Should Garrisons be able to capture territory?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Should Garrisons be able to capture territory?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Should Garrisons be able to capture territory?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Should Garrisons be able to capture territory? - 1/4/2017 4:46:02 PM

mavraamides

Posts: 447
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Just wondering other's thoughts on this. It seems to me that Garrison units should not be able to move into enemy territory. I'm able to exploit this ability as USSR by sending them deep into open areas behind German lines. They make great scouts exposing unseen German units so my more valuable units don't get surprised by them. And since they are so cheap and so quick to replace, there is very little risk in using them that way.

I think of Garrison units as static defensive units. These behave almost more like low cost recon. If they were restricted to only be able to move in friendly controlled territory it would make them much closer to their historical use.

Post #: 1

RE: Should Garrisons be able to capture territory? - 1/4/2017 6:21:43 PM

n0kn0k

Posts: 564
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

(in reply to mavraamides)

Post #: 2

RE: Should Garrisons be able to capture territory? - 1/4/2017 6:39:13 PM

xwormwood

Posts: 1149
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline

They are slow, weak, and not that cheap if you lose them every turn.
So I see no reason to restrict their movements.
Wait untill you play against a human opponent.
After your first games your judgement will be more complete.

_____________________________

"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)

(in reply to n0kn0k)

Post #: 3

RE: Should Garrisons be able to capture territory? - 1/4/2017 6:53:40 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

I agree they should have like 1 movement point only. Their main way of "movement" is by operating them or sending them via transport.
Their cost may be well reduced AND they should be placed already "on the spot" (You may have to build them already in a place but if you lose that place in the while your garrison is burnt as you were sending mats and personnel there).

(in reply to mavraamides)

Post #: 4

RE: Should Garrisons be able to capture territory? - 1/4/2017 7:08:22 PM

mavraamides

Posts: 447
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood

They are slow, weak, and not that cheap if you lose them every turn.
So I see no reason to restrict their movements.
Wait untill you play against a human opponent.
After your first games your judgement will be more complete.

They aren't that slow. If you force march them they can cover a lot of ground.
They are very cheap if you're Russia and you have production tech level 5 and they die in 5+ supply so you get them at half price.
Granted they are weak (even though I have used them to finish off level 2 German inf with only 1 strength left)
But my main point is that Garrisons by their very nature shouldn't be able to capture enemy territory. Or frankly, engage in offensive operations. Forget about how I'm using them for a second, it's more about what they supposedly represent.

(in reply to xwormwood)

Post #: 5

RE: Should Garrisons be able to capture territory? - 1/4/2017 7:23:54 PM

xwormwood

Posts: 1149
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline

in SSIs Storm Across Europe garrisons were represented by strength points which could be purchased for cities. The city itself got a defense value from this.
Probably a better solution compared to Garrison units.

_____________________________

"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)

(in reply to mavraamides)

Post #: 6

RE: Should Garrisons be able to capture territory? - 1/4/2017 7:35:10 PM

mavraamides

Posts: 447
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood

in SSIs Storm Across Europe garrisons were represented by strength points which could be purchased for cities. The city itself got a defense value from this.
Probably a better solution compared to Garrison units.

That's an interesting idea. Would solve all of the problems and allow a form of stacking as a regular unit could occupy city as well.

(in reply to xwormwood)

Post #: 7

RE: Should Garrisons be able to capture territory? - 1/4/2017 8:07:22 PM

Goodmongo

Posts: 346
Joined: 9/22/2011
Status: offline

I like them just the way they are. No need for any changes. And considering that unless you take a city or supply source they will quickly run out of supply and then can barely move. Force marching them usually gets them killed in a single combat due to the low stats.

(in reply to mavraamides)

Post #: 8

RE: Should Garrisons be able to capture territory? - 1/5/2017 3:08:49 AM

James Taylor

Posts: 638
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline

Let me have those garrisons any day as recon units. I'll use my best units on them to build more experience, just like partisans.

Experienced, over-strength units are a powerful thing!

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to Goodmongo)

Post #: 9

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Should Garrisons be able to capture territory?

Page: [1]