Garrison troops

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Garrison troops

      As I understand the vision of the game, you would prefer to see smaller more effective armies than giant WWI era juggernauts rolling across the land. To that effect though, with the annexing of cities, and the troop costs to "sit" in a city until it gets above 34% morale, just to make sure you don't lose that expensive investment to an uprising, it ends up that we NEED to create large contingents of troops to occupy cities and sit, while other troops go off and fight. Tanks although effective at suppressing uprisings,are a very expensive babysitter.

      So the options become, don't annex a city until all combat is done; take the cities last; or lose cities to uprisings while you slowly crawl through a country. The first raises the problem of having to go back and refight for the city because rebels took it, and not being able to produce units nearby your battlefield. The second is really bad, as it allows the enemy to continue to produce units while you are trying to defeat them. And the third means the enemy has more time to rebuild his army after every defeat, thereby prolonging the war, and requiring a much larger army.

      So here is my idea: Garrison troops. Troops that you raise in a city for the purpose of guarding THAT city. They are not mobile. they don't have average defense stats, no offense, and they can be produced quickly (6 hours?) and for about 1/3 of the cost of motor infantry. They would require barracks level 1, so you have to annex a city first, but then you can produce a few of these to replace your combat troops in the role of occupation forces. So they don't get abused as a universal defense (I can see a player putting 15 of these in every one of his home cities) have a limit of say 3 per city. enough to keep rebellions at bay, but not enough to guarantee they don't happen. Effectively they are 'support' troops for the main army.

      Thoughts?
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.
    • Well, i thought the recent updates, on reduced upkeep, improved supplies/components, would have given the hint that in fact the goal was to see bigger armies on the field :D . Nothing like Supremacy 1914 and it's gigantic armies of late game ( 15 000 infantries, 1 500 artilleries, etc...), of course, but still... It should be way more common to see armies of 100-150 than before.

      I love your idea on the design aspect, meaning "a unit dedicated to supression", like a police force. However, about your example, a non-moving unit (already a bit hard to imagine :D, except for the insurgent ^^), produced in a lvl 1 barracks so the city needs to be annexed before... basically means that before deploying this unit, a city will usually go through at least one day change, which is often the only "dangerous" day. After that, cities are 33%, or 30%, and have a limited chance of insurgency. To optimise the outcome of your "police force," it would mean we need to.... put troops in the city to make sure it doesn't go rogue :D

      However, maybe your idea could be more doable (with less side effects) with a building, no ? A building that takes longer than annexation, cheaper of course, and that reduces insurgency chances by... let's say... 66% ?


      Anyway, i would love to have and produce some kind of police force.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.