tyrdaimp

Remove Garrisons

79 posts in this topic

Garrisons, are just pointless. They kill gameplay in the matter of population.  

Instance, A large city could be understandable,  but the moment a faction captures one sector of a city, they instantly get a full garrison supply.  All while other ends of the city are duking it out.    I believe we should remove Garrisons all together,  if not significantly reduce numbers and timers.

As for large cities, garrisons should not include any heavy weaponry (heavy tanks, bombers,  destroyers, etc)  

Leave the old unit system for actual combat and operations 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was thinking something similar.

When you capture a town, think it takes 1 hour for all the supply to come in.

Change that to 2 hours, or even 3.

Kinda funky that you take a town and then get full supply again.

 

Garrisons more good than bad, but maybe we can adjust how TOE and garrisons work to be more real like?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bwwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that matter my brainstorming notes mentioned these suggestions:

-Upon capture, the initial garrison supply timer could vary according to the past 48h map performance, i.e. multiplied by a ratio of captured/lost towns, to slow down map rolls

-Garrison resupply could be 4(?) times slower than brigades' one

thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don’t trust any of the variable timers atm, another would be annoying( That’s understatement if it wasn’t clear)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garrisons make some sense as forces holding rear areas, but they are simply too large, and too unit complete. These should be rear area, second or even third rate forces, and small numbers per AB. Then the timers matter less (since by small I literally mean on the order of a platoon of inf, plus some ATG/armor all units at like "current tier - 2")

Share this post


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

We don’t trust any of the variable timers atm, another would be annoying( That’s understatement if it wasn’t clear)

I'm poster child for the variable cap timers, I support them as a necessity (along what should be other variables, then turn loose greater capping opportunities), but I utterly agree that those things go nuts and don't reflect the reality of what we see in game.  I suspect I know why, but I'm not sure the Rats can readily change them even if they were persuaded to do so.

 

Definitely agree on not hanging more variable functions until they are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working on (re)supply timers instead of total volumes simulates a continuous reinforcement of the area. Think of max 72 hours instead of the current 15. Allowing counter attacks and giving more weight to brigades. After a few day defenders have grown stronger.

Small supply would hurt how battles sustain and would faster result in rifles only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important that there are 'garrisons' of some kind.    A lot of us pay to play this game, and don't like to be beholden to whether or not HC is on or has moved brigs as we desire.   The purpose of the game is to actually play it, not have to sit at a map being powerless to even show up where the enemy is.  Can the supply amount be tweaked or what not?  Certainly.  Maybe the idea of having a bigger stock in the rear which can be moved up to a smaller stock makes some sense.  

I have long advocated for some kind of access to the strategic level of the game to individual players.  For example, each player, in proportion to the rank that they have, also has a certain amount of 'supply' they can allocate.  This would allow squads to enable their own action.  It would allow the player base to commit to an attack.  And naturally, if they commit incorrectly, they may have to pay the price for it.

I don't mind having brigades, either.  There is something to be said about how wars are often won (or dramatically altered) by going where the enemy is not.  This allows encircling, flank attacks, etc, which I think is very good to simulate.  I also would prefer it if when a brigade moves, it has to actually 'move' along the path between the cities, like an army would.  I have proposed several ideas along the lines of 'daisy chained' supplies. 

In this spirit, and applicable to all of the above, it would also be nice if it were possible for supply to move without being so publicly obvious.  How can you do any sneak attacks when everyone knows where every division is at every time and the defenders always get a warning when troops/armor shows up, and then a solid 10 minutes to show up once the AO is set, and there are only 1-3 AOs, anyway?

I know this is a bit of a "I want to have it all" perspective, but I think it can be done by emulating as much as possible real life considerations.  It's the ad hoc stuff that becomes maddeningly tricky to balance out.  If something is as it really was, its really hard to complain.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer much, much smaller Garrisons. Yes, that means some towns are "gimme" attacks if attacked by a BDE.

I'd:

1. Make smaller Garrisons. They can resupply pretty rapidly, so small attacks won't weaken them, but a real attack crushes them quickly.

2. Make BDEs have to actually move contiguously at some reasonable pace from town to town.

3. I like @pfmosquito's point about intelligence and BDE movement. Perhaps movements can only manifest themselves in certain ways like length of time in a given town, or if the unit attacks it becomes known, or perhaps if a town is attacked and a facility is captured, then the units in that town become known.

4. Make more BDEs, possibly. We have auto AO rules, the server could try and put BDEs along the front if any have been defeated, and knocked back to resupply.

5. I'd revamp paras in some way to function as BDEs that get to avoid some of the limitations above wrt HCs being online. For example, perhaps a mechanism could be added to have C-47s and Ju-52s land at the locations of attacking FBs, and create a para FB at that location. Or maybe one that is more like a PPO/FMS. You'd build this with multiple aircraft. So land X transport aircraft (4?), taxi them to within some short range of each other (engines running), then the mission leader aircraft can build a para spawnpoint (some sort of tent). It might get a few smallest size ATGs, too. This would effectively allow non-HC players to move (ie: use) a para BDE whenever/wherever they like.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that actually sounds reasonable to me, @tater

For gaining intelligence, I had in mind perhaps half the brigs, or perhaps a new kind of brig, which could not be seen--provided there was a way for them to be detected by player activity.  But hey, why not,  perhaps NONE of the brigades are visible on the strat map to you unless your side places a unit within, say, 5k of wherever that brigade is.  (Leaving open the idea that maybe some day brigades 'move' and can be 'intercepted.')  In general I would think that it would be easy enough for to keep track of where brigades are by spawning scout trucks and the like and obviously airplanes.  However, it would still at least be conceivable that a brig could 'disappear' because it hasn't been minded by the intelligence services, and then (a man can dream) perhaps it pops up behind even a rear line town and wrecks havoc.  :)

(I am in the camp that would like to see any town capturable, at any time, even without AOs.  I understand why we don't have it.  But I don't like it.)

per #1, so long as a garrison can be re-supplied and restocked by player activity I think SOMETHING for players to use would be great.  Paying customers and all, you see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Bwwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

It's like some of us had a crystal ball or something back when 1.36 was first being discussed.  

 

It's a combination of humor and outright fury for me though, Kile.  And it's heavy on the fury.  This style of hybrid should have been what we went with all along (i.e. way more than 3 divisions on the map alongside smaller garrisons in every town to prevent softcapping without some kind of fight).  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

And go back to what? No HC on to move the flags? Softcapping?

F no.  No way in hell.  

And having smaller garrisons with more flags is bad, as well. When you have no HC on to move those flags, you just get steam rollered anyway, with a bit of supply to fight with to prolong the agony?  Hell no. 

They go back to flags only, or more flags for the not online HC to move, I'm throwing in the towel. 

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

No.

And go back to what? No HC on to move the flags? Softcapping?

F no.  No way in hell.  

And having smaller garrisons with more flags is bad, as well. When you have no HC on to move those flags, you just get steam rollered anyway, with a bit of supply to fight with to prolong the agony?  Hell no. 

They go back to flags only, or more flags for the not online HC to move, I'm throwing in the towel. 

So this. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have talked to some people who hate garrisons and I just don't understand it.  Isn't the idea of the game to play it?   The previous system created a whole lot of watching as the other side roamed often empty towns, pillaging cabinets for Dutch wine and stockings to supplement one's meager winter clothing allotment.    Why is this good?

I think what tater said may offer a middle ground:  "Make smaller Garrisons. They can resupply pretty rapidly, so small attacks won't weaken them, but a real attack crushes them quickly."

Draw back some of the supply, but make it come back faster.

In other news, I went a whole campaign and a half hardly being able to find a SMG.  There seems to be about 5 in the smg depot list, which goes super, super fast.  (For some reason I'm able to nab one of them more often than originally.  Not sure why.)  Personally, I don't think 5 smgs is 'overstrength.'  Maybe other areas of the garrison have too much, but for where a lot of us have fun--the smg--it seems frankly sparse.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that smaller garrisons with fast resupply would also combine with more BDEs. Also, and this is important, BDES would have slower resupply, and realistic move times. So if a side goes OP, they can't teleport a bunch of BDEs, and smash through, they need to mass the BDEs ahead of time if they want a "spearhead" arrangement.

Seems like there should be a game mechanic regarding fallback to deal with OP anyway, so that might help with the notion that there would be softcaps everywhere. Ie: if a town gets lost without losing more than some decent % of a BDE, the BDE falls back (if 2 guys spawn in on defense, and the town falls as fast as the timers allow, they won't burn through much supply, clearly there was not really a "brigade" there with just a few players---the constant problem that "map" strength in this game is entirely meaningless, all that matters is how many players are in any given place, numbers always win).

The naysayers should not dump the entire concept, but think about what a desirable goal would be, first, then examine ideas that facilitate the goal that won't result in their concerns playing out. Just because something might have been badly tried before doesn't mean it can't work. Mobile spawns are a great idea, for example, but I think they have always been done wrong in this game (I complained before they were turned on that they should not be "off sides", since that would literally be the only bad way to do them...).

The goals are (IMHO, feel free to edit):

1. To allow maneuver warfare at the map scale (breakouts, blitzkrieg, etc).

2. While doing the above to facilitate battles at the player level. (we don't want softcaps, but we want rear areas to be vulnerable if there is a breakout)

3. All new ideas for game mechanics should probably have something included to mitigate OP and/or low pop problems.

Maybe the system can control a couple floating BDEs that get put on the front when no HC is on in a reactive way? If a town gets attacked, the system makes sure they both have BDEs with no HC?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not garrisons are here to stay.  Just too much work to go back.  Best option would be to reduce numbers in garrisons and add more brigades, but we would still have the HC problem.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tater said:

Maybe the system can control a couple floating BDEs that get put on the front when no HC is on in a reactive way? If a town gets attacked, the system makes sure they both have BDEs with no HC?

Maybe give brigade movement ability to any Lt. Colonel (or set some other standard), but reserve veto power for active HC officers.  There would need to be a new command for cancelling your own movement orders though, otherwise any accidental movement orders issued couldn't be reverted.  

Share this post


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

In other news, I went a whole campaign and a half hardly being able to find a SMG.  There seems to be about 5 in the smg depot list, which goes super, super fast.  (For some reason I'm able to nab one of them more often than originally.  Not sure why.)  Personally, I don't think 5 smgs is 'overstrength.'  Maybe other areas of the garrison have too much, but for where a lot of us have fun--the smg--it seems frankly sparse.

Genuine quality-of-life question, pf:  would you be okay with upping SMG numbers to an ahistorical amount for both sides (i.e. making the SMG supply equal to or greater than rifle supply)?  

 

If that's what most of the inf players want and need to do their jobs, then I think such a move should be strongly considered by CRS as a push to improve gameplay and the general user experience.  Since the CP is so critical to the game's functionality, I think this is one area where "historical accuracy" is most afforded to be thrown to the wayside.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Capco said:

Genuine quality-of-life question, pf:  would you be okay with upping SMG numbers to an ahistorical amount for both sides (i.e. making the SMG supply equal to or greater than rifle supply)? 

If that's what most of the inf players want and need to do their jobs, then I think such a move should be strongly considered by CRS as a push to improve gameplay and the general user experience.  Since the CP is so critical to the game's functionality, I think this is one area where "historical accuracy" is most afforded to be thrown to the wayside.  

This is an interesting take. On one level, as someone who guards CPs most of my time in game even though I can't stand it, I agree. On the other hand, I'd prefer a better capture system, instead, or, if I wasn't always facing endless streams of SMGs, I'd be less likely to need one. I'm always surprised when in a town we own, I can't find an SMG, and everyone I kill... is an SMG.

As a quality of life thing, it's a toss up if it would be better or worse, frankly. The plus is that you can actually fight in a CP with a SMG, the downside is... more damn SMGs everywhere, lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I would actually believe that the exact opposite would better work: more supply but much slower re-supply timers. Up to 72 hours instead of the current 15 for example.

This would make attrition more meaningful and thus reinforce the strategic level of the game. Weakening your garisson would be dangerous but there will remain a wall in your rear to avoid the front to collapse. 

Maneuver warfare pushing into empty areas is indeed no longer an available tactic with the introduction of garrisons anyway. The only alternative is to consider a mix with AO-triggered "supply waves". 

Slower initial supply timers would also give more weight to brigades for offensive roles, as new captured garrisons would be too weak to push further without brigade support. 

Share this post


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

No.

And go back to what? No HC on to move the flags? Softcapping?

F no.  No way in hell.  

And having smaller garrisons with more flags is bad, as well. When you have no HC on to move those flags, you just get steam rollered anyway, with a bit of supply to fight with to prolong the agony?  Hell no. 

They go back to flags only, or more flags for the not online HC to move, I'm throwing in the towel. 

Agreed on this dont even have enough hc anymore to swap ao’s it would be a disaster to bring back the strat game even at 50% of what it was 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Mosizlak too .. Garrisons are here to eleviate the HC problem and make sure ALL players can play .. It has solved a lot of issues that we don't want returning . 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Genuine quality-of-life question, pf:  would you be okay with upping SMG numbers to an ahistorical amount for both sides (i.e. making the SMG supply equal to or greater than rifle supply)? "

I would lean towards "no" on that formulation.  I don't know what the historical numbers are on either score.   Is that what is going on right now?  Is the SMG list tied on a percentage basis to the number of rifles, each pegged to historical figures?  If so, I have not heard that.

"I think this is one area where "historical accuracy" is most afforded to be thrown to the wayside." 

Maybe.  But there are other ways to manage, it, too.  For example, it seems there is a tension right now between the pay-to-play folks and the advantages of ranking up.  Setting aside exceptions like HC, doesn't a paying LT. Col have the same access to SMGs as a paying 1st Lt?  That is my understanding.  Maybe revisiting this so that rank matters would offset this issue.  My understanding is that as rank goes up, ACCESS to unit type changes, but what if the unit access was the same but the NUMBER AVAILABLE changed? 

It could be rationalized by saying that a Lt. Col would have more men under his command than a corporal, or something like that.  :)  (Although I have suggested several times that paying players have supply they can allocate, which I did again above.)  

I'm not necessarily advocating for this, I'm just saying that maybe we can balance other 'historical' aspects into the analysis so that we can make some changes which are perhaps stretching it a bit, but not to the level of "throwing it to the wayside."

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

"Genuine quality-of-life question, pf:  would you be okay with upping SMG numbers to an ahistorical amount for both sides (i.e. making the SMG supply equal to or greater than rifle supply)? "

I would lean towards "no" on that formulation.  I don't know what the historical numbers are on either score.   Is that what is going on right now?  Is the SMG list tied on a percentage basis to the number of rifles, each pegged to historical figures?  If so, I have not heard that.

"I think this is one area where "historical accuracy" is most afforded to be thrown to the wayside." 

Maybe.  But there are other ways to manage, it, too.  For example, it seems there is a tension right now between the pay-to-play folks and the advantages of ranking up.  Setting aside exceptions like HC, doesn't a paying LT. Col have the same access to SMGs as a paying 1st Lt?  That is my understanding.  Maybe revisiting this so that rank matters would offset this issue.  My understanding is that as rank goes up, ACCESS to unit type changes, but what if the unit access was the same but the NUMBER AVAILABLE changed? 

It could be rationalized by saying that a Lt. Col would have more men under his command than a corporal, or something like that.  :)  (Although I have suggested several times that paying players have supply they can allocate, which I did again above.)  

I'm not necessarily advocating for this, I'm just saying that maybe we can balance other 'historical' aspects into the analysis so that we can make some changes which are perhaps stretching it a bit, but not to the level of "throwing it to the wayside."

Good post.  

 

I was really coming at it from a very basic angle.  People often say the depot supply for SMGs is too low, and the easiest way to increase that depot number is to increase the total amount of SMGs in the master supply pool (since the depot number is derived as a fraction of the master pool).  

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.