Garrisons and Military Police

[unmerged(162341)]

I think in HOI IV an important emphasize should be made on Garrison issue, and MP issue.


About garrison:

I think it is time for developer to consider deleting Garrison as a type of unit. There should be Garrison DUTY, available for all ground units.

Unit on garrison duty will get suppression bonuses while stay for long time in that area, and get some movement penalty accordingly also and supply demand change.

For instance infantry division ( or any other type od division) that player decides it will garrison some port :- Over time, this division "adapts" itself in garrison duty, its suppression rises(similar to digging in), while its supply demand lowers because soldiers are in barracks and equipement not moved and used constantly so much as while in the status of frontline division.

If this division is set to move again it has again some time of adaptation penalties(let say orgnisation penalty ) to a role of mobile division.

So I think garrison should be deleted and "Garrisoning duty" established to reflect reality.

This can be even further perfected by exploiting fact of having division equipment that will be in HOI IV, so division on garrison duty could, if player wants, be left without part of its equipment (Tanks,AC-s,TD-s,trucks, artillery, etc.) and this equipment deployed elsewhere.


EDITED 25.3.2014. influenced by debate with dermeister post 22/23

"Here is a better proposal: Each division has a "Garrison" province assigned (sort of how fleets have bases). After you change it, you need 6 months to change it again (to avoid gamey-ness). If the unit is in it's garrison province, it gets a Logistics Wizard type bonus (-25% supply).


Introducing Stance:

Blitz,
Attack,
Defensive,
Prepare,
Garrison.

Class 1 and 2 of manpower-Manpower echelons:

However while abandoning garrisons as an unit, it will be nice to have 2 types of foot infantry devided by quality of manpower,
1st echelon and 2nd echelon


I thought mainly on mobilization waves. First echelon will be regular mobilization of man in its prime age for soldier duty (18-45 years) and second echelon or "class" will be, usually as a last option, infantry of men 17-60 years mobilized(with 18-45 excluded since not available anymore).

How about to implement manpower not as solid form, but a mixture of class 1(prime age privates 18-45) and class 2 (last option mobilization to young and to old). So standard best-fit division will have 100% class 1 manpower, while, lets say in last ditch survival of the country a it could have predominantly class 2 infantry (example 40% class1 manpower, 60% class 2 and sum of it makes division manpower statistics)?

There will be manpower pool of both class 1 manpower and class 2 manpower. Here I should say that for Airforce(pilots) and navy(sailors) only class 1 can be considered.

As for ground forces, player could choose, of course if country has enough class 1 manpower, to make all ground divisions of prime age man. However some countries (historically let say Germany in later war period,) there will be an option to make mixture of class 1 an 2 manpower, with result of lowering fighting statistics of division to maintain divisions number and combat status.Player could choose, and here we came back to garrison, to assign majority of available class 1 manpower for Frontline divisions and class 2 to garrison and occupying divisions.
or make mixture of manpower troughout its army.

This of course inflicts reinforcements! Reinforcvements should be devided also in class 1 and 2 of manpower. Players should have a lever to decide priority for manpower reinfircement of the troops- class 1, class 2 or what ratio between those 2 .

MP

I think once and for all developer should get rid of the MP burden and decide: Is MP (military police in name) a true militar police which has little to do with suppression of local population instead it rises organisation of the army by controling discipline of the troops. Or is such unit a state police designed for keeping order of local population but than it can not be Military police.It cant be both, and if it is not true military police why has been called such?

I would like for developer to either divide true military police and state police, or to delete one MP that existed so far .

 

[SFSLovenought]

I am now imagining assigning a Super-Heavy Armour Division to "Garrison Duty" in, say, Warsaw.

It's a horrible thought, but also really amusing for some reason. Kind of like crushing ants with a bulldozer.

 

[unmerged(162341)]

I am now imagining assigning a Super-Heavy Armour Division to "Garrison Duty" in, say, Warsaw.

It's a horrible thought, but also really amusing for some reason. Kind of like crushing ants with a bulldozer.

Yes, and will be reality. On some extreme spots elite and most powerful units can garrison them, benefiting from not being moved (lowers supply and supression, rises defense) but penalized in attack and movement.

Indeed there is no such unit as garrison, every unit can be garrison, this is a duty, an order to garrison some area.

Garrisons can but not always have lower quality weapons and be lower quality troops, but not always there is no stict rule for the equipoement of garrison.

In your case, now that HOIV will enable division equimpement, you can decide will your Warsaw garrison keep those tanks (after they crush Polish will to fight) or those tanks be reasigned somwehere else ...

 

[Big Nev]

Well if we're talking about Unit Types that didn't exist, someone mentioned super-heavy armour.

Unless PDX are going to re-classify Tiger II, Elefant (& similar) as SHArm, it's about time that particualr fantasy was done away with.

 

[SFSLovenought]

Well if we're talking about Unit Types that didn't exist, someone mentioned super-heavy armour.

Unless PDX are going to re-classify Tiger II, Elefant (& similar) as SHArm, it's about time that particualr fantasy was done away with.

B-b-but I just want to crush the plucky Resistance fighters once and for all with my invincible army of Super Tanks! (While laughing maniacally)

Is that really too much to ask?

 

[unmerged(162341)]

Well if we're talking about Unit Types that didn't exist, someone mentioned super-heavy armour.

Unless PDX are going to re-classify Tiger II, Elefant (& similar) as SHArm, it's about time that particualr fantasy was done away with.

Agree with you ,doctrinaly.

But let say SHARm can be justiffied for spice (tank rush instinct) which may count on younger players.

Still, "regular"HARM is more than enough to deliver behemoth tanks for spice (King Tiger II+ etc.)

Together with Garrison and MP , SHarm is part of "troublesome 3" and should be reconsidered.

 

[Big Nev]

B-b-but I just want to crush the plucky Resistance fighters once and for all with my invincible army of Super Tanks! (While laughing maniacally)

Is that really too much to ask?

Yes. Waaay too much to ask.

If I can’t assault Midway by firing 24” torpedoes up the beach at machine-gun nests & pill-boxes from my invincible amphibious tanks (that actually did exist BTW), you can’t have your impossibly heavy monsters.

It’s only fair.

And everything is fair in war right?.



OK. Maybe “invincible” is a bit ambitious for a Ka Mi. A Mouse would crush one like Coke can.

Unless it got torpedoed first

 

[Tormodius]

Military Police duty includes the following:
(some of which could be used in the game)
- Diciplinary duty, and taking care of crime within military units.
- Guarding military resources/ theft-investigation.
- Prisoner of war duty
- VIP escort duty
- Traffic duty

Ok, so VIP escort and POW duty is not a good idea for the game, since its probably not within the scope.
Diciplinary is a good idea to have for improving morale or combat efficiency or whatever they choose to implement.
Also the securing of resources such as supply, from being stolen, ending up on blackmarkets, could mean supply bonus or something in that area.
Traffic duty, also supply related. Roads were clogged by tanks, and trucks, etc. MP-units kept it moving smoother. Perhaps throughput or whatever they choose now in a new supply system. So yes, MP units could have a new role in a new game, if they want to make it so.

Historically, secret police such as Gestapo, or in some countries civilian police cooperating with them, would be responsible for anti-partisan activities. Very brutal, so not to be discussed because of the forum rules! still, they had partisan suppression in HOI3, so maybe they will add something of that in HOI4 too.

 

[unmerged(162341)]

Military Police duty includes the following:
(some of which could be used in the game)
- Diciplinary duty, and taking care of crime within military units.
- Guarding military resources/ theft-investigation.
- Prisoner of war duty
- VIP escort duty
- Traffic duty

Ok, so VIP escort and POW duty is not a good idea for the game, since its probably not within the scope.
Diciplinary is a good idea to have for improving morale or combat efficiency or whatever they choose to implement.
Also the securing of resources such as supply, from being stolen, ending up on blackmarkets, could mean supply bonus or something in that area.
Traffic duty, also supply related. Roads were clogged by tanks, and trucks, etc. MP-units kept it moving smoother. Perhaps throughput or whatever they choose now in a new supply system. So yes, MP units could have a new role in a new game, if they want to make it so.

Historically, secret police such as Gestapo, or in some countries civilian police cooperating with them, would be responsible for anti-partisan activities. Very brutal, so not to be discussed because of the forum rules! still, they had partisan suppression in HOI3, so maybe they will add something of that in HOI4 too.

Fact is that MP brigade has been criticised and debated for years and its logic and usefullenes dubious.This must be resolved on this or another way but MP should not stay as it is that's for sure.

I cant imagine they left in HOI IV MP as it is, unit that has been generally considered useles for years, noted even in HOI Wiki.

Since Paradox decided to bring reality on a higher level in game in general I think it is logic they should divide former MP into real Military police and introduce state security units, state Police,that extends its area of duty on occupied territories.

 

[mursolini]

IMO, military police should me removed and replaced with some sort of occupation mechanics. Maybe have special "light" divisions/brigades that can do the occupation duties? After all, you don`t really need heavy artilery and AT to fight the partisans.

Garisons, should be "garisoning" static defences. as such, the unit should only perform well if it is in a province with static defences, and be easilly routed if not.

 

[unmerged(162341)]

I was thinking, you put any division or corps in garrisoning stance, and you have on disposal its heavy equipement to resign elsewhere, if wanted.

Thus player will customize its garrisons, somewhere only infantry with rifles, somewhere with heavy equipement, depending of requirement.

This will be realistic garrisoning/ocupation I think.

 

[SFSLovenought]

Hmm.
I wonder if they will include a mechanic to represent how many resistance movements were able to steal/buy a huge amount of guns from the anti-partisan troops that were supposed to be fighting them, since those "Police Forces" were often just native criminals and scumbags given guns, or conscripts who only fought so they and their family didn't starve/get shot.

I remember reading about how Tito's partisans would capture collaborator troops, take all their stuff and then let them go unharmed. They would then be re-armed by the Germans. Soon after, the partisans would re-capture them after a "battle"...

 

[unmerged(162341)]

Hmm.
I wonder if they will include a mechanic to represent how many resistance movements were able to steal/buy a huge amount of guns from the anti-partisan troops that were supposed to be fighting them, since those "Police Forces" were often just native criminals and scumbags given guns, or conscripts who only fought so they and their family didn't starve/get shot.

I remember reading about how Tito's partisans would capture collaborator troops, take all their stuff and then let them go unharmed. They would then be re-armed by the Germans. Soon after, the partisans would re-capture them after a "battle"...

I believe it was debated somewhere about captured equipment, but I am not sure will that equipment include such fine details as machine guns and rifles? Probably captured peace of artillery will be represented, I am not sure.Individual tanks I think has been said will be counted.

In any way, equipment of division feature has enormous potential of customizing divisions.

In such setting we really don't need garrisons.

I mean if player wants cheap infantry unit that will garrison some area , he can strip of that divisions heavy equipment and voila. If garrison duty will be added as an option that division really over time becomes true garrison.

 

[Secret Master]

Well, you should ask yourself this: does HOI3 benefit from having a partisan and suppression mechanic? I think it does.

The next question is: do GAR and MP help with this mechanic? Yes, they do, although since Germany can run collaboration government, their value is dubious until the Allies start funding URs.

If that's true, is it better to model partisan suppression with specialized divisions or just tag regular divisions for suppression duties?

Keep in mind that GAR and MP are very cheap ways of suppressing partisans in HOI3. Tagging an INF division for the same duty is much more expensive.

Maybe GAR and MP need new names?

 

[mursolini]

Hmm.
I wonder if they will include a mechanic to represent how many resistance movements were able to steal/buy a huge amount of guns from the anti-partisan troops that were supposed to be fighting them, since those "Police Forces" were often just native criminals and scumbags given guns, or conscripts who only fought so they and their family didn't starve/get shot.

I remember reading about how Tito's partisans would capture collaborator troops, take all their stuff and then let them go unharmed. They would then be re-armed by the Germans. Soon after, the partisans would re-capture them after a "battle"...

I don`t think you can really call that amount huge, tanken scale involved.
We are speaking about tens of millions of small arms produced by big sides. How many did the local resistance fighters managed to obtain?
I would`t wager even on hunreds of thousands figure.

Well, you should ask yourself this: does HOI3 benefit from having a partisan and suppression mechanic? I think it does.

The next question is: do GAR and MP help with this mechanic? Yes, they do, although since Germany can run collaboration government, their value is dubious until the Allies start funding URs.

If that's true, is it better to model partisan suppression with specialized divisions or just tag regular divisions for suppression duties?

Keep in mind that GAR and MP are very cheap ways of suppressing partisans in HOI3. Tagging an INF division for the same duty is much more expensive.

Maybe GAR and MP need new names?

The problem is not names.
First and formost, the problem is in the setup. There is no reason to use anything other than colaboration gov, because you will spend huge on IC for supplies to your troops.

Then, supression of police untis are far too weak, it will never ever pay off to garison cities or towns with police.
There are also no elaborate supply lines, and high-capacity railroads, so you need every bit of supply thrughput in every province, you can`t just rely on garisoning a few railroads well.

That all need to change. First of all, revolt risk mechanics nees to go. It should be replaced with loyalty and resistance mechanics. You need some goverment and military structure for the land. In case of high loyalty you don`t need to garison cities, the population will generally comply. If you don`t you should need to garison teritory to get anything from it. Garison divisions or brigades should have wide, 3-4 province circle, aerie of controll. You should position those occupation forces in inportant places.
Then, if there is low resistance, you shouldn`t have a lot of problems with aeries that you don`t controll, they would just provide you with nothing.
If there is high resistance, it should become harder to controll aerie, and your troops should take attrition if bordering aeries that you don`t controll to represent partisans. With each attrition tanken, the resistance should fall as well(killed freedom fighters).
Then the mother country or it`s allies can try to organise resistance with spies and by organising equipment smuggling or paradroping, while the occupant fights them with it`s own spies. Enemy`s population ruling party popularity, national unity and your occupation policies should also have effect on if the resistance is building up or dying down.

 

[Bullfrog]

If I remember right, in HOI 2 any unit could be assigned "anti-partisan duty." So there is a precedent for this, though I'd prefer if it worked automatically in a defensive posture.

As for mil pol and garrisons, if divisions are made via template, and there is no detailed equipment customization per unit, I don't see another way of being able to create them. I'd like it if GAR was just a light and rather immobile infantry division rather than a specific unit though. Military police can go away altogether.

 

[unmerged(162341)]

Well, you should ask yourself this: does HOI3 benefit from having a partisan and suppression mechanic? I think it does.

The next question is: do GAR and MP help with this mechanic? Yes, they do, although since Germany can run collaboration government, their value is dubious until the Allies start funding URs.

If that's true, is it better to model partisan suppression with specialized divisions or just tag regular divisions for suppression duties?

Keep in mind that GAR and MP are very cheap ways of suppressing partisans in HOI3. Tagging an INF division for the same duty is much more expensive.

Maybe GAR and MP need new names?

----garrison

Garrison indeed is a duty in real world, I didn't make it myself. Paradox, If I may be so opened,skilfuly invented garrison unit as a special branch of infantry.

It was ok in a HOI I up to HOI III but I think HOI IV should offer more. In HOI IV we will get units that will be produced by joining manpower and equipment.So it should be all about composition of divisions,and its duty.

Any unit can be garrison if it gets an order to control and protect some area.Garrisons are sizes from regiment to the size of an army.Sometimes low quality troops in garrison, but sometimes an elite.
For instance Germans had in France, Brest region a mighty garrison of near 100 000 troops on its peak, some regiment within were elite, and that garrison has been cut-off after D-day but was holding for moths after inflicting heavy losses to allies until surrendered(40 000 men ).This was a garrison of the size of an army.

In my view, one brilliant HOI IV will offer exactly this, decide, let say entire Korps, or why not even an army to became garrison of some hot region or ocupation army. Remove tanks from it if for instance if you think you need them elsewhere(or not)and let the game transform this formation-to settle down,to entrench and adapt to static role and here you go.True garrison and /or ocupation army.

Units in HOI IV should not be so crude in their designations or types, formula manpower+equipment =division should be used to offer realistic fluent situation in composition of divisions, but this must be strengthened by divisions orders and duties.

-----MP
Even if you dont accept this, about MP I think is clear it was unit that satisfied very few people in HOI III.
It was also neglected unit entirely during lifespan of HOI III, for instance in last HOI III addon TFH developer managed to balance garrison by putting its supply value in half, while MP brigade stayed twice more demanding in supply than garrison, thus MP failed to justify itself from the egining of HOI III evolution to its end(sometimes it drained more supply than benefit given from suppression).

 

[mondblut]

Uh, could we just write off some percentage of IC and manpower to "suppress unrest" and forget about spamming some useless non-combatant units that flood the unit roster and get in the way when you try to select some real ones on the map? Pretty please?

It's not like fighting rebellions was ever entertaining in any single PDX game. Heck, every single answer to "how do I fight rebels/partisans/etc" is universally "set a bunch of units you aren't really going to employ for any actually useful purpose to AI control and forget about them". Why not make the last step and virtualize it entirely? I'd gladly part with 50% of my IC and manpower rather than waste my time and screen space on 100500 "cavalry + MP" junk divisions.

Make it a slider in production screen or something, much like consumer goods to deal with unrest used to be. As long as the needs of police are filled, they keep the rebels down without ever bothering you. Start to underman and underfund them - that's when the actual rebels begin pestering you in the earnest. Even then, they are better off blowing up infra/IC and causing attrition to units via events than appearing as units in a cloud of magic sparks and conquering a province or three out of the blue before being unavoidably and brutally vaporized.

 

[Bullfrog]

Uh, could we just write off some percentage of IC and manpower to "suppress unrest" and forget about spamming some useless non-combatant units that flood the unit roster and get in the way when you try to select some real ones on the map? Pretty please?

It's not like fighting rebellions was ever entertaining in any single PDX game. Heck, every single answer to "how do I fight rebels/partisans/etc" is universally "set a bunch of units you aren't really going to employ for any actually useful purpose to AI control and forget about them". Why not make the last step and virtualize it entirely? I'd gladly part with 50% of my IC and manpower rather than waste my time and screen space on 100500 "cavalry + MP" junk divisions.

Make it a slider in production screen or something, much like consumer goods to deal with unrest used to be. As long as the needs of police are filled, they keep the rebels down without ever bothering you. Start to underman and underfund them - that's when the actual rebels begin pestering you in the earnest. Even then, they are better off blowing up infra/IC and causing attrition to units via events than appearing as units in a cloud of magic sparks and conquering a province or three out of the blue before being unavoidably and brutally vaporized.

Well, the Germans did garrison their conquered lands extensively... with "junk" divisions. But again, if the player can make lesser equipped infantry rather than GAR, it would mean that those units could be made into better ones simply by adding the necessary heavy stuff and transport at any time.

I'd like to have occupying forces on map rather than a constant off map IC/manpower drain.

 

[mondblut]

Well, the Germans did garrison their conquered lands extensively... with "junk" divisions.

Sure they did. But could I delegate this to ai entirely, without those garrisons ever getting in my way on the map, without ever having to build them manually?

Whenever I see an infantry unit of my colors which is not MOT or MECH combined with a lot of mobile supports, I suffer an overwhelming urge to click the upgrade button, one which I cannot suppress with all the MP in the world

I'd like to have occupying forces on map rather than a constant off map IC/manpower drain.

In the end, that could always be an option. They did introduce "arcade" supply option to HOI3 eventually, after all. I'd be very happy if there were an "arcade" rebel suppression option.

Actually, the way I outlined it above, all you'd have to do is set the police supply slider to zero to keep it the old way