Slitherine

Should we change the more abstract name of garrison units by other more specific name of foot infantry units? Foot infantry units would be corps sized units only integrated by infantry units with mostly defensive roles. Many french, italian, german and russian infantry units were mainly integrated by foot infantry divisions in which horses were the only mode of transport artillery guns. This way, foot infantry units would be representing a corps sized unit with only defensive roles integrated by only foot infantry units whilst infantry corps unit would be representing a corps sized mainly integrated by infantry units in which there would be also attached mobile forces that would increase significantly the offensive capabilities and mobility of those units. We can see this with some examples took from german Barbarossa OOB for better understanding what I mean:

VI (06) Armeekorps: --> FOOT INFANTRY CORPS UNIT
CO: Gen.d.Pioneers Foerster
6 Inf.Div.
26 Inf.Div

XXXXIII (43) Armeekorps: --> INFANTRY CORPS UNIT
CO: Gen.d.Inf. Heinrici
Stab 697 Artillerie-Regt. (mot.)
Stab 786 Artillerie-Regt. (mot.)
611 H-Fla.Btl. (lei.)
131 Inf.Div.
134 Inf.Div.
252 Inf.Div.

LVI (56) Armeekorps (mot.): --> MOTORISED INFANTRY CORPS UNIT
CO: Gen.d.Inf. von Manstein
559 PzJag.Abt. (Sfl.)
(Lw) gem.Flak-Abt. II./23
8 Pz.Div. + (Lw) lei.Flak-Abt. 92
3 Mot.Inf.Div.
290 Inf.Div.

LVII (57) Armeekorps (mot.): --> ARMOURED CORPS UNIT
CO: Gen.d.PzTrps. Kuntzen
(Lw) gem.Flak-Abt. I./29
12 Pz.Div. + (Lw) lei.Flak-Abt. 75
19 Pz.Div. + (Lw) lei.Flak-Abt. 85
18 Mot.Inf.Div.

As you see in the example a foot infantry corps unit (actually a garrison unit) would be a weak unit not only because it would be only integrated by foot infantry units but also because it would be integrated by only 2 infantry divisions instead of 3. Many infantry corps units with defensive roles in WW2 were integrated by only 2 divisions so their offensive capabilities and territorial range were lower than a 3 divisions corps unit.

I think this change in the name of the units would remove the excessive abstraction that supposes to use the term "garrison".

I don't think a name change is in order, garrison seems to be a good name for a smaller unit, although it takes a lot more men to "garrison" Berlin than it would a small village. "foot infantry unit" has a horrible ring to it, maybe "rifle company"? but that would be too small.

LOGAN5 wrote:I don't think a name change is in order, garrison seems to be a good name for a smaller unit, although it takes a lot more men to "garrison" Berlin than it would a small village. "foot infantry unit" has a horrible ring to it, maybe "rifle company"? but that would be too small.

You are right there: garrison would be a possible name for a small unit but IT IS NOT an accurate name for a corps sized unit. But there are not only size of unit arguments on this question. There are also another arguments referred to the territorial role of a garrison: strictly speaking a garrison unit is attached to a determined territory, resource, city or region so it does not make sense that these units can be strategically redeployed (e.g. railed).

IMHO, "foot infantry" is a commonly used military term and it does not really matter at all if it sounds ugly or beautiful to anyone since it is used to define a kind of infantry. The same way that there are "calvary", "light calvary", "armoured calvary" names for calvary units or "artillery", "heavy artilllery", "motorised artillery" for artillery units there are also "infantry", "foot infantry", "light infantry", "motorised infantry" for infantry units.

Different names are referred to different characteristics of the units. Foot infantry means infantry units that do not use any motor vehicle in their displacements but a foot infantry unit IS NOT attached to a determined city, resource or territory so it can be railed to a different destination. Foot infantry units role would also explain their reduced movement factor to 2. Garrison units strictly speaking should have 0 as movement factor since they are supposed to be static units.

So there are many reasons for this change in the name of the units and even though I can live with the current name of "garrison" I would like to see this name changed and IMO the game would gain more accuracy with the name "foot infantry" instead of "garrison".

Currently Garrisons represent; Static and Fortress units, Security units and single divisions. Foot Infantry although describing their level of motorisation state doesnt describe their role, which in CEAW is primarily garrisoning or security. Hence, I think the current term is fine even though GARs may occaisionally be used for other purposes - eg as HQs (where they gain an extra MP), or as probing units.

schwerpunkt wrote:Currently Garrisons represent; Static and Fortress units, Security units and single divisions. Foot Infantry although describing their level of motorisation state doesnt describe their role, which in CEAW is primarily garrisoning or security. Hence, I think the current term is fine even though GARs may occaisionally be used for other purposes - eg as HQs (where they gain an extra MP), or as probing units.

I see what you mean and as I have pointed above I can live with the current names. But I have to admit that a significant effort of abstraction has to be done to establish a relation between what "garrison" strictly speaking means and its actual role in CEAW GS.