Static corps instead of garrisons?

[gerones]

It is a known fact that CEAW is a corps sized game. We are making a major update to large counters so the "XX" division symbol will be removed from large counters since it makes little or no sense in a corps sized game.

What I propose here is a change in the name of garrison units so we would be using "Static Corps" instead of garrison units. Garrison units is a name used for an unit that is assigned to defend a city or resource whilst Static Corps is also an unit with mainly a territorial role but with a much bigger size and a larger territory to cover. So IMO it would make more sense to call these units Static Corps since they are covering an extense area instead of only a city.

What do you think? Many guys in this forum have referred to the ambiguity of the term "Garrison" in this game so we could replace this by the more accurate term of Static Corps.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We can easily change the name of the unit from Garrison to Static, but inside the code it will still be Garrison because it would inflict bugs in the code to change the name. That's why mech corps are still called motorised corps in the unit images.

So the only change will be the name of the unit you purchase. On the other hand the garrison and static units are almost the game. You had garrison corps that were used to just hold an area. So term wise static and garrison would be the same. It's not said anywhere that garrisons are division sized units.

Real divisions should have movement of 4 instead of just 2. Static / garrison units had the number of soldiers to be a corps, but lacked the offensive firepower to be a regular corps. Remember that regular corps units have heavy equipment like artillery and some armor capability. Static units didn't have much of such equipment because they weren't intended to attack. Therefore the static units have the same ground defense as corps units, but half the ground attack.

[gerones]

Changing the name will be accurate also from a historical point of view: german Wehrkreiskommandos, american Service Command or british Military District would pretty match with the role that was given to these units. Some links: http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gli ... /WK9-R.htm; http://www.ordersofbattle.com/UnitIndex.aspx.

[JimR]

Renaming the humble units will clarify their role, and will clear the air of verbal static that leads to misunderstandings.

[gerones]

Renaming the humble units will clarify their role, and will clear the air of verbal static that leads to misunderstandings.

So what name would you propose for them?

[gerones]

I think we should forget about garrisons representing division sized units in CEAW. This is rather incorrect. There´s no way to include division sized units in CEAW because stacking units is not allowed. Furthermore, a division sized unit should not have halved its movement allowances as a garrison/static unit has.

So keeping in mind this we should focus and see those units as ONLY territorial and defensive units. As long as a garrison unit has its defensive range reduced to a city or a resource that´s why I proposed Static Corps as a more appropriate term than garrison because of the much larger territory that they have to cover. A Regiment sized unit defending a city could be considered the garrison of that city whilst a more sized unit e.g. as the german Hoheres Kommandos (Static/Territorial Corps units), covered much more large areas e.g. Holland, Britanny, Normandy etc. Let´s think that e.g. 711 and 716 german static units in Normandy were covering an area much more extense than only a city and that´s why IMO it would be more appropriate to use Static Corps to refer to these kind of units. So you will rarely see the term Garrison Corps but you will more easily find the term Static Corps.

[Plaid]

I think garrison units as they are in CEAW is some abstract "weak infantry".
No model can explain why they have less move then corps (which already represent infantry walking by feet), for example.
If they have little or no heavy weapons logic tells us they rather should be faster.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Please setup a poll and then we can see what people think