Why Build Garrisons?

[unmerged(371738)]

What is the point of a garrison as opposed to an Infantry or Cavalry unit (with an MP for high partisan areas)? They're slightly more expensive in terms of supply cost, but they allow you to actually chase and kill a partisan should they pop up (and almost always win, since partisans seem to have terrible morale and org) and you can deploy them onto a combat front should they become needed. In HoID my reserves are usually in the rear anyway, and as I keep streams of infantry slowly walking forward they seem to pretty effectively control partisans and, should I need to, I can always use Strategic Redeployment to get them to the front faster.

My second DH game was as Austria-Hungary in 1914. I built a couple of garrison units to button down the Balkan conquests, but some rebels spawned and captured some outlier provinces anyway. The garrisons I had were useless, since at most I could redeploy and 'surround' the partisans; I ended up just pulling a couple of cavalry divisions off the front and chasing the partisans to death.

Additionally, are militia still worthless?

 

[LiamRiordan]

Garrisons are like a vaccine, a prevention of X.

Always keep at least one INF unit in a region of GAR units. If you invest in GAR-MP, it pays dividends since it helps your IC and TP overall, especially in LARGE conquests, like WWII style conquests.

Never leave GAR's totally on their own, keep one or two mobile reserves in the area, it helps train up Mj. Generals since partisans are hardy buggers.

Never play a game without GAR if you go offensive, but never leave them alone.

 

[General Mosh]

You keep garrison units to add Military police to, so that you can help against Partisans.
You can also guard your sea territories with them.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Trouble is, Militia is better for both jobs; they both cost 10 manpower but militias cost 40 less IC days not counting any modifiers, they use less supplies and can move on their own, and retreat if they're defeated.

To counteract this, I've reduced Militia toughness, evened out the IC cost and increased the supply use to match that of GAR, which is supposed to reflect that militias are typically comprised of farmers, shepherds and factory workers who are no longer producing Supplies, even though their consumption is low, whereas GAR are typically older veterans (mid-forties and above) and people who have suffered crippling physical injuries and can't serve in mobile units, but can still hold a rifle and stop a bullet. Of course this is entirely my own perception on the two units, and I am quite aware that the Volkssturm at least included many old men as well, and I also include very poorly equipped divisions that, while "regular" soldiers, don't have the communications, artillery and support units that make fully realized infantry divisions effective in battle (think most of the KMT's army, at least early in the war).

Oh, and Militia are absolutely NOT worthless. Even with the nerfs I slapped on them. Though I have made them pretty much useless on the attack, especially in WWI.

 

[unmerged(371738)]

I usually have like 400 IC by the time it matters. May as well just have a crap ton of infantry and skip the garrison business. I've never found supplies to be that big a drain..eventually you have so much IC and pretty much the only thing to build is an oversized navy and airforce and spam supplies.

 

[sobrano]

in DH militia is better than garrison:

1) militia can walk
2) militia is cheaper than garrison about supply use too
3) militia suppresion value is only -1 vs garrison (13 vs 12 or so)
4) militia can add police brigate too

 

[unmerged(371738)]

in DH militia is better than garrison:

1) militia can walk
2) militia is cheaper than garrison about supply use too
3) militia suppresion value is only -1 vs garrison (13 vs 12 or so)
4) militia can add police brigate too

Yep, I think I am going to build some militia to police Italy and Spain.

 

[Gort11]

In response to "are militia still worthless":

Militia are actually some of the best units in the game for certain situations. If manpower is no problem, you are FAR better off building militia than infantry. Nations that can benefit from this tactic include Japan (build nothing but militia if you want to defeat China in 1-2 years) Russia (drown the Germans in your blood, men!) and France.

In fact, I'd say they're TOO good. For the amount of time they take to build compared to infantry, they should really be taking monstrous casualties. Infantry should really be the most "efficient" unit in the game IC to effectiveness wise. Elite units like tanks and motorised and mountaineers should be good for power at a point, infantry should be the baseline, and militia should be the, "Oh crap I need an army NOW!" unit for desperate situations where you realise that it won't matter that you have 2000 manpower left if your capital is about to fall.

 

[LiamRiordan]

In response to "are militia still worthless":

Militia are actually some of the best units in the game for certain situations. If manpower is no problem, you are FAR better off building militia than infantry. Nations that can benefit from this tactic include Japan (build nothing but militia if you want to defeat China in 1-2 years) Russia (drown the Germans in your blood, men!) and France.

In fact, I'd say they're TOO good. For the amount of time they take to build compared to infantry, they should really be taking monstrous casualties. Infantry should really be the most "efficient" unit in the game IC to effectiveness wise. Elite units like tanks and motorised and mountaineers should be good for power at a point, infantry should be the baseline, and militia should be the, "Oh crap I need an army NOW!" unit for desperate situations where you realise that it won't matter that you have 2000 manpower left if your capital is about to fall.

Decrease Militia toughness, that should do the trick right?

 

[unmerged(371738)]

In response to "are militia still worthless":

Militia are actually some of the best units in the game for certain situations. If manpower is no problem, you are FAR better off building militia than infantry. Nations that can benefit from this tactic include Japan (build nothing but militia if you want to defeat China in 1-2 years) Russia (drown the Germans in your blood, men!) and France.

In fact, I'd say they're TOO good. For the amount of time they take to build compared to infantry, they should really be taking monstrous casualties. Infantry should really be the most "efficient" unit in the game IC to effectiveness wise. Elite units like tanks and motorised and mountaineers should be good for power at a point, infantry should be the baseline, and militia should be the, "Oh crap I need an army NOW!" unit for desperate situations where you realise that it won't matter that you have 2000 manpower left if your capital is about to fall.

How? I mean, the limits of force concentration seem to make the infantry unit better, because you get more punch-per-province. I can understand in a huge-front battle like Russia or China, but what advantage would Austria-Hungary get from militia?

 

[Inner Circle]

3) militia suppresion value is only -1 vs garrison (13 vs 12 or so)
4) militia can add police brigate too

not anymore once the final version of 1.02 is out

 

[Gort11]

How? I mean, the limits of force concentration seem to make the infantry unit better, because you get more punch-per-province. I can understand in a huge-front battle like Russia or China, but what advantage would Austria-Hungary get from militia?

You can get 24 divisions per province and still not hit the force limits (with proper HQing) so unless your front is absolutely tiny, militia end up better. Plus they take such little time to mobilise that you can grow a huge army from nothing, fast.

 

[D Inqu]

Decrease Militia toughness, that should do the trick right?

If there are lots of militia, it hardly matters, as they crush resistance too fast to take huge casualties. According to Gort11, he has 5* militia after taking china.

I went the other route, and lowered their offensive (and slightly defensive) combat and movement modifiers. So river crossing is now a massive -60%, mountain attack is -65% and so on. This much better in my opinion represents the lower training militia had. I also reduced their suppression to a low value, as sending militia to chase partisans in forests is not a good idea.

As for garrisons, I have further lowered their softness with upgrades.

All this is with beta patch.

 

[unmerged(371738)]

Well, now I am going to be building ginormous militia armies. Thanks for the tip.

As regards a very small front, I was thinking of A-H v. Italy. I had a front of max 3 provinces conquering Italy, and a stack of 24 on each one (to minimize battle times so I could hurry up and go to France with them), and though I crushed the Hell out of them eventually the initial fights were pretty tough.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Militia with decreased toughness do suffer horrendous casualties when attacking at least. I have made a custom Chinese monarchist warlord using the U67 tag (Fengtian Clique - it's even roughly in the same territory) which has 1 GDE. They start with a good number of militias, and when those attack the Japanese (90+% Infantry) they have ridiculous strength loss. They're at around 50-60 when the infantry, cavalry and commandos are hovering at 80-90, if I don't reinforce for a while.

 

[Easy1]

Garrison divisions is a good option especially for countries with low manpower and/or IC compared to the number of controlled provinces. particularly if these provinces borders to the sea and/or are occupied.

 

[BeardedHoplite]

I've found Garrison units are best used to guard important conquests like capitals and cities, but only put them in stacks of one with "auto-assign" off. Some Cav'll give you the mobility to chase partisans if they don't spawn in the city.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

I usually have so many excess generals, I don't mind giving some to garrisons.

 

[Limith]

So river crossing is now a massive -60%, mountain attack is -65% and so on. This much better in my opinion represents the lower training militia had. I also reduced their suppression to a low value, as sending militia to chase partisans in forests is not a good idea.

Disagree about mountain, Militia usually are more adapted to rural fighting, more familiar with the lay of the land, used to poor subsistence, and better for hit and run since they are locals.

 

[Otacon]

You guys know that you don't need mobile troops if you set the Garrisions to Anti Partisan Duty, as they will automatically attack partisans in neighboring provinces before they (the partisans) can capture it? So, if your conquered territories are intelligently screened by garrisions (which can be done with very few, even in russia), you don't ever need to worry about partisans ever.

I'm not saying that mobile troops couldn't do this, too, tho.

Militia is good, but no. Thanks. I'm Sparta, not Free Greece!