations did fine initially.

 

[MadDjinn]

One thing that is nice about the garrison feature is that if you over supply units to a garrison command, they will be used by the ai to automatically counter units in their garrison region now (likely dependant on the aggressiveness chosen).

So you can have the reserve mobile/tanks/etc auto counter an invasion without losing the units sitting on the ports.

The downside --
resistance suppression is not as good as it could be at counting the needed units. When it is a purely land area covered, the ai can manage pretty well. Unfortunately the count can be off if a province hits exactly 0% reduction with suppression - but still have actual resistance. The province itself will never reduce resistance, and the ai will constantly pull a unit from another province to help reduce it. But then that other province starts getting resistance, so the ai moves the unit back. Only one unit dancing is pretty good.

Never use the resistance garrison if there are islands. Because the ai will constantly check for resistance, it will land a unit on one island, then pull it off to send to another island because the unit is the only one not in the water and therefore can be moved. Eventually all you have is units in the water and no suppression.

Weirdly the ai can count multiple harbours across islands and handle that properly. So it must be triggering a move unit to cover resistance function far too often.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

No. To seleact all provinces with partisan activity you must see all provinces with partisan actiuvity. But then you click on ANYTHING in resistance map mode it will, due to some genius design decision, switch back to default.
So if you have a whole europe to manage you must switch to Res. Map mode, remember provinces with partisans, select army, select garrison mode and remember all provinces. Oh, and you you are mistaken you must repeal all process from the start. It's is better to ignore resistance alltogether rather that deal with this cluster@#%
On the positive side, you can train your memory.

 

[Dalwin]

Against Overlord I, we bagged 29 divisions. Would have bagged more, but the Soviets saved the British divisions that landed in Jutland by forcing the straits at considerable cost. The three invasion points were in southern Spain, northern Spain, and Jutland. Model was in charge of the Garrison theater and earned his monocle.

Overlod II cost us the war. The 4 panzer divisions were posted in Brittany by the AI (because I was an idiot) and were lost early. We tried to delay them, but I horribly miscalculated Soviet strength in the east. I discounted the British threat until it was too late to repel the invasions by keeping all panzers in the east to head off what I thought was going to turn into the war winning offensive (along with 55 Hungary divisions sitting in the Balkans to stop an attack that was never going to come). But it wasn't the garrison scheme that lost the war; it was my refusal to take the invasions seriously and send enough forces to stop it. The CAV and Category B formations did fine initially.

I see you refer to Overlord I a lot of times but that is completely misleading. That first invasion consisted of only 30 divisions, mostly marines and infantry with very few tanks. It landed in Spain not France. It's objective was never the complete downfall of Germany. At best it was hoped that a sizeable force could be cut off and destroyed and those factories in Spain denied to you.

Actual overlord 10 months or so later was much more substantial.