Upgrading Brigades, Exploiting and GAR

[incognitus]

So... rather than starting separate threads for these questions, I figured I combine them, since they are somewhat related.

I will start with GAR...
It is my understanding, that there is no valid reason to ever produce GAR brigades. This is because they are only marginally cheaper than INF, but perform more poorly than INF in pretty much every task. Here's an overview of the pros and cons:
Advantages of GAR vs INF:
Cost only 80% of the MP
Cost only 60% of the IC
Take only 40% of the time to produce
Use only 30% of the officers
Use only 25% of the supplies
Disadvantages of GAR vs INF:
Move at only 25% the speed
Far lower toughness (1 vs 4)
Weaker soft attack (2 vs 3)
Weaker piercing (1 vs 2)
Use militia tech
Use/Create militia practical

The core questions is: What would you build them for? To actually defend something? Or to sit around somewhere doing nothing, maybe whack-a-moling a few rebels? If you want them to actually fight, their weaknesses are much worse than their advantages. You are better off (and more flexible) just using INF instead. To me the last two points are the deal breaker. Having to research 4 extra techs plus additional Land doctrines just to keep GAR up to date, just to have them still being weaker than anything they might encounter. Plus producing GAR doesn't give you practical for producing INF. This is terrible.
If you just want them to sit around somewhere... MIL is cheaper and moves faster.

Now, let's move on to upgrading...
Is there any reason not to upgrade all your GAR to INF at the beginning of the game?

And the Exploiting...
In you experience or based on your calculations... what units are cheaper to produce by producing an inferiour unit first and then upgrading it to what you actually wanted? I think I remember someone claiming that training CAV and then upgrading it to LARM is cheaper than building LARM directly, but I'd like to know if that is actually the case and what other units this might apply to. Obviously this would be cheesy as hell for a major to do, but some minors are to crippled by what the game lets them start with, that it might be fair enough to exploit a little bit to avoid outright cheating...

 

[marxianTJ]

It's definitely the case because that's how you outfit a nation like Italy with say, a HARM in every division lol. That would be, I think, quite impossible if you built them new.

GAR's main use is just sitting in place (it's what they do). So, sitting in your capital doing nothing - preventing it from being seized by paratroopers. Sitting and guarding a port, doing nothing. Because the GAR aren't in those places to actually fight (they may have to) they're there to dissuade attack - a scarecrow. You don't even really have to upgrade them if you don't want to. Partisan wack-a-mole is better dealt with by MIL brigades if you want the cheapest, or CAV+AC if you want the fastest possible mallet without it being *too* expensive.

It's like my friend says about his job as a security guard. The first thing they tell you on your first day is that your job is not to stop people from committing crimes, breaking into places, or stealing things. Your job is to act as a scarecrow and dissuade unruly behavior with your visual presence - if anybody actually does anything that they're not supposed to, you're to call the police. That's exactly how GAR are meant to work. They just sit there as a scarecrow and hopefully they never have to do anything, but if they do, they should last long enough to give you time to send something more effective to the area.

If you have no need of scarecrows upgrading to INF is pretty reasonable. Mass upgrading to INF won't really save you much for MP or officers however - but it will save a marginal amount of IC over producing new INF.

 

[incognitus]

It's definitely the case because that's how you outfit a nation like Italy with say, a HARM in every division lol. That would be, I think, quite impossible if you built them new.

That is referring to which production/upgrad exploit? Building CAV and then upgrading them straight to HARM? Are there any other useful combinations? Like building MIL/GAR and upgrading them to Special Forces or MOT/MEC? I'm sure there are some upgrade paths that pay off and others that don't, right?

GAR's main use is just sitting in place (it's what they do). So, sitting in your capital doing nothing - preventing it from being seized by paratroopers. Sitting and guarding a port, doing nothing. Because the GAR aren't in those places to actually fight (they may have to) they're there to dissuade attack - a scarecrow. You don't even really have to upgrade them if you don't want to. Partisan wack-a-mole is better dealt with by MIL brigades if you want the cheapest, or CAV+AC if you want the fastest possible mallet without it being *too* expensive.

So, what are you actually suggesting. Would you actually ever build GAR for one of those purposes, wasting practical on the MIL/GAR branch? Why not just use MIL instead? They are sufficient as scare crows and more versatile than GAR. Also... those scenarios you're painting must be from multiplayer, because I've never had anyone paradrop into my territory or try to take a port with an amphibious invasion. Except for the Americans somewhere on a remote Island/colony, that I would bother to guard in the first place.
When you say "You don't even really have to upgrade them if you don't want to." are you referring to researching their techs or turning them into INF?

I don't know. In single player there seems to be no use for GAR at all. If you don't start with GAR, I don't see, why you would ever build any. If you start with them, isn't it cheaper to upgrade them rather than build additional INF from scratch?

 

[marxianTJ]

Ohhhhh boy. Now you've gotta do an experiment

Step 1. Play as France

Step 2. Put nothing in Paris

The AI *will* paradrop on Paris and take all of your resource stockpiles and you will die lol. I was pretty amazed when I saw it myself, but I *had* to test if the AI would actually ever use paratroopers and the answer is yes, yes it will. If the AI has a TRA and Paras it'll drop them on unguarded VPs of sufficient value (really only seen it with national capitals).

I suffer from amphibious invasion fairly regularly as well if ports are left insufficiently guarded. I've even had a really wacky game where Nationalist Spain tried to invade Leningrad I still don't quite understand how that game went so wrong.

The reason you choose GAR over MIL is because they're slightly more effective in combat than MIL so they buy you a little more time than the MILs would, so if you have static targets to guard that's the easiest route. For example it's entirely possible for France to man the Maginot with GAR alone - and the German AI won't be able to penetrate because of the huge malus to their attacks from the lvl 10 forts. Which is nice for France since MP and officers come at a huge premium.

I'm surprised if you're leaving ports open that the AI doesn't dive on them to be annoying.

Yes, I meant not to research their techs - the 1936 SA tech is sufficient in most cases to assure that you have enough firepower to last long enough for *something* to jump in and get ready to beat back the attacker.

 

[Kovax]

As MarxianTJ points out, the presence of units in a port or capital will deter the AI from attacking them, regardless of the quality of the units. Your GAR divisions are there to make the AI decide that it's not worth trying. If the AI does try, the GAR generally have sufficient Defensiveness to hold off the attack long enough to bring something better to the party. MIL will do slightly more damage to the enemy, but won't last nearly as long before retreating.

The other aspect of GAR is that it's got double the suppression value of INF, and MIL have zero suppression. If you want to reduce the odds of partisan revolts, or destroy partisan cells in the area before they form brigades, station a couple of GAR in the area, with or without MPs to boost that suppression value even further. They're nearly as good on defense as INF, so if there's something that you absolutely need to keep the opponent or partisans from taking, but don't want to pay to build and supply an INF division (supplies can become a much bigger factor than production costs over the course of several years), GAR will do almost the same job for a fraction of the cost. The down side is that you REALLY don't want to attack with them, because their speed and offensive values are horrible, and MIL will work a lot better at those tasks. Basically, I only use them to protect ports and capital cities, or other high VP and resource locations that I really don't want to lose. Chasing down partisans that form is a job for a dedicated "whack-a-mole" unit, such as CAV, regular INF, or MOT/AC, and I may occasionally attach an INF brigade to a Garrison Corps HQ to hunt down revolters. If there's any credible likelihood of an actual attack, I'll place INF instead of GAR. Upgrading the Militia techs is almost completely pointless if you're only using GAR or MIL to hunt partisans, so they might (or might not) get an occasional Militia Weapons tech boost or something a couple of years behind the current date, if I can spare the Leadership.

MIL is preferable where you need to move in bad infrastructure, such as the interior of Africa. Regular INF eat too much supply, and GAR move too slowly, so you may have to resort to CAV, MIL, or an extremely thin force of INF (as in a mere handful of 2-brigade divisions, or even single brigades).

 

[Mebsuta]

Last night playing as Netherlands I put so many infantry on my borders and built so many forts that Germany did not attack me. In fact, they did not even activate Vichy France. They just conquered France. That gave me time to join Comintern and only after I did that was that Germany invaded Luxembourg and Belgium too.

Yes, disuasion tactics work.

Altough that game from last night didn't. It went bad .

 

[incognitus]

Okay, I guess my experience differs from yours, of maybe the way I play the game. Or maybe I game the game and that's the issue? I have never had issues "behind the front lines". Usually, (except in Russia^^) my front line moves toward the enemy capital about as fast as the troops can move (again after attacking), with virtually no counter attacks or anything. The US will start amphibious landings, if I leave them completely alone for months, but what do I care, if they attack Ecuador or Haiti?

But then again, and I suspect you don't do this, if I did play a game as France, I'm pretty sure, I would attack them in 1937 or 1938 to prevent them from building up too much (technically, historically, France could have used the remilitarisation of the Rhineland as an excuse to invade...^^). Do they already have paras then?
I always try to be as efficient as possible within the mechanisms of the game... and somehow, I've never been in trouble, for always throwing every single unit I own at the front. I never guard conquered territories, and so far, I haven't had to pay for it...

Yes, of course I am aware that none of this would work in multiplayer, but seeing as there isn't a hope in hell there ever will be an MP campaign I might participate in, that doesn't worry me that much... then again, maybe I do play the game wrong. But I'm weird that way, I can't handicap myself. I just can't.

 

[Nick U]

I never research the Militia techs (which GAR need), nor use GAR to defend anything. However, before the war starts I rarely build from scratch anything other than three types of unit, GAR, CAV and ART. With the former two always being upgraded to a different type of unit prior to war start. It takes longer to build say INF (as an individual unit), if you build them as GAR first, then upgrade, but it is considerably cheaper IC wise. The same applies for MIL, but GAR is the most efficient choice from a pure IC build point of view. Collectively, you can build a much bigger army of GAR then upgrade to INF (rather than progressively building a direct INF army) and of course during the pre war phase, there is no rush to get out the first completed units. In addition there are other significant advantages in going down this path.

Not only is the build cost cheaper, but you make a considerable saving in supplies and when they do pop out as INF (in the spring of 39) they pop with the 1938 Infantry techs installed along with any tech for specific terrains that you have reseached at the time they went into the upgrade build queue. Whereas if you build INF from the start, you then have to devote IC to upgrading the early ones, in both 1936 and 1938 along with the techs for Mountain, Desert, Arctic and Jungle terrains.

With the exception of Germany, most starting units start with an experience level below 25%, usually in the area of 15-17% once fully mobilised. However, if you upgrade a unit after raising the relevant education law to 25% starting experience, they upgrade to 25% experience too. Thus I always upgrade my starting GAR to INF after enacting that law and I try to upgrade all my starting INF to more specialised units (MAR, MTN, MOT, PARA) to get the same upgrade to their experience too.

It is also cheaper in pure IC build cost terms, to build specialised units in several steps eg The cheapest way to build a MTN is to build them as GAR->INF->MTN, rather then directly as MTN or going GAR->MTN. Again with additional savings in supply and upgrade costs.

Same thing with Armour - cheapest way is CAV->LARM->ARM. With MOT you can go either CAV-MOT or GAR->INF->MOT, the latter is slightly cheaper, but the former is faster and both are a big IC saving over a direct MOT. SPART and SPRART should also start out as ART, then upgrade.

Once the war starts, speed may be the most important thing, thus building the final unit directly may be the way to go, but if you still have a sizeable chunk of your army to build and IC is the limiting factor. Then the step approach ultimately works out faster for multiple units.

Some people say the step approach is gamey, but I actually think it is the opposite, the natural way historic units were often raised. In addition the one disadvantage, is that you have to decide the placement of the unit at the GAR stage prior to upgrading. So you have to place it carefully, far enough forward where you think if might be needed months later, but where it won't be overrun during upgrade. This prevents you parachuting the final unit into the most appropriate place. Which is the real gamey exploit IMO.

I should point out that a division that only has some of it's brigades in the upgrade path, can still move. For example if you build a division GAR+GAR+GAR+ART, then upgrade the GARs, you can move the division around at ART speed. But if you build a division GAR+GAR+GAR, then upgrade the GARs, the division can't move until the upgrade completes for at least one Brigade. Of course one possibly gamey exploit here is to attach an AC to the upgrading GARs, then you can zip the division around at 9 KPH and reposition prior to the upgrade completing.

 

[incognitus]

@Nick U This is quite interesting, because I have never used these tactics.

It might not work so well for me, because I am rather impatient and usually launch myself into war as soon as humanly possible, usually attacking someone or something before the end of '36 (unless when playing complete Neutrality-wusses like Ireland or Finland or such). I guess I wouldn't have the time to build the way you do?

Apart from saving IC, I think your observation regarding experience is brilliant. This means you can push out hordes of cheap units with "Minimal Training" and still bring them to max experience by upgrading them after changing training laws?

Speaking of saving time/IC, etc., how do you guys use the reserve system? I am always a bit torn between upping the recruitment laws to get more MP and officers and taking advantage of how cheap unit production is at "Volunteers only". Is there a "best way"?

I guess in regards to how gamey it is... I don't know, the CAV->LARM improvement makes absolutely no sense, because... horses. ^^ I guess the way the game should have addressed this, would have been to block upgrading for newly built units, basically you can only upgrade units that you had at the start of the game or that were built more than a year ago (or two).

 

[Nick U]

@incognitus
1. It does actually work out faster to build multiple units the step way. For (simplified) example, lets say you only have the IC to build 1 INF unit at a time, but need to build 2 before starting the war. If it takes 7 months to build each one, it will take a total of 14 months to build both and of course one of them will be drawing supply for 7 of those months and will need to upgrade to the 1936 Infantry techs.

However, the same IC could build 2 GAR at the same time, this may take 6 months (during which time you research the 1936 Infantry techs), followed by another 4 months to upgrade them to INF. Thus after just 10 months you have got both INF on the board PLUS they will have consumed no supply until the 10 month point and will both pop with the 1936 Infantry techs assuming that was researched before they went back into the upgrade queue.

2. I never thought of lowering the training laws during the GAR construction phase, but yes that would work too. However, I think it would actually extend the upgrade period which might push the total costs up to a higher level.

3. I personally don't use the reserve system. I know it could save me supplies and consumer goods cost, but the way I build, outlined above, most of my units aren't on the board until just before the war starts and once the first war start, I keep my country at war continuously until the end. So there isn't really a big benefit for me and I prefer the ability to kick off the first war without having to wait a month to mobilise. As you say, keeping the recruitment laws at volunteer is actually (IMO) the optimal law during peacetime, but a pain to mobilise reservist up from or to be caught by a surprise attack unmobilised. Thus the only reservists I have are those that are there at game start.

4. CAV->LARM is historic, makes absolute sense to me. Consider the CAV stage is like basic training.

 

[Kovax]

The problem with gaming the training and reserve laws is that you either pay extra IC for building non-reserve units, or you pay extra Leadership to boost your Officer Ratio with the poor recruitment laws. Switching from low to high laws solves the problem to a degree, where you build Reserve GAR, CAV, or such with a volunteer army, and ignore your officer pool, then upgrade the troops to INF, Armor, etc., at the maximum training and recruitment laws in the 6 months before declaring war, while you pump almost all your Leadership into Officer Ratio at the higher rates.

Normally, I don't do that. I often switch to the best training and recruitment laws I can get as soon as I can afford them (not enough cash on Jan.1, 1936), and build mostly Regulars. The Leadership savings on Officer Training with the highest laws are more important to me than the IC saved by gaming the system for minimum IC cost, while playing most countries (which are more strapped for Leadership than IC), and if I'm playing GER, I've got more than enough of both that it really doesn't matter. The beauty of it is that there's more than one way to play the game, and different strategies can work out well in entirely different ways. What works for you may not work with the combination of other things I'm doing, and vice versa.

 

[incognitus]

The problem with gaming the training and reserve laws is that you either pay extra IC for building non-reserve units, or you pay extra Leadership to boost your Officer Ratio with the poor recruitment laws. Switching from low to high laws solves the problem to a degree, where you build Reserve GAR, CAV, or such with a volunteer army, and ignore your officer pool, then upgrade the troops to INF, Armor, etc., at the maximum training and recruitment laws in the 6 months before declaring war, while you pump almost all your Leadership into Officer Ratio at the higher rates.

So, basically this means that as long as you don't actually train any officers while on minimal laws and make up for the leadership points you would have spent during that period by spending more later, there is no drawback to gaming the reserve system other than the mobilization month? And how much of a worry is that, really? Can't you just start mobilising when you aggressive neighbour starts mobilising?

Normally, I don't do that. I often switch to the best training and recruitment laws I can get as soon as I can afford them (not enough cash on Jan.1, 1936), and build mostly Regulars. The Leadership savings on Officer Training with the highest laws are more important to me than the IC saved by gaming the system for minimum IC cost, while playing most countries (which are more strapped for Leadership than IC), and if I'm playing GER, I've got more than enough of both that it really doesn't matter. The beauty of it is that there's more than one way to play the game, and different strategies can work out well in entirely different ways. What works for you may not work with the combination of other things I'm doing, and vice versa.

Leadership vs. IC... okay, disregarding the approach above (i.e. does it matter if I spent 1 Leadership over 2 years or 4 Leadership for 6 months?) that is a decision you have to make based on your situation in-game. But when I look at Finland, who start with a half-decent amount of INF and some GAR, but absolutely nothing else, I feel that their 5.8 points of Leadership is more abundant (by minor standards) than the 9 points of IC (which will take a while to increase, because of Finland's huge neutrality of 100). With minimal recruiting laws (and Finland's Special Training law they start with), I can build 4 regular GAR brigades at the cost of 8.28 IC for 86 days or I could build 18 reserve GAR brigades at slightly higher IC cost (around 9) within the same amount of time. This disregards Manpower issues, of course, but that is a different issue altogether.

And since most of us stay at war indefinitely once war has begun (if nothing else with Tibet^^), reserve units stop having drawbacks as soon as you have mobilised them once, right?

 

[Kovax]

Once you mobilize them, there's no difference in how they're treated.

 

[Nick U]

The problem with Officer Training is that it is dependent on the Conscription/Recruitment law. But no other use of leadership is. ie you can train spies, conduct research or raise diplomancy points at the same rate regardless of any law. Thus, to take leadership away from any of those three to train officers is horrendously inefficient except when the Conscription/Recruitment law is "Service by Requirement".

Trouble is you can only get "Service by Requirement" after the main war starts (one where the collective enemies IC is twice yours).

Therefore I never train officers during peacetime, it does mean the officer ratio droops (alarmingly for countries like Soviet Union) during that period. But the moment, the war kicks off and "Service by Requirement" is enacted, all leadership goes onto officer training for typically the next 3-6 months. Potentially that could be a problem for my units, but that is offset by the fact that everyone of my units starts the war rested and fully org'd. So in practice it takes a bit of time before it does become a problem for a few units, but by then the officer ratio is coming back up.

In theory lowering the training laws for the first stage of a multistage unit build may be beneficial. I've never tried that, but in practice it is not as straight forward as that, a few of my final units (typically ART and Aircraft) do get built early and I wouldn't want them to start with an experience level of 10%. The cost of changing the law wouldn't make it viable to change it back and forth depending of whether I was building a 'final' unit. And as I said, what you might gain during the first stage of the build, you could lose with an extended second stage.

The law that I do use at the weakest setting during peacetime is "Industrial Policy Law". This is better staying at "Consumer Product Orientation". The bonus reduction to Peacetime Consumer Goods outweighs any losses to Industrial Efficiency.

 

[Nick U]

Interesting point about Finland, personally I've only ever played Majors, so my decision to not build Reservists is based on a more ample IC amount being available. When things are that tight (Finland), reservists have a whole lot more going for them.

 

[incognitus]

Trouble is you can only get "Service by Requirement" after the main war starts (one where the collective enemies IC is twice yours).

I might be wrong, but I think, the way the formula actually works is that you can enact "Service by Requirement" when YOU have less than 200% of all your enemies' IC combined. So in other words, as long as you are not twice as productive as all your enemies combined. I remember distinctly, that the way the game expresses this condition is misleading.

 

[Mebsuta]

Trouble is you can only get "Service by Requirement" after the main war starts (one where the collective enemies IC is twice yours).

Or you can savescum and rig the elections so that a communist party is elected.

 

[Mebsuta]

This disregards Manpower issues, of course, but that is a different issue altogether.

Nonetheless I support you. I would rather have four times as much army even if they all were at 25% strenght at the start instead of a handful 100% brigades. And as you all know, so far I only use France, Japan (both irrelevant to this point), Finland and Netherlands (where IC isn't a problem, really. Manpower however... Holy crap. I can conquer Ireland, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Ecuador, Sweden, Norway, China and Tibet and still lack a shit ton of manpower modifier.

 

[incognitus]

Or you can savescum and rig the elections so that a communist party is elected.

How random are those elections?

 

[Palmerdale]

I'm totally unimpressed with the way HOI deals with Militia versus Infantry techs. Most countries equip the militia and garrison troops with hand-me-downs from the regular army. When you get new rifles for the main line, the militia gets the old model. But the separate MILITIA and INFANTRY research trees makes equipping the two somewhat unrealistic.

Training as is handled via disciplines makes a bit more sense, especially if you think of esprit de corps (ORG and MOR) deriving from unique organizational hierarchies. The leaders learn new battlefield tactics (Counter-attack, Ambush, etc.) as part of doctrines that improve the headquarters staff.

My basic approach is to ignore MILITIA and CAVALRY technologies, except to the point where these unlock new technologies (Motorized Infantry). I'll rarely build new units covered by MILITIA, and only occasionally build new CAV units (usually as 'placeholders' for MOT). Engineers and MP use MILITIA technologies, and these are about the only MILITIA units I will build (and only infrequently). Since these use the MILITIA practicals, I will usually build these as independent brigades or as 4xENG and manually attach individual brigades where I want them. (Building 4x(3xINF) and 1x(4xENG) independently and combining to make 4x(3xING, 1xENG)).

I am likely to upgrade almost all of the initial MIL and GAR units to INF for countries with only a handful of these. The only real use I've found for MIL or GAR is port garrisons. As Italy, I've been known to empty Ethiopia of MIL to garrison ports all around the Mediterranean, freeing up regular units for offensive purposes.