Oddness: Unit creation.

[Palmerdale]

I'm playing another game as Italy. It's late 41. I've conquered Yugoslavia, Greece, Belgium and Turkey and am just starting a campaign against Britain in the Middle East. I'm busily producing Garrison units (2xGar) to sit in all ports Turkey and the Middle East.

But I'm running into a problem where I can deploy a new Garrison Unit, but not create a new Corps level unit to attach the new unit (plus the next 2 -- southern Turkey ports) into my organization chart. Also, it seems like I cannot start production on new units (4x (3xInf)). I've got a relatively sparse organization -- almost every HQ unit has 3 or more subordinates attached to it.

it seems like I am running into some kind of unit limit, but I'm almost certain I've had more units (or brigades) deployed in other games. It's acting as if I am at some kind of brigade limit -- if I delete a HQ unit, I can create a new HQ unit, on a 1-for-1 basis. I'm unaware of any specific brigade limit, and haven't encountered this before.

The more I think about this, the problem began after I added 6 MOT brigades to the production queue.

Does anyone have an idea what might be happening, so that I can correct it in future games?

 

[Makje]

what is you manpower pool like? it seems to be too low to create more units...

 

[marxianTJ]

Yeah sounds like you've run out of manpower. You can delete some units either from the map or the production queue to free up some of your manpower - or you should increase your draft laws and research agriculture to maybe fix the problem a few years down the road as your pool recovers.

The easiest way to run into this is if you build your units in a long serial production - if you make a serial of 99 infantry divisions, that item in your production queue will claim 99 inf divisions worth of manpower - which will tend to completely destroy your MP pool lol.

 

[Palmerdale]

I have over 50 MP available (73, I think). Most divisions have 4 brigades, 3 frontline (INF, MTN, MAR, PAR. ALP. MOT and 3 ARM brigades) plus 1 support unit. The Italy-France border is basically the starting units, and most of the inland boarders are empty. I've got my 2 assault Army Groups spread around fighting in the Middle East and Ethiopia still -- 2 corps with 2 divisions of 2xALP, 1xfast Spport and 1xAC supplemented by 1 division of 3xMTN, 1xAA and 1 division of 3xMOT + fast support for exploitation. The 3rd corps is 2 divisions of 1xARM, 2xMOT, 1xTD and 1 division of 1xARM, 2xMOT and 1xMobile AA. These forces took Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey without much help. (Mostly more INF and MTN and MAR now reading themselves on the Turkish-Soviet border).

Everything in the queue and the new units I was trying to add were all Reserve units. I was trying to add 12 brigades of INF reserves (4x (3xINF)) to the queue. I thought that MP wasn't an issue for this.

----------
Oops! I found the problem. Another chair-keyboard interface issue. I wanted to add 12 brigades of INF. I was trying to add 36 brigades of INF. Definitely didn't have the manpower for that.

 

[yamato2cz]

there is low limit on MP needed to enstablish HQs. for minors i found its 10-20. its a hidden mechanics of sorts.

 

[Oof]

Why bother attaching GAR to HQ's? I always directly attach GAR/MIL to a theatre HQ, because they don't do any real combat...maybe one or two invasions but thats it.

All those GAR HQ's use supplies, cost MP, IC and LS while the benfits are only minimal at best. Cause, as said, they dont see any combat and even if they do they won't be able to hold their ground against an invasion since an invasion usually covers multiple provinces and involve multiple enemy units.

 

[Wraith11B]

With sufficient LWs throughout the ORDBAT, you could significantly reduce the draw on supplies. You could, also, stop reinforcing them after a certain amount of men get assigned to the HQs as well.

 

[Oof]

You can still assign LW to GAR units and get the same effect without HQ's but at a far lower cost in LS, MP and IC.

 

[Wraith11B]

But the stacking effect of having LW at all levels of a proper ORDBAT means the effect is magnified, and I'd just stop the reinforcement of the rear-echelon HQs at 100-250 troops.

If you want to see graphically the effects, take a look at "America Saves the World" by robw693 who made some pretty awesome graphics about how the LW can impact at every level of the ORDBAT.

 

[Makje]

Don't waste many logistics wizrads on backwater garrison divisions, no country has that many logistics wizard leaders to waste. iIf you want to, in a backyard theatre you can easily give the HQ also1 or 2 Garrison brigades so that it becomes a 6 division corps. Use the LW at the corps level so you have full effect on1 division (the Corps HQ wit it's garrison brigades) and 5 garrison divisions for half effect.The 100 officers that 1 HQ brigade needs is the cost versus extra supply savings.

 

[marxianTJ]

It depends on the situation as far as whether or not LW generals are worthwhile. If you are a *very* large nation fighting in a very big theater stacking LWs in basically any conceivable position (excepting Army Group if a LW isn't your highest level general) particularly if your infrastructure situation is poor. Another situation would be playing a very small nation where you need every tiniest fraction of IC to be able to build anything.

If it's just a single GAR division it's likely not worth it because the actual supply draw from a GAR division is rather low, in fact it's the lowest in the game. Your average GAR/GAR/GAR + attachment division will only draw .45 supplies + the supply requirements of the attachment - general there only saves you .11 supplies.... - unlike your mots and tanks which will be drawing 3-4 supplies each and double that when moving. It'd always be more effective to put a LW on any other division than on Gars because they consume the least supplies of all units.

Having a LW OOB is nice but having a combined arms OOB is nice too - since you can achieve a 49% effectiveness bonus on some of your most expensive units. Of course there are a lot of considerations involved, such as not having many expensive units that'll take advantage of a combined arms bonus, lack of battlemasters or LW generals, and so on.

 

[Oof]

If you want to see graphically the effects, take a look at "America Saves the World" by robw693 who made some pretty awesome graphics about how the LW can impact at every level of the ORDBAT.

I’m definitely not contesting the effects a LW can have on a full OOB. Im only contesting setting up a full OOB for GAR units. As others posted they use hardly any supplies, they are usually in backwater areas and and cannot hold out on their won against enemy invasions anyway. Even with the 100-250 per HQ the cost in LS can be pretty high:
Army Group: 100 - 250
Army: 100 - 250
Corps: 100 - 250
Total: 300 - 750 officers

But a player would deploy 2-4 corps for the GAR units. This brings the total in officers for one theatre in the range of aprox 800 – 2000 officers! If you’re playing a country like England that number will be a lot higher. You would deploy some GAR in England itself, the Middle East and the far East (India and Singapore). So at least 3-4 Army groups! The number of officers needed would easily reach 2000-3000! If you’re playing Germany the cost would be high in LS as well. Let’s say Fall Gelb has just been executed successfully: The Netherlands has 4 ports, Belgium 2 ports and France about 12 (can’t remember the exact number of ports).
To avoid invasions you need to deploy 2 units per port, that’s 34 units plus the German ports = 40 units in total. If you have 6 units per HQ, that’s 7 Corps HQ, 2 Army HQ and one Army Group HQ. The total comes to 10 HQ’s just for Western Europe. That’s 1000 – 2500 officers just to save guard the coast of Western Europe (if you turn of reinforcements and upgrades).
But in both cases, Germany and England, you would expand your empire further, which means you need even more GAR. In any game playing a major the cost in LS can easily reach 5,000 - 10,000 officers! And that’s a lot of LS you can use for research, spies or diplomacy.

Besides the cost in officers HQ’s also use IC for production, as little as it might be, and supplies from the moment you set up an HQ raising the total cost even more. And to what effect? In practice the effects of a full OOB of GAR are negligible.

In my experience and opinion it’s better to directly attach GAR to a theatre HQ. The theatre commander will act as corps commander, if you assign a LW, you do use less supplies. BTW I only assign LW to theatres HQ’s and GAR who also have the OG (Old Guard) trait. All other LW are used for combat units for reasons already posted by others.

 

[yamato2cz]

thats why you use MIL instead of GAR. defence is practically same. and they are faster. and eat only a little more supplies. but also cost less MP. and using them solely for partisan duty is fairly dumb too. its better to use MIL with MP for that.

 

[marxianTJ]

Typically what I do is stick them at the theater level too unless I know they're going to be sitting there in large numbers for a while - like the Maginot - 2x Gar divs in each Maginot province will hold the line which saves a bit of ic and time.

For me the MIL/GAR payout depends on the location - a Germany that puts GARs in French and Belgian ports can get a lot of play out of them because their suppression will spread fairly well due the sheer number of ports, but an ENG that garrisons the home ports with GAR is spending too much and MILs are definitely better. I also find that 1 Gar div is *usually* sufficient - whether that's because of something else I'm doing I'm not sure - as Germany I typically leave at least 2 corps of stuff in France to bottle up any landings anyhow (paranoia). If you're playing a country that has decent LS or techs a single cav brigade spread over a fairly wide area is enough to deal with *most* partisan problems - excepting when the AI builds a ton of underground resistance on you - then I opt for the mil brigades with GAR in urban areas mostly purely for flavor lol.

 

[yamato2cz]

well, as germany, when i conquer russia, i assign 200 single militia brigades (1x MIL) to theathers around russia. it kills partisans like nothing else and is cheap as dirt. give it only to theather ofc, so you wont waste officers, and having MIL units of only 1 brigade size is blocking AI from assigning leaders to the units. cavalry is nice too. but its damn slow if you want motorised infantry. never really got why is there speed malus for cavalry techs.

 

[Oof]

I don’t like to use combat units, INF/CAV/MOT/etc, for garrison or PTS duty, IMO it’s a waste of resources. This doesn’t mean I never deploy combat units in such areas, but it’s temporarily. I.e when I don’t have the necessary GAR/MIL units yet or when I am building up a full Corps.

That’s why I use a variety of GAR and MIL depending on the Theatre and country I play. For single province islands who are likely to be attacked, mainly the Pacific as Japan and USA, I use GAR. Only because they have a better defense capability which buys me time to get the fleet in to destroy the invaders. As Germany I use 3xGAR + 2xMIL+1xMP to defend my ports. GAR for suppression and defensive capabilities and MIL because I need a second unit but I don’t wanna spent too much IC and LS. Inland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Poland, I use 2xMIL+1xMP. Though MIL doesn’t have any suppression value the MP unit does. Once a resistance cell pops up I put one unit in the province in question and redeploy other MIL units to all the adjacent provinces. In most cases the resistance cell is destroyed before it can expand.

After the bitter peace event I deploy 3xMIL or 2xMIL in Russia. The reason is quite simple: the Russian territory is annexed and enemy countries can’t deploy resistance cells in annexed territory. Furthermore annexed territory always has a high revolt risk, red, and units with suppression value will only suppress potential PTS in the provinces closets to those units. And that’s not really what I want. Given the fact that those kind of uprising can’t be stopped anyway, they are pretty random, you want to increase the chance of having them as close by as possible. So no suppression value!

As England I use GAR to protect England proper with the intention to redeploy them to the Med in a later stage of the game. Basically safeguarding England for the time being while planning ahead (Italy and Sicily). The Med is one of those areas where I don’t wanna protect my ports with 2 units simply because it’s too expensive and because there are too many ports. That’s why I use 3xGAR in the Med (again because of the defensive capabilities and the buying time factor). I also use only one GAR unit as England in South East Asia. Again it’s just too expensive and there are too many ports. This does mean I have to deal with enemy invasions, in the Med and South East Asia, every once in a while, but it’s a good way to draw the enemy fleet out in the open and destroy them.

As Russia I use quite a few 3xGAR units. I deploy some in the Far East at the Manchurian border, so I can deploy combat forces in the West to counter the Germans. Major cities like Leningrad, Moscow and Sevastopol are all protected by GAR as well because MIL just won’t be able to stand up against German combat units. As Russia I don’t’ build any MIL or GAR units to safeguard my conquests. Russia puppets all it’s conquests anyway.

As the USA, as posted, GAR for the Pacific and in the Med 1 GAR per port just like England and I don’t bother using GAR or MIL to protect countries like France and Belgium when I invade them. The revolt risk is zero anyway and by that time both the Germans and Italians don’t have any invading capabilities.