ZEBBEEE

Garrison Vs flag role idea

48 posts in this topic

NOTE: THIS TOPIC IS NO LONGER DISCUSSED SINCE 1.36 RULES HAVE NOW BEEN SET WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH:

https://www.wwiionline.com/game-news/development-notes/16613-1-36-briefing-manual

 

 

 

<brainstorming>

The role and the power of flags is still an ongoing discussion and will be adapted step by step way beyond 1.36's release.

So I would like to drop my personal vision and invite you to start brainstorming it.

Garrisons could have a local defensive role at ABs, while flags could have an offensive (or reinforcement) one at FBs. HC would keep a complex strategic layer but focused on attack priorities only:

1. Garissons’ supplies would be available at AB/depots only, not at FBs.

2. Brigade flags would only be deployable at FBs (its supply would be used at the linked offensive depot, as at any FMS linked to its missions).

3. A garrison could only be ressuplied/overstocked by flags' supplies. HC should decide when flag ressources are used in a ressuply role at a rear FB or in an offensive role at a frontline FB. 

4. Since much more supplies is available over the map, Garrisons could eventually not be ressuplied by factories and trigger new supplies only when the AB is freshly captured (both offensive and defensive situations). This would allow cross-timezones attrition plans, and make attackers think twice before capping AB, as provide great tactical value to the .fallback command.

5. If the AB falls, all standing depots should still provide garisson supplies (since no rear FB supplies would be guaranteed)

6. Flags should be ressuplied by factories only while being deployed in a rear FB. Frontline = total attrition. This keeps attrition of attackers meaningful like today.

7. If the enemy destroys a FB hosting a flag, it is pushed back to a rear FB and loses 20% of its supplies for example (Simulated drawback). FBs should eventually not be destroyable when an adjacent AO is up to avoid critical activity failure. 

How the map would look like:

1542570735-hybrid-concept.png

In this imaginary example : Zottegem-Ninove FB (allied) is supplied and can support Ninove which has a garrison but which is not resupplied by factories.  The axis flags attacking Ninove are not resupplied by factories neither, and thus take the risk of permanent attrition until Ninove is captured or until fallback to a rear fb.

 

 

I would also add that garrisons could be under home-country flags (mix of allied units or mix of axis units), eventually an occupied home-flag when a side is marching beyond its borders. And let moveable flags be country-specific (Italy, Germany , France, BEF, US)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

updated with imaginary screenshot of what the theater map would look like, based on my hybrid suggestion: FBs host flags, while towns have only garrisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Zebbeee said:

1. Garissons’ supplies would be available at AB/depots only, not at FBs.

2. Brigade flags would only be deployable at FBs (its supply would be used at the linked offensive depot, as at any FMS linked to its missions).

Creates Problem
If no one is around that can, or knows how to, move a flag, that side can not attack.

And as the brigades are smaller than the garrisons, it would kind of hamper the attacker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own take is that overall we need to simplify the supply/spawning/brigade/etc system and not make it over complicated. A new players head will spin trying to figure out these intricacies.

 

"I can't spawn in to help attack!"

"You need to join the brigade and not the garrison in the same town"

 

Like I said in previous post we need to have a consistent click town > select mission > spawn model. Without having to figure out garrison vs brigade etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, aismov said:

Like I said in previous post we need to have a consistent click town > select mission > spawn model. Without having to figure out garrison vs brigade etc.

That is a UI issue. New UI is in progress. There have been some very early concept art posts about it I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

Creates Problem
If no one is around that can, or knows how to, move a flag, that side can not attack.

And as the brigades are smaller than the garrisons, it would kind of hamper the attacker.

Supply balance between garrisons and brigades is a good point to discuss and I indeed make a general assumption that in the future forces would be equal or larger in brigades, once more players joined and repopulated the game and the orbat.

About the current HC population issue: the current issue is the complex flag management both in attacks and in fallback. In this case the management is simplified to attacks only, and brigades would mostly be moved to the front FB only when an OIC is on and is setting an AO. 

A game with not a single player to initiate an attack would definitely be problematic considering our MMO concept and the size of the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2018 at 2:35 PM, Zebbeee said:

Garrisons could have a local defensive role at ABs, while flags could have an offensive (or reinforcement) one at FBs. HC would keep a complex strategic layer but focused on attack priorities only

I did not follow the development of the theme of the garrisons. Who will lead the defense and who will command the garrison?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, lemkeh said:

I did not follow the development of the theme of the garrisons. Who will lead the defense and who will command the garrison?

I invite you to read Xoom's articles about 1.36. Garrison is the new name for brigade flags attached to towns.

There will Still be moveable flags , hence we speak about "hybrid" supposons

 the amount of flags and its supplies relative to garrisons have not yet been defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lemkeh said:

I did not follow the development of the theme of the garrisons. Who will lead the defense and who will command the garrison?

You will, Or your squad, what ever battlefield organization you wish to assemble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO having garrisons be smaller than brigades is azzzz-backwards. Brigades should be the tip of the spear. Garrisons should be as intended when we asked for them. A stop to softcapping and making sure there is a defense at all towns.

That being said with the evolution of the garrison thought process Ill say this again.

Garrisons COULD be used as an attacking force, however overstocking efforts to beef up their force should be a team function. Give US the tools to make out of them what we want.  The Garrison should be used to overstock the Division or themselves, not the otherway around.

Garrisons SHOULD NEVER be more powerful that divisions by design unless the pb makes them that way and should be one tier advancement behind in RDP, with the exception of mb ATGs.  One of the failures of the old TBS system was that each town became mini-factories.  When you added overstocking ability you could and sometimes we did overstock 40 or more top tier IE Tiger tanks in a town prior to an attack. The allies did it with the Matty. I don't want to see any more matty maps or tiger maps. They where detrimental to the game. You want 100 Sherman 76s at your gates?... I know I don't want 100 Tigers at mine.

Therefore.. T0 Garrisons should have no Chars in them, No matties, No stugBs.  A13a, P4Ds, and S35s would be top garrision tanks. T1 and you Get StugBs, Matties, and Chars in them. T-2.. I don't know, mb its heavy in PzHs, Stus and Cru2 with a few Cru3s for balance... however T-2 equipment grossly outclasses all t-1 equipment, mb its the only tier that gets Shermans, 4Gs, and CH5s with no TDs.. being that the BEF does not have a TD.  T-3 Garrisons don't advance past T-2 equipment.

I think also - RPATs DO need a cap period.

Lastly - plz plz do not make garrisons supply heavy, give us the tools to make them that way. There will be way too much supply across the map for one, secondly what CRS failed to comprehend was the nature of the player and squad.. ownership and the social aspect that goes along with squads. When everything was silverplatter and HC driven the social aspect and player ownership was taken away to.. OH' next AO is here get going from Alright guys grab supply from X and Y town, Squad B is going to grab supply from Y town. The social aspect died, the ownership died..  now all couched up in a 10 minute mandatory AO timer which IS far far too short.

"but it has to be that way to keep a side from turtling up"

Well... let me just say this, I rather spend and hour getting ready for a great attack that has guys excited to do their part then sit for 9 hours with NO HC ON to attack another town because an AO has become so stale and lost an FB you cant get back. What is worse?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stankyus said:

Lastly - plz plz do not make garrisons supply heavy, give us the tools to make them that way. There will be way too much supply across the map for one, secondly what CRS failed to comprehend was the nature of the player and squad.. ownership and the social aspect that goes along with squads. When everything was silverplatter and HC driven the social aspect and player ownership was taken away to.. OH' next AO is here get going from Alright guys grab supply from X and Y town, Squad B is going to grab supply from Y town. The social aspect died, the ownership died..  now all couched up in a 10 minute mandatory AO timer which IS far far too short.

 

I agree with this 100%. The sense of ownership and the need for squad by-in disappeared with the HC system, thankfully that changing for the better. I also agree that things should be more player driven, and the playerbase will quickly adapt to what is considered a "new normal."

Defending FBs or scouting towns for activity wasn't particularly fun in the action sense. But it fostered a great community, it made the front feel like an actual front that we as a squad had ownership of and responsibility to defend, not only to fellow squad mates, but ultimately to other squads and the side in general. Nobody wanted to be the squad always dropping the ball and having breakthroughs happen on your sector of the front. Combine that with the communication and organization tools we have in-game now which we only could have dreamed of back in the day and there is massive potential for some great combined arms squad play with dynamic resupply, manual overstocking, recon flights to find said overstocking, specialists teams fighting it out in the country side... the list is endless.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zebbeee said:

 

I invite you to read Xoom's articles about 1.36. Garrison is the new name for brigade flags attached to towns.

There will Still be moveable flags , hence we speak about "hybrid" supposons

 the amount of flags and its supplies relative to garrisons have not yet been defined.

OK. But i asked because you wrote that HC would be focused to attack only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not agree more @stankyus, Garrisons should be exactly that, an infantry-centric defence force with limited support in the way of armoured vehicles. The brigades and movable flags should represent the first-line fighting units that they are and be the focus of an attack or major defence. Brigades should have a good deal more supply than the garrisons, but not just in raw numbers but rather their composition. Depending on the number of flags that will be available, I envision them being a mix of infantry and armoured brigades. Heavy armour (top per tier) should ONLY come from a brigade, not garrisons. That gives flags massive strategic value, as they should have.

Regardless, with re-supply operations, players can build up a garrison for a stronger defence or to make an attack with or without a movable flag. I'm really looking forward to players actually thinking about supply, where there are going to get it from, and how to use it through in-game supply operations.   

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, raptor34 said:

I could not agree more @stankyus, Garrisons should be exactly that, an infantry-centric defence force with limited support in the way of armoured vehicles. The brigades and movable flags should represent the first-line fighting units that they are and be the focus of an attack or major defence. Brigades should have a good deal more supply than the garrisons, but not just in raw numbers but rather their composition. Depending on the number of flags that will be available, I envision them being a mix of infantry and armoured brigades. Heavy armour (top per tier) should ONLY come from a brigade, not garrisons. That gives flags massive strategic value, as they should have.

Regardless, with re-supply operations, players can build up a garrison for a stronger defence or to make an attack with or without a movable flag. I'm really looking forward to players actually thinking about supply, where there are going to get it from, and how to use it through in-game supply operations.   

You know when we transitioned over the Brigade system I think the old Crew had a great idea on paper to add another layer to the game that is more representative of RL. I was both excited about it and apprehensive. Some of the old loud mouths rendered their concerns so harshly that they got ignored but had spelled out some of the natural conclusions that would result.

I do a lot of observation and spent some time with an Air squad BST and ending up with my natural Axis home with the 3rd PZ. It was a HUGE squad and on squad night we could muster 125 members for squad op night but usually had between 30-45 members on. I listened a lot to chat at the time and some nights we literally spent 3 hours gathering supply. We would BS on TS and Chat.. tell jokes etc. which was a great time even when driving up a tank from rear line towns at 30 minutes a trip. We often set up our armor columns at the second town behind the lines to our front line town. Some of those armor columns stretched on the road from that rear town to the frontline town. I'm not kidding.. 6k line of tanks, HTs with 88s and bofors. Prior to launch while we gather up the plan for deployment, the break up of the squad into tasks like setting up 88s in the rear to hit allied reinforcements in interdiction roles and getting some other squads ready for infantry ops and CAS ready.  The squad chat then would erupt into how the Allies where gonna [censored] their pants and how we would steam roll them into the dirt. VERY exciting.

When I was with BST - N2Deeps squad we would patrol the board towns looking for enemy tank columns and nothing was more exciting then sounding the alarm and counting enemy tanks.

^^^^^^^^^^^

THIS is the glue that builds and kept squads together. Ownership and social aspect to squads.

AND SQUADs are the glue that holds the game together.

Without the glue that holds squads together the game dies a slow death because squads dissolve.

Now after what we have learned from both POVs to the game - TBS and Brigade systems, they both had their very good points and very bad points. The objective was to erase the bad points as much as possible and put back in play what was lost in a way that is BETTER for both approaches to the game.

The very worst of the TBS system was  that every town was a mini factory for some very powerful equipment. IE Matty and Tiger maps.. The very best is that the PB had ownership and squads developed natural leadership in numbers that have IMHO still produced more real leaders than the Brigade HC system. The ability to overstock huge numbers of supply leading to some of the most intense game combat and excitement the game has produced.

The Very worst of the Brigade system is that its HC dependent for it to function and it stripped the natural leaders and ownership from the game. Softcapping and fight avoidance and JWBS. The very best is that it added maneuver warfare to the game.

The consensus over the years has been this hybrid system.

CRS listened... somewhat.

We are putting in a hybrid system. Few want to get rid of the functionality of the Brigade system.. the request for TBS is coming back. However the vision and most logical way to implement them are no way close to what the PB has asked for and is flipping the table on what the function of Brigades and Garrisons are supposed to be. 

The whole point the PB has made about garrisons have been ignored. I'm completely stumped.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stankyus said:

We are putting in a hybrid system. Few want to get rid of the functionality of the Brigade system.. the request for TBS is coming back. However the vision and most logical way to implement them are no way close to what the PB has asked for and is flipping the table on what the function of Brigades and Garrisons are supposed to be. 

The whole point the PB has made about garrisons have been ignored. I'm completely stumped.

 

I missed your point, what did the playerbase ask for precisely? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, stankyus said:

IMHO having garrisons be smaller than brigades is azzzz-backwards. Brigades should be the tip of the spear. Garrisons should be as intended when we asked for them. A stop to softcapping and making sure there is a defense at all towns.

That being said with the evolution of the garrison thought process Ill say this again.

Garrisons COULD be used as an attacking force, however overstocking efforts to beef up their force should be a team function. Give US the tools to make out of them what we want.  The Garrison should be used to overstock the Division or themselves, not the otherway around.

Garrisons SHOULD NEVER be more powerful that divisions by design unless the pb makes them that way and should be one tier advancement behind in RDP, with the exception of mb ATGs.  One of the failures of the old TBS system was that each town became mini-factories.  When you added overstocking ability you could and sometimes we did overstock 40 or more top tier IE Tiger tanks in a town prior to an attack. The allies did it with the Matty. I don't want to see any more matty maps or tiger maps. They where detrimental to the game. You want 100 Sherman 76s at your gates?... I know I don't want 100 Tigers at mine.

Therefore.. T0 Garrisons should have no Chars in them, No matties, No stugBs.  A13a, P4Ds, and S35s would be top garrision tanks. T1 and you Get StugBs, Matties, and Chars in them. T-2.. I don't know, mb its heavy in PzHs, Stus and Cru2 with a few Cru3s for balance... however T-2 equipment grossly outclasses all t-1 equipment, mb its the only tier that gets Shermans, 4Gs, and CH5s with no TDs.. being that the BEF does not have a TD.  T-3 Garrisons don't advance past T-2 equipment.

I think also - RPATs DO need a cap period.

Lastly - plz plz do not make garrisons supply heavy, give us the tools to make them that way. There will be way too much supply across the map for one, secondly what CRS failed to comprehend was the nature of the player and squad.. ownership and the social aspect that goes along with squads. When everything was silverplatter and HC driven the social aspect and player ownership was taken away to.. OH' next AO is here get going from Alright guys grab supply from X and Y town, Squad B is going to grab supply from Y town. The social aspect died, the ownership died..  now all couched up in a 10 minute mandatory AO timer which IS far far too short.

"but it has to be that way to keep a side from turtling up"

Well... let me just say this, I rather spend and hour getting ready for a great attack that has guys excited to do their part then sit for 9 hours with NO HC ON to attack another town because an AO has become so stale and lost an FB you cant get back. What is worse?

Supply available for Garrisons and Divisions / Brigades will be something we work on and consider carefully. Those final numbers have not been considered, and likely once they meet first contact (in the campaign) they'll require some adjustments. Our commentary regarding Divisions / Brigades being the big power house of supply, is that we've long seen operations that have pressed through the lines and caused colossal demoralization of a side. This is something we're considering carefully. It's understood there must be a victor and a loser, it's inherent in our game's design. To the degree in which that demoralization goes can be mitigated somewhat via good decision making upfront. 

I'll reiterate, we've seen YEARS now of the Brigade system and its negative ramifications on game play and the community.

Originally announced as 1.36, we were not going to introduce the Brigade system at all... so consider our willingness to reconsider as a strong sign that we are listening and are making some modifications to the plan(s) as we go along.

Garrisons are understood to be primarily a defensive force, and they should be well equipped, and they should be something squads can use to leverage their own interests and attacks without interference or dependency by High Command. In that light, there is a balance to strike.

High Command should be utilizing Divisions / Brigades to help supplement / reinforce and serve Squad launched initiatives... you know... how it was supposed to work in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zebbeee said:

I missed your point, what did the playerbase ask for precisely? 

Garrisoning to stop soft capping and fighting avoidance. As it stands now, the Garrison is going to have larger spawn pools that the Brigades system which is azz backwards.  The Brigades should be the tip of the spear and garrisons the overstock and flank. If I where HC in this regard, I just keep my Brigs off the front lines, and only drop them in a frontline town so the PB can unload the equipment, then move them back off the front line so they can refresh their tickets and the supply goes directly into the overstock.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that we need to avoid have rose-colored glasses regarding the past game, because many of these changes were instituted because there were real problems in the game combined. Although HC and brigades was a vision from the beginning, the final game mechanics were a response to some of the concerns that were with squad play circa 2005. Those as far as I recall were primarily 1) blue tags excluded by squads, 2) squads dominating the then high command by promoting squad members at the expense of blue tags, 3) lack of CRS control over the maneuver aspect of the game, 4) off-peak hours caps and rolls.

I think the brigade system adds a great strategic layer to the game and makes it very unique, but the HC combined with AO control is what brought about the dying off of squads. When the Map OIC is the gatekeeper decided when and where players can play by virtue of AO placement you lose both squad locality (squads no longer hold "their" part of the front) and squad tactical initiative (no longer any surprises since every attack will either be a pre-AO precamp or a mobile spawn deluge).

At the same time its important to realize that one of the reasons for AO was to avoid the scenario where a squad would spawn tank en mass and rush a undefended town on the front and the opposing side wouldn't have time to set up a defense. Hence the AO-tables hot timer where the idea was to make tanks sitting ducks a bit and allow the defenders to control the situation a bit. Unfortunately AOs also forced a very stale type of gameplay where everything became a monocultured corn field rather than a naturally growing prarie with change and variety.

Hopefully hybrid supply will be a step in this direction where we can give squads a sense of real ownership and the freedom of movement/gameplay which is necessary to create that type of shared ownership. I think that Stankyus hit it on the head when he alluded to that you can't hardcode the social aspect into the game. It has to be organically created through natural leaders, squad responsibilities, and squad consequences when they don't pay attention to what the other side may or may not be planning along their sector of the front.

 

EDIT: just saw xoom's post and I have to agree with the current plan where the brigades supplement the garrisons. Its a good example of being able to keep the good things about brigades (strategic layer, HC coordination, a sense there really are armies on the field). But I also think it strikes a good balance of having the brigades be supplemental rather than domineering.

One thing I will add is that even lets say that a garrison has 25 Panzers by default in T0. Imagine what kind of force multiplier it will be if you have a armored division in the town that brings an extra 15 panzers. That is huge. And it gives the opposing side a message of "hey get ready as there may be an attack here." But you still need to check other parts of the front since attacks can come from anywhere. That is where the squad ownership comes into play.

Edited by aismov
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stankyus said:

CRS listened... somewhat.

We are putting in a hybrid system. Few want to get rid of the functionality of the Brigade system.. the request for TBS is coming back. However the vision and most logical way to implement them are no way close to what the PB has asked for and is flipping the table on what the function of Brigades and Garrisons are supposed to be. 

The whole point the PB has made about garrisons have been ignored. I'm completely stumped.

The Brigade system is the root cause for the leadership vacuum that you've referenced (very appropriately) above, which has very directly reduced the enjoyability of the Campaign due to lack of organized large scale operations and Squad sizes shrinking.

I say again, the consideration for how supply is distributed is still something we are working on, but allowing for Divisions to do what they have done to the game, resulting into immense demoralization is not something we're going to leap both feet in with and support without considering all of the observations, and for that matter pain of having to deal with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, XOOM said:

Supply available for Garrisons and Divisions / Brigades will be something we work on and consider carefully. Those final numbers have not been considered, and likely once they meet first contact (in the campaign) they'll require some adjustments. Our commentary regarding Divisions / Brigades being the big power house of supply, is that we've long seen operations that have pressed through the lines and caused colossal demoralization of a side. This is something we're considering carefully. It's understood there must be a victor and a loser, it's inherent in our game's design. To the degree in which that demoralization goes can be mitigated somewhat via good decision making upfront. 

I'll reiterate, we've seen YEARS now of the Brigade system and its negative ramifications on game play and the community.

Originally announced as 1.36, we were not going to introduce the Brigade system at all... so consider our willingness to reconsider as a strong sign that we are listening and are making some modifications to the plan(s) as we go along.

Garrisons are understood to be primarily a defensive force, and they should be well equipped, and they should be something squads can use to leverage their own interests and attacks without interference or dependency by High Command. In that light, there is a balance to strike.

High Command should be utilizing Divisions / Brigades to help supplement / reinforce and serve Squad launched initiatives... you know... how it was supposed to work in the first place?

I'm detecting some sarcasm here.

The thing I do like about the brigade system is that they ARE well supplied.  I don't want to be the supplemental force. I want them to be drive the map still.  However I think the garrison both historically and this game should not be as capable as the brigade. A garrison was much smaller than the Brigade mb as big as 4 companies.  I also don't what them larger because I want the PB to have ownership put firmly back in our hands, let US - the PB, build the strength of the Garrison.  Open up a 3 link deep front and we will make this game great again.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stankyus said:

I'm detecting some sarcasm here.

The thing I do like about the brigade system is that they ARE well supplied.  I don't want to be the supplemental force. I want them to be drive the map still.  However I think the garrison both historically and this game should not be as capable as the brigade. A garrison was much smaller than the Brigade mb as big as 4 companies.  I also don't what them larger because I want the PB to have ownership put firmly back in our hands, let US - the PB, build the strength of the Garrison.  Open up a 3 link deep front and we will make this game great again.

Only at the tail end, but yes I was emphasizing just how far the mission statement for High Command has gone off the deep-end, by the game's design demanding them to perform, not by their own internal cultivation.

I understand your point very clearly reading your posts, and it is logical. OHM (the Game Manager) and I will discuss it in greater detail. Opening up a third town in the rear is not something we have in the design and likely won't make roll out, we wanted 1 adjacent town (which could be two links) from the front.

All I am saying is there has to be a balance in how we manage this. Anyone who says, to hell with balance, is not thinking clearly and should be removed from the design discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stankyus said:

A garrison was much smaller than the Brigade mb as big as 4 companies.  I also don't what them larger because I want the PB to have ownership put firmly back in our hands, let US - the PB, build the strength of the Garrison.  Open up a 3 link deep front and we will make this game great again.

Maybe we should call it something different then? Instead of a Garrison call it the Front Line Division? And call the current brigades Spearheads? The nomenclature is gravy, but I think that brigades should supplement the garrisons because if it was the other way around you are stuck in the situation where you need active HC/Map OIC on at all times in order to move the brigades into the correct strategic position. By having brigades supplement the garrison you open up the entire front and avoid the need for HC dictating play, while at the same time still allowing HC some strategic initiative and facilitating squads ops by parking a brigade where a big push is planned.

As long as players can resupply/overstock front line towns from rear line towns that is all you really need. The brigade moving into town is just an extra bonus.

And as a plus it can add a devious level of trickery into the game. Park a brigade by Namur and make the opposing side think that is where the big push is going. But really you are secretely manually overstocking armor and planning on hitting Sedan. Surprise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, aismov said:

Maybe we should call it something different then? Instead of a Garrison call it the Front Line Division? And call the current brigades Spearheads? The nomenclature is gravy, but I think that brigades should supplement the garrisons because if it was the other way around you are stuck in the situation where you need active HC/Map OIC on at all times in order to move the brigades into the correct strategic position. By having brigades supplement the garrison you open up the entire front and avoid the need for HC dictating play, while at the same time still allowing HC some strategic initiative and facilitating squads ops by parking a brigade where a big push is planned.

As long as players can resupply/overstock front line towns from rear line towns that is all you really need. The brigade moving into town is just an extra bonus.

And as a plus it can add a devious level of trickery into the game. Park a brigade by Namur and make the opposing side think that is where the big push is going. But really you are secretely manually overstocking armor and planning on hitting Sedan. Surprise!

I explained my reasoning why I think there should be a very distinct difference between garrison and its capability and the Brigades strength and capability.  I can envision a T-0 overstocked garrison running into a T-0 axis overstocked garrison where the wienie tanks rue the day. R39s and 38ts clashing in a struggle to the death. Nobody really has a upperhand unless they overstocked more.  While I'm not exactly sure how the "Brigade" is going to make its moves, but if they have the top tiered tanker force, that's what sets them apart. If you want to bolster them you do it with overstocking them with the lesser Garrison gear. Brigades being a hammer and Garrisons tack drivers.  TBH - not sure what you do with Brigades without HC moving them.. however I think there is a work around.  AOs I assume are still in play - let EWS set the trigger for AO placement. For brigades - HC moves them unless they are not on, then the PB can elect a MOIC and he/she can move them  OR a vote cast.. and I dare say if your squad is big enough your squad can literally shape the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stankyus said:

 If you want to bolster them you do it with overstocking them with the lesser Garrison gear. Brigades being a hammer and Garrisons tack drivers.  TBH - not sure what you do with Brigades without HC moving them.. however I think there is a work around.  AOs I assume are still in play - let EWS set the trigger for AO placement. For brigades - HC moves them unless they are not on, then the PB can elect a MOIC and he/she can move them  OR a vote cast.. and I dare say if your squad is big enough your squad can literally shape the area.

 

But don't you think that this system is becoming dangerously reliant of having 1) HC offers on at all times and 2) competent Map OIC? I could see a lot of potential bad blood and finger pointing if a field-promoted Map OIC makes a wrong move or complaints that the biggest squads are dominating where the brigades go because they have all the votes. In my opinion we should strive to simplify the entire Brigade/HC system. Have garrisons along the front allowing play when are where players want. Keep brigades in there but make their presence a nice addition but not a game changer that requires their constant presence.

Using your example for Tier 0, what if a French garrison still had say 5 Chars and 15 S35s. Impressive force which you can overstock +X% as deemed by CRS from a rear town to make a solid attack force. Now bring the brigade into the picture which would add say 3 Chars and 8 S35s to the spawn pool. This way squad players can spawn Chars when and where they want for maximum tactical flexibility, while HC still has a strategic role to help support breakthroughs or planned operations by positioning brigades that give the spawn pool some extra heavy metal to roll down the road into the enemy town.

I see you concern with the "brigades" becoming second fiddle to the "garrison" which I agree from a nomenclature standpoint sounds funny, but I honestly think it is just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.