Build Garrisons with 4 manpower instead of 5?

[metolius]

I don't really understand why garrisons should cost 5 manpower, as they represent about 1/3 of an army corps. Seems like they should be more like 3-4 manpower.

This would help the Axis get a handle on partisans.

[BuddyGrant]

How about about the ability to purchase 1/2 or even 1/4 size garrisons? It does seem like the immense manpower tied down by a responsible invading power in basic garrisoning of cities is unrealistic in comparison to actual historic % of forces tied down for policing invaded territory.

Frankly I also wouldn't mind the ability to purchase 1/2 or 1/4 size units of any other kind either, not just garrisons.

[shawkhan]

A garrison unit I assume is one division. How many divisions in a Corps unit? If only 2 divisions per corps then everything is fine the way it is. If a corps is assumed to be three or more divisions, then some change should be made. I would even suggest 3 manpower for a division-sized garrison unit if it is only 1/3 the size of a corps, since corps assets include artillery and AT units as well as considerable staff not found at the divisional level. What I don't understand is why garrisons move so slowly.

[Kragdob]

So:
1. GAR has only 2 MPs
2. It should resemble garrison forces of division size (but probably not as manned and equipped like regular front division)

Than it looks like it lacks all the logistics that was connected with Corps size units. I agree with 3 or 4 cost.

[metolius]

Glad to hear that people agree! I'm mostly concerned with the manpower cost, but I agree, the PP cost could come down, too. Seems like either 3 or 4 would be reasonable. My personal preference would be 3 manpower cost, and 4 PPs cost.

[pk867]

This would encourage more garrison blobs

Then we would have to rework the starting production and through the game to balance again.

[metolius]

pk867 – sounds like you are in agreement then! One more vote in favor.

[pk867]

No I am not in favor of any changes. I do not see how you could say that I am in agreement to lowering the costs. The lowering of the costs will unbalance the current game allowing for players to build more garrisons which will lead to weird strategies that are a historical.

We would have to lower the manpower and PP's gained per turn to balance the game again.

These values have been in use since the vanilla game and in the development of CEAW-GS for the last 2 1/2 years.

So this not a simple change.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The garrison units are NOT division units, but rather poorly equipped corps units. E. g. the German garrisons are called nn Armeekorps. Garrisons are used for defensive purposes only. At start a garrison has ground attack 2 and ground defense 3. A corps has ground attack 4 and ground defense 3. Both have 10 steps. The Volksturm units are one example of garrison units.

If we really wanted to simulate division sized units then the garrisons should have had a max size of 4 or 5 instead of 10.

Think what would have happened if the PP cost for garrisons were 10 or maybe 5 instead of 15 and the manpower cost was 3. Germany could them build hordes of garrisons and place them along the French coast line to form a double defense line there. That would completely alter the way battles work. That would make it very hard to break a defense line and force a general retreat. Instead you get a war of attrition similar to WW1.

Therefore I think it's appropriate to have 5 manpower for garrisons and the same PP cost. Actually in vanilla CeaW the PP cost is 20 per garrison.

[pk867]

I stand corrected on the vanilla game cost.
I never really did play that much.