Why Build Garrisons?

[Rotten Venetic]

I knew that. When I have mobile troops lying around, it's to counter naval invasions, not partisans, and an HQ per each region about the size of the Benelux just for roleplay. I almost never get partisans anyway . And when I do, the best solution is to send a few bombers to wipe them out of existence, since they tend to just keep fighting until 0 str no matter what.

I've also reduced Militia suppression to 1 for all models, because they lack discipline and are absolutely not suited for keeping partisans under control.

 

[Cybvep]

I agree that MIL's toughness should be decreased. I also think that their SA and DEF should be decreased, but they should gain lesser penalties in harsh terrain. They should be moderately effective on the defence, given their low cost and building time, of course (they would have lower NOMINAL power but similar cost-effectiveness as infantry on defence in harsh terrain). That would make them cheap defensive units with little fighting strength in standard conditions, but good at guerilla warfare.

It would be good if GARs were able to at least support attacks, so that they wouldn't simply stand there while other units are fighting.

 

[D Inqu]

I agree that MIL's toughness should be decreased. I also think that their SA and DEF should be decreased, but they should gain lesser penalties in harsh terrain. They should be moderately effective on the defence, given their low cost and building time, of course (they would have lower NOMINAL power but similar cost-effectiveness as infantry on defence in harsh terrain). That would make them cheap defensive units with little fighting strength in standard conditions, but good at guerilla warfare.

It would be good if GARs were able to at least support attacks, so that they wouldn't simply stand there while other units are fighting.

Hastily trained militia should not be able to fight in mountains at the same level as regular troops. I modded them to get large difficult terrain penalties in attack, but left the defensive penalties almost unchanged.

Guerilla warfare cannot be properly represented in the game engine. You would need batallion-level representation rather than division-level.

 

[Cybvep]

Hastily trained militia should not be able to fight in mountains at the same level as regular troops.

And they wouldn't be as effective as INF. That's why I was talking about higher NOMINAL power of INF and similar cost-effectiveness (ICdays) on defence in harsh terrain. The militia would still be readily available (low building time, which is always a problem in DH, right?), but they wouldn't be much more than emergency forces.

Guerilla warfare cannot be properly represented in the game engine. You would need batallion-level representation rather than division-level.

No, but it can be abstracted by modding militia.

Batallion-level representation has nothing to do with it - if everything else stayed the same, battalions would be crushed by divisions. They wouldn't make sense in a game on DH's scale, anyway, because DH's provinces are very big and its level of abstraction is high. The ability of under-gunned troops to resist the invaders without breaking the flow of the game, on the other hand, has everything to do with in-game guerilla warfare. This would require major changes to the way the game represents partisans, fighting in harsh terrain, logistics and fighting conducted below the province level and thus is very unlikely to happen.

 

[Limith]

And they wouldn't be as effective as INF. That's why I was talking about higher NOMINAL power of INF and similar cost-effectiveness (ICdays) on defence in harsh terrain. The militia would still be readily available (low building time, which is always a problem in DH, right?), but they wouldn't be much more than emergency forces.


No, but it can be abstracted by modding militia.

Batallion-level representation has nothing to do with it - if everything else stayed the same, battalions would be crushed by divisions. They wouldn't make sense in a game on DH's scale, anyway, because DH's provinces are very big and its level of abstraction is high. The ability of under-gunned troops to resist the invaders without breaking the flow of the game, on the other hand, has everything to do with in-game guerilla warfare. This would require major changes to the way the game represents partisans, fighting in harsh terrain, logistics and fighting conducted below the province level and thus is very unlikely to happen.

A lot of this is abstracted as TC penalties.

 

[Cybvep]

The abstraction level is too high in that regard, because ESE penalties due to low TC affect your whole army. They are not regional, while troops stationed in Japan shouldn't fight less effectively just because troops fighting in China have logistical problems and have to deal with partisans.