Stopping GAR exploitation

[NotaPacifist]

Perhaps the original designers foresaw exploitation of GARs, and that is why they didn't allow them to be Transportable by sea.

Why would the US need to transport GAR's by sea? No real reason. Corps are the offensive unit of the game...except for Para's.
Why would GB need to transport GAR's by sea? To avoid having to pay for corps and exploiting a cheap resource in France, the MED, and Norway.
Why would the USSR need to transport GAR's by sea? No real reason when you either need corps to smash the Germans, or Corps to stop them from getting to your oil. Once Germany is effectively stopped, GAR's are useless due to their poor movement allowance.
Why would Germany need to transport GAR's by sea? To attack? No. For a cheap way to occupy Norway or any other place that they might take that isn't in the mainland. They can march to Denmark, or rail anywhere else that matters.

Excluding the need for the US to ship Para's, transporting GAR's by sea is just cheap tactics. If the desired effect is for Germany to spend PP's and manpower defending and maintaining order in far off places, just removing the ability to transport GAR's by sea will solve that problem.

This would have a far reaching effect in Sicily and provide a better chance for the Allies to get the three cities needed for Italian surrender. Instead of finding all 10 non-city hexes filled by 7 GAR's with a three heavy units(for counterattacks if necessary), the Axis player would have to commit sizeable forces to the island's defence.

An estimate of cost: of 7 gars (105PP's, less if your opponent has sent Bulg, Rum, and Hun GARS), two mech and one inf: 135PP's, for a grand total of 240PP's...but much less if Axis Allied GAR's are used.

An estimate of cost with 8 inf and two Mech: 380PP's This would mean that instead of sitting behind a line of cheap-to-refill GAR's and doing nothing except hitting the repair button, the Axis player would have to choose between maneuver battle (historical) or trying to refill corps made immobile by crowding much more expensively.

For Norway:
Current cost 3 GAR's 45PPs. Cost of 3 inf is 105 PP's. If two cities are added, this becomes 175 PP's. This would be increased if there was actually some partisan activity in Norway. ...I've never understood why there is none. Surely if the Norwegians looked about them and saw that there weren't hundreds or thousands of Germans toting guns and machine guns everywhere, they would have done a lot more than they actually did.

GAR's are just too cheap and too beneficial for cheap or exploitable reasons.

[schwerpunkt]

Conceptually I think you are right but the current game balance works with their use. Altering this will have far reaching effects on play balance. I'm happy to leave things as they are and just get v2.00 out the door. At some point we just have to stop tinkering. I havent managed to play a game through yet since v2.00d I think (I have a new game in late 42 now) so I'm really concerned about cumulative impacts on play balance.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Paratroopers are garrison units so preventing garrisons form being transported means you can't transport paratroopers. That is not good.

I don't see the need to actually build garrisons and transport them. You're better off building corps units and land with these units. Then your offensive firepower is much better. Garrisons become relatively weaker the closer to the end you get. The reason is that garrisons get fewer tech advances.

So how can you exploit transporting garrisons? If the Allied player sails hordes or garrisons to France then the Germans get some target practise before Barbarossa. Garrisons can be bombarded and then attacked. You can gain a lot of German XP by killing those garrisons. They're easy to kill and you suffer few losses.

After the smoke has settled the Allied player has wasted several units. E. g. sailing garrisons from Egypt / Cyprus to France is not a good idea. You spend 8 PP's to send 15 PP's there. If the Germans decide to move towards Egypt then you have fewer units protecting Egypt and you can't build any new units there. If you abandon Cyprus then the Axis can easily land there and get airbases so they can bombard Egypt / Palestine / Syria.

So I see a lot of options as the Axis if the Allied player abandons his defensive positions. I simply can't see a problem here. If you're flexible with your plans as the Axis player you can use the new opportunities to your advantage.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Sicily is not a good example since you can use the ferry crossing at Messina to sail units across without creating transports.

You have to consider that by building lots of garrisons you waste manpower that you really need to not get too weak units. From 1943 and later then you can get combat results like 10:1 against garrisons when using mech. E. g. the German Volksturm units are just cannonfodder and won't protect much. Garrisons are only useful as long as you stay above 75% manpower.

I actually prefer fighting garrisons to corps units. One reason is that garrisons retreat more easily and you can attack and rarely get nasty combat results. Italy is a tough nut to crack and you need to create new invasion areas along the Italian coast line to overextend the Axis units. If garrisons protect the coast line then you can amph and force a retreat. Once you get units ashore you can threaten to move east/west to cut the rail supply to the Axis units in Italy.

Garrisons don't last long against Allied tac bombers. If you send a bomber per garrisons you can get 2-3 hits and drop them to red efficiency. So I think the Axis is better off building corps units and force the Allies to bleed to get anywhere. Garrisons are best in the second line to prevent retreats from the attacked front line units.

[schwerpunkt]

You have to consider that by building lots of garrisons you waste manpower that you really need to not get too weak units. From 1943 and later then you can get combat results like 10:1 against garrisons when using mech. E. g. the German Volksturm units are just cannonfodder and won't protect much. Garrisons are only useful as long as you stay above 75% manpower.

I actually prefer fighting garrisons to corps units. One reason is that garrisons retreat more easily and you can attack and rarely get nasty combat results. Italy is a tough nut to crack and you need to create new invasion areas along the Italian coast line to overextend the Axis units. If garrisons protect the coast line then you can amph and force a retreat. Once you get units ashore you can threaten to move east/west to cut the rail supply to the Axis units in Italy.

Garrisons don't last long against Allied tac bombers. If you send a bomber per garrisons you can get 2-3 hits and drop them to red efficiency. So I think the Axis is better off building corps units and force the Allies to bleed to get anywhere. Garrisons are best in the second line to prevent retreats from the attacked front line units.

I generally avoid building GARs too, especially as the axis....

[KingHunter3059]

You have to consider that by building lots of garrisons you waste manpower that you really need to not get too weak units. From 1943 and later then you can get combat results like 10:1 against garrisons when using mech. E. g. the German Volksturm units are just cannonfodder and won't protect much. Garrisons are only useful as long as you stay above 75% manpower.

I actually prefer fighting garrisons to corps units. One reason is that garrisons retreat more easily and you can attack and rarely get nasty combat results. Italy is a tough nut to crack and you need to create new invasion areas along the Italian coast line to overextend the Axis units. If garrisons protect the coast line then you can amph and force a retreat. Once you get units ashore you can threaten to move east/west to cut the rail supply to the Axis units in Italy.

Garrisons don't last long against Allied tac bombers. If you send a bomber per garrisons you can get 2-3 hits and drop them to red efficiency. So I think the Axis is better off building corps units and force the Allies to bleed to get anywhere. Garrisons are best in the second line to prevent retreats from the attacked front line units.

I concur

[NotaPacifist]

You guys aren't understanding what I'm saying. The fact is that you cannot make a unit retreat where there is a double line. In Sicily it only requires 10 units. You have to totally annihilate the unit. It doesn't matter what color it's readiness is, what quality or nationality of the GAR in question, as long as there is one factor remaining, your two bomber strikes and two amphs have been wasted. In 1943 the Western Allies have 7 chances to make a landing before the cost starts to skyrocket. You can sail round and around looking for weaker spots, but the enemy gets a full turn to move with you, airstrike you, sub attack you, until finally you've run out of opportunities due to weather, PP cost, or until your amph units have to be returned to port to have their strength rebuilt.

[gerones]

Perhaps the original designers foresaw exploitation of GARs, and that is why they didn't allow them to be Transportable by sea.

The fact is that vanilla game CEAW (1.04) did allow the garrison units to be transported by sea. Afterwards, in CEAW gold (1.12) it was removed this possibility. GS 1.00 expansion allowed again the garrisons to be embarked.

Garrison units mean static units: this is not compatible with being able to be transported overseas. Their main role is to protect a a city, resource or region so if they are used for another missions then we have a contradiction with what a garrison unit represents. So we have two options:

1. To change name from garrison units to other name that represents low-level infantry units

2. To include the possibility of upgrading garrison units into higher level infantry units by paying a low amount of PP´s (5-10 PP´s)

[zechi]

You guys aren't understanding what I'm saying. The fact is that you cannot make a unit retreat where there is a double line. In Sicily it only requires 10 units. You have to totally annihilate the unit. It doesn't matter what color it's readiness is, what quality or nationality of the GAR in question, as long as there is one factor remaining, your two bomber strikes and two amphs have been wasted. In 1943 the Western Allies have 7 chances to make a landing before the cost starts to skyrocket. You can sail round and around looking for weaker spots, but the enemy gets a full turn to move with you, airstrike you, sub attack you, until finally you've run out of opportunities due to weather, PP cost, or until your amph units have to be returned to port to have their strength rebuilt.

I do not see this as a problem. If 10 units are stationed in Sicily, then ignore Sicily and go for the Italian mainland or Vichy France instead. The Axis cannot block the Allies everywhere. If the Axis bump out GAR in masses they will quickly have manpower problems. Furthermore, the Axis normally need avery PP at hand for the eastern front. If the Axis has enough manpower and PP to build or sent masses of GAR to block any invasion by the western Allies, then the Allied player is probably doing bad on the eastern front and not putting enough pressure on the Axis player.

I agree with Leridano that the name "Garrison" implies that these units are static units with a primary function of defending a designated spot, such as a city or a fortress. It is true that GAR are used in GS not only in this role, but in fact they have many different purposes, for example they are often used as cheap units to form a good defense line. To quickly raise a unit in an important spot. They can be used in amphibious invasion to make it more difficult to block all hexes (for example in Italy). Therefore I agree that the name "Garrison" seems wrong and I like his idea that there are different "Garrison" units. One which is only a static unit to defend important point. Perhaps these are should not be moveable at all. The other could be perhaps named "Division" or something similar and would be more like less powerful INF Corps units, but could be upgraded to several purposes, for example HQ units, Flak Divisions, Paradivision etc.

However, this would perhaps make the game more complicated to manage, so perhaps we should simply change the name "Garrison" to "Division" and change nothing else.

[metolius]

Perhaps your point could be addressed by reviving the idea of differentiating between garrisons (fairly low grade, reserve officers, limited transport, old weapons) and divisions (basically the same quality as corps-size units, but about 1/3 to 1/2 the strength).

Converting a garrison to a division would be an upgrade, perhaps costing 5PP or so.

[metolius]

Another option to address this would be to label garrison forces as such as such when they are being transported, while continuing to hide the unit type of other units.

[gerones]

There´s not only a contradiction about the roles that a garrison unit can play but also about the size of a garrison unit itself since a garrison unit NEVER has a corps unit size. Garrison units usually were formed by 6000-9000 men so this is closer to a brigade-division sized unit and not closer at all to a corps sized unit which is formed by 50000-60000 men.