Garrison, Militia, and MP

[Buh the Ghost]

what partisans? They are just too much micro pain.

I put 4 GAR on my ports (because of the less officers). They will hold any invasion until there are bombers (in a few cases ships) to destroy the fleet.

 

[Kovax]

So, put 2XGAR + 2XMP in a province to reduce the revolt risk from 10 to 9. Hardly worth the effort, for the suppression. Definitely worth using GAR to hold ports and other key locations until the "real" troops arrive, but MPs are USELESS.

 

[Pugmak]

Question:

Does the RR suppression work over time to reduce RR to a greater extent?

Challenge:

IF one of y'all smart type folk would do some testing, here's what I'd like to see tested..

Gain in supply throughput from gar+mp divs strung along the main supply lines sufficient to reduce RR along the rout, - the cost to the supplies and throughput from having those gar+mp divs stationed along the route.

 

[charmquark94]

Another militia use

One more role that militia work fairly well for is for jungle fighting. Their biggest advantage is their low supply consumption. For instance, attemtping to seize territory in Borneo or Guinea can suck. Even boot infantry often run out of supply. Militia, if not bunched up, can still stay in supply. The same units can also be very helpful for any additional defense needed of the same areas. In heavy jungle where most units starve, militia can swarm, hold groung, and even move behind enemy units out of supply/ Likewise, I will sometimes use militia to follow up and take possession of provinces I bypass. This allows offensive units to maintain offensive momentum. Militia suck, don't get me wrong, but having a mass of easy to feed, cheap units can have its advantages in limited situations.

 

[Jonas]

So, put 2XGAR + 2XMP in a province to reduce the revolt risk from 10 to 9. Hardly worth the effort, for the suppression. Definitely worth using GAR to hold ports and other key locations until the "real" troops arrive, but MPs are USELESS.

I rarely see statements which are wrong to such a degree. Your numbers are way off and consequently your conclusion is rubbish. MP regiments give a lot more supression than that. Do not listen to this person.

 

[Kovax]

I rarely see statements which are wrong to such a degree. Your numbers are way off and conseqently your conclusion is rubbish. MP regiments give a lot more supression than that. Do not listen to this person.

I deployed a 2XGAR + MP division into an annexed area with a Nationalism threat of roughly 9.8 after a couple months of occupation. The suppression level showed as -0.61 or thereabouts, and the total Revolt Risk dropped from 9.8 to 9.2, which made sense according to the numbers shown in the Province display. At that rate, I'd have to field approximately 40 MP units to completely eliminate RR in one province, which would also sharply reduce it in the adjacent ones. Granted, I could raise the suppression factor of the MP units from 3 to 5 with a tech boost, allowing me to wipe out RR by deploying only somewhere around 25 of them. If you're seeing different results, then PLEASE tell me how to get them, because I'm getting almost no effective benefit from MP units.

Garrison units, on the other hand, have almost as high a defensive value as infantry, for less cost, making them good for holding locations against sudden attack until you can muster an effective counter. Their low offensive capability leaves them with only limited ability to actually fight off the attack, though. Their higher suppression value compared to infantry is a very minor side benefit, in my opinion.

 

[Pugmak]

I deployed a 2XGAR + MP division into an annexed area with a Nationalism threat of roughly 9.8 after a couple months of occupation. The suppression level showed as -0.61 or thereabouts, and the total Revolt Risk dropped from 9.8 to 9.2, which made sense according to the numbers shown in the Province display. At that rate, I'd have to field approximately 40 MP units to completely eliminate RR in one province, which would also sharply reduce it in the adjacent ones. Granted, I could raise the suppression factor of the MP units from 3 to 5 with a tech boost, allowing me to wipe out RR by deploying only somewhere around 25 of them. If you're seeing different results, then PLEASE tell me how to get them, because I'm getting almost no effective benefit from MP units.

Garrison units, on the other hand, have almost as high a defensive value as infantry, for less cost, making them good for holding locations against sudden attack until you can muster an effective counter. Their low offensive capability leaves them with only limited ability to actually fight off the attack, though. Their higher suppression value compared to infantry is a very minor side benefit, in my opinion.

On the MP and revolt risk, I think there might be a general issue misconception. Revolt risk can't be something that goes away completely within the narrow time frame of this game. It was always there in occupied/conquered territories, irl and that's fairly represented in the game. I think MP units are only meant to make the rr manageable and not make it go away completely.

Separate question:

Will lowering the conquered nation's national unity have a bene effect on rr of the provinces formerly belonging to that national entity if done prior to conquest?

 

[Jonas]

Compare the supression value of the garrison regiment and the MP regiment. You use only one MP regiment and still blame it for the lousy supression of a unit comprised mostly of garrison regiments. MP regiments will have a supression value of 3, then 5, then 7 and so on. What is the supression value of a garrison? How many garrisons will you need to excert the same supression as 3 (equivalent manpower) MP regiments at technology level 3?

The correct statement from you should have been: Garrison regiments are USELESS (per manpower unit) for supression.

With 1 garrison and 4 MP regiments in a supression unit I completely pacify an annexed province at my current tech level. This is not useless if the province has considerable resource or manpower values. With overlapping fields of influence from supression units you will get away with using even less. In occupied territory with nothing but partisans to worry about, I use single MP regiment units without commanders.

As far as national unity goes, it will have no effect on nationalism upon annexation. With nothing but the extremely fragile empirical evidence of two conquests of nations with extremely low national unity, I have the feeling a low unity might increase the chance the nation surrenders rather than forms a GiE, allowing annexation to take place.

 

[Filou]

Will lowering the conquered nation's national unity have a bene effect on rr of the provinces formerly belonging to that national entity if done prior to conquest?

No. When you annex a territory, via the normal surrender event or via scripted events like Vichy or BP, you get Nationalism in each province which starts at 10% RR, and goes down over time.

When you occupy a territory, regardless if the country has gone in Exile or not, you get a base RR based on your occupation policy. If you change policy the RR adjust towards the new base value. Not sure how fast exactly, it takes a few weeks IIRC.

 

[womble]

On the MP and revolt risk, I think there might be a general issue misconception. Revolt risk can't be something that goes away completely within the narrow time frame of this game. It was always there in occupied/conquered territories, irl and that's fairly represented in the game. I think MP units are only meant to make the rr manageable and not make it go away completely.

Possibly true, but I've been exerimenting in Germany with France, and in '43 (after an early '41 French surrender) I have 20 [2GAR+3POL] divisions, 5 [LARM+MOT] reaction divisions and 5 [HQ+GAR+3POL] divisions in Germany. I estimate this gives 60% of Germany with less than 4% RR, and about a quarter of it with zero.

Is it worth all this? I couldn't begin to calculate. It's certainly cut the partisan problem, from several per month to about 1 per quarter, or less. I'm planning to make similar arrangements for any other annexations.

 

[Filou]

I believe I figured out suppression:
You get about 0.2 of the total suppression value in the province where the troops are.
You get about 0.1 of the total suppression value within a radius of 2 provinces from your troops, regardless of the amount of provinces that are within the radius.
This applies for all types of troops.

Although there seems to be some rounding issues involved, for example -
Kursk: 2Gar, 2MP(upgraded to 7 suppression) = 18 total.
In Kursk proper: 3.59 RR reduction
In surrounding provinces: 1.79 RR reduction
In provinces surrounding those: 1.79 RR reduction.

Interesting side effects:
-Troops in coastal provinces: The sea zone acts as a connection, so all coastal provinces that touch the sea zone are considered within range of the troops. See one messed-up situation here:


-The suppression does not cross borders.
In the above picture the Romanian troops don't apply their suppression in German occupied territory and vice-versa. I confirmed this where a border has occupied provinces on each side.

-Any allied troop will apply their full suppression value wherever they are located, regardless of who occupies the province.

 

[Pugmak]

I believe I figured out suppression:
You get about 0.2 of the total suppression value in the province where the troops are.
You get about 0.1 of the total suppression value within a radius of 2 provinces from your troops, regardless of the amount of provinces that are within the radius.
This applies for all types of troops.

Although there seems to be some rounding issues involved, for example -
Kursk: 2Gar, 2MP(upgraded to 7 suppression) = 18 total.
In Kursk proper: 3.59 RR reduction
In surrounding provinces: 1.79 RR reduction
In provinces surrounding those: 1.79 RR reduction.

Interesting side effects:
-Troops in coastal provinces: The sea zone acts as a connection, so all coastal provinces that touch the sea zone are considered within range of the troops. See one messed-up situation here:


-The suppression does not cross borders.
In the above picture the Romanian troops don't apply their suppression in German occupied territory and vice-versa. I confirmed this where a border has occupied provinces on each side.

-Any allied troop will apply their full suppression value wherever they are located, regardless of who occupies the province.

You might want to bug report that coastal connection thing. Who knows what else that might affect.

 

[Alex_brunius]

You might want to bug report that coastal connection thing. Who knows what else that might affect.

What if its not a bug and the military police can control a much lager area thanks to speedboats? ^^

 

[Pugmak]

What if its not a bug and the military police can control a much lager area thanks to speedboats? ^^

MP = Massacres Pirates?

 

[DrBrydon]

I build a 5 Gar div corps to hold Berlin, because I like to pretend the AI is smart and might do a paratrooper raid to steal my stockpiles.

That sounds like something I would do.

 

[Kovax]

Compare the supression value of the garrison regiment and the MP regiment. You use only one MP regiment and still blame it for the lousy supression of a unit comprised mostly of garrison regiments. MP regiments will have a supression value of 3, then 5, then 7 and so on. What is the supression value of a garrison? How many garrisons will you need to excert the same supression as 3 (equivalent manpower) MP regiments at technology level 3?

The correct statement from you should have been: Garrison regiments are USELESS (per manpower unit) for supression.

With 1 garrison and 4 MP regiments in a supression unit I completely pacify an annexed province at my current tech level. This is not useless if the province has considerable resource or manpower values. With overlapping fields of influence from supression units you will get away with using even less. In occupied territory with nothing but partisans to worry about, I use single MP regiment units without commanders.

As far as national unity goes, it will have no effect on nationalism upon annexation. With nothing but the extremely fragile empirical evidence of two conquests of nations with extremely low national unity, I have the feeling a low unity might increase the chance the nation surrenders rather than forms a GiE, allowing annexation to take place.

Sorry, but if placing 7 heavily upgraded MP units is what it takes to generate enough suppression (at 7 per unit, times 7 units = 49, multiplied by the roughly 0.2* for their effect in the province) in every important province to offset the 9.x RR, and you still only reduce the risk to 4.x RR in adjacent ones, that's still a LOT of MP units to throw onto the map. The GAR units only do 2, instead of the 3/5/7/..., but also serve as viable defenders, where the MPs just get swept away if anything does appear.

The country I'm currently playing can't even upgrade Infrastructure yet, much less afford to throw away research on upgrading MPs. Maybe GE can afford to throw down a line of 100+ high-tech MP units across the SU to make a safe and effective supply pipeline, but that's still ridiculous.

* This value comes from another poster, but I find it optimistic. My experience is more like around 0.12-0.15 in the province, and half that in the surrounding ones up to 2 away.

 

[womble]

I believe I figured out suppression:
You get about 0.2 of the total suppression value in the province where the troops are.
You get about 0.1 of the total suppression value within a radius of 2 provinces from your troops, regardless of the amount of provinces that are within the radius.
This applies for all types of troops.

I concur on that finding. 24.67 suppression in a province far from other units gets 4.92 suppression in that province, and 2.46 at 1 and 2 provinces' remove.

Double the revoltrisk to find the percent reduction in resource production. Can't see how much it affects Leadership and supply.

 

[Jonas]

Sorry, but if placing 7 heavily upgraded MP units is what it takes to generate enough suppression (at 7 per unit, times 7 units = 49, multiplied by the roughly 0.2* for their effect in the province) in every important province to offset the 9.x RR, and you still only reduce the risk to 4.x RR in adjacent ones, that's still a LOT of MP units to throw onto the map. The GAR units only do 2, instead of the 3/5/7/..., but also serve as viable defenders, where the MPs just get swept away if anything does appear.

The country I'm currently playing can't even upgrade Infrastructure yet, much less afford to throw away research on upgrading MPs. Maybe GE can afford to throw down a line of 100+ high-tech MP units across the SU to make a safe and effective supply pipeline, but that's still ridiculous.

* This value comes from another poster, but I find it optimistic. My experience is more like around 0.12-0.15 in the province, and half that in the surrounding ones up to 2 away.

Well if you cannot research building roads, maybe researching different ways to hunt down and supress dissidents is not for you. Maybe it should not be! Improving the police units is a cheap technology. If you are not able to or willing to invest in it, you should not be able to erase the revolt problem.

Garrison regiments give 2/3 supression per 1.000 men, my MP regiments give 7 supression per 1.000 men before I even invade the Soviet Union. There is still plenty of more technology levels to access. I keep repeating, but you will not listen, I pacify the important provinces with 1 garrison and 4 MP regiments.

You keep throwing these astronomical numbers around on what it would take to remove all revolt risk in all provinces in an annexed country. Fine, do that. It is pointless. You are not supposed to be able to remove every little shred of revolt risk in every single province with anything short of a massive investment. Please understand that the positive effect is immediate. To supress a single province to half the revolt risk is still useful.

It takes nowhere near 100 MP regiments to create a supply pipeline in the Soviet Union unless you have annexed it or chosen a harsh occupation policy. If you do, it is your own fault.

I am actually using MP regiments in the game. I actually supress revolt risk and partisans. I look at my OOB and the map and it does not look ridiculous at all. MP regiments and revolt risk are balanced. Someone who has not seriously tried it is not going to make me change my mind.

 

[Modo]

The reason to use garrison brigades is that they can fight partisans while adding more suppression than line infantry. The equation for military police is only relevant if you bother to cover the taken territory every ~3 provinces (trying to stop all partisans), which sounds like a crazy amount of micromanagement. If you just want to cover main supply lines and valuable provinces, you end up with a mix of garrison (fighting) and military police (suppression) brigades.

 

[bbasgen]

In my first game as the USSR, I'm considering using militia, so I read through this thread for some ideas. It is looking like a division composition of 2 INF + MIL + ART may be pretty good. The savings in manpower, officers and supply consumption is nice, and soft attack is only halved for 1940 militia vs infantry. The main concern I think is that the speed is a little lower.

So, perhaps they are decent cannon fodder for urban defense/hedgehogs?