Garrisons

[Kielec]

The following few thoughts were "inspired" by what was being discussed in the 'RR Logic' thread
tm.asp?m=2171478&mpage=1?

What IS, in fact, the role of garrisons in this game? Aside from the 'RR Logic' blocking insane enemy train rides behind your lines?
I, for one, (playing CSA only) strip all the cities of the deep south off everything, sometimes leaving an odd BDE in a better fort here and there (I also dismantle most of the forts and/or downgrade their weaponry for reduced support costs, but that's another story), but never in the cities. I've never had any enemy RR movement behind my lines anyway.

OK. So here go my points:

1. When a governor or another demands a mumber of BDEs in his state, this is, in my case, served by "fighting units" - in containers. No governor ever demanded units to be garrisoned. If, in case of governor's demand, a garrisoned unit counted, say, as 2, as opposed to units in containers counting as 1, this would ask for a temporary "garrisonification" until the governor is happy and lets go. As it is - no point here.
2. When a province goes to unrest, it can only (or am I wrong?) be suppressed with units in containers. Garrisons do not help here. Well... what do those guys do? Sit behind their barracks walls playing cards while the city is run by angry mobs? "Gangs of New York" come to mind.
3. I do not recall ANY bonuses related to presence of garrisoned units in cities, although I would like to think that provinces with garrisoned units in them should have lower chances of unrest, and/or higher chances of successful "pressurizing" the populace, be it for goodies or recruits...

Did I miss something about governors' attitude being related to presence of garrisoned units?

Please let me know if there ARE any uses for garrison units, aside from the RR control, and the obvious replacement pool for the front (which, useful as it is, has nothing to do with the units actually being garrisoned - quite the contrary).

Thanks!

Kielec

[Mad Russian]

Well, let's see. They fight and defend the cities they garrison. They stop the enemy from gaining control of the area until they capture the city. They are a convenient storage location for units that  you can't upgrade or arm.

If you have read my An UnCivil War DAR in the AAR section you will see just how damaging things can be when a force gets behind you. Once that happens and they walk into undefended = ungarrisoned cities you can see the results on the map.

Good Hunting.

MR 

[Kielec]

MR,

I enjoyed following up on your looong report. Your "Flood Strategy" worked out just fine, but I honestly find it a bit... unhealthy. What it seems to boil down to is to build DIV containers instead of units or anything else (OK, OK, you did build quite a lot of other stuff in the process, but the esence remains the same), and then use the game mechanics to disrupt enemy's economy and kill his NW while covering his back-yard with 1-BDE DIVs after successfully breaching what you call "the crust". Yep, it worked. Mazel tov! Although I think that in real terms a single BDE on clearly hostile territory would have a rather short life-span thanks to the angry farmers' pitchforks and such...

My point is, that should your opponent prevent you from getting behind his lines in the first place, there would seem to be no need for him to keep any garrisons anywhere, other than for the sole purpose of reducing overall support costs (garrisons do not need supply, right?).

As for your point about keeping "units that you can't upgrade or arm" in garrisons in the rear: I don't think this works too well for the South. Muskets cost nothing, and make for superior weaponry at close range, and the South cannot afford any upgrades most of the time anyway, so the place of all BDEs at hand seems to be where combat is, not in Florida. And when there is combat in Florida, it is most likely all over already.

Hmm...

[Mad Russian]

The game mechanics force you to do some things for cause and effect. The Union doesn't have raiders. So I produced my own in Bde sized Divisions. The south should no more strip the entire countryside of garrisons than the north should.

I've not played the CSA yet so I can't comment on how you build those forces up. What I'm telling you is that if either side neglects garrisons and then the enemy gets behind you the results will not be pretty. At what point in the game can neither side launch a border attack? That would be very late in the game for the CSA I would think and never for the Union side.

There should be some political considerations for garrisons as you pointed out. Was the governor is in control of the garrisons or was it the federals? That could make a major difference in how the garrisons get released for activation into the regular army. From what I saw, the armies in FoF build up way too fast compared to what was actually done. That extra manpower comes straight out of the garrisons off the map.

Good points you make.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Gil R.]

Garrisons do help to lower unrest. As Mad Russian points out, they play an important role in city defense -- if you fight and lose a battle in a province that has no garrison, you lost that province, but if there's a garrison (and you have the toggle set so that garrisons retreat into the city) then the enemy needs to engage in a siege, which gives the defender an opportunity to lift the siege.

The idea of having garrison brigades count as two in terms of responding to governors' requests is an interesting one. If you put it in the "Wish List" thread we'll consider it if/when we work on a FOF2.

[steel god]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
From what I saw, the armies in FoF build up way too fast compared to what was actually done. That extra manpower comes straight out of the garrisons off the map.

I found this to be much less the case in the Standard scenario as opposed to the Coming Fury scenario. In Coming Fury I agree, in relatively short order there are several large standing armies of the 6 digit variety, or just under, before Christmas in 1861. Whereas in the standard scenario, if you have a 75,000 man army in the field equipped and ready for combat you have a juggernaut, with most combats actually involving forces of 25-50K per side. Makes the QC resolution work better since you don't bump up against the board limits so much.

[hgilmer3]

I really dislike the governors (and yeah, yeah! I know you can turn it off) asking for a set number of brigades to be left in his state for awhile.  Kansas always seems to want a lot of them there and it takes him forever to be satisfied.  I had two armies stand in 2 separate states for 10 turns or more!!  And these weren't states on the front line, either.  This was at a point when the fighting had moved to Tennessee and Ohio and Kansas wanted standing armies for a really long time.

Still love the game, though, but I am thinking of turning off governors. 

I have had the South go unchecked into a few cities due to stripping garrisons, though, but I have actually found it isn't worth taking them all not necessarily because they're needed to stop "breakouts" but also because you put a few of those garrisons into armies and you start losing battles.  Their "morale/WTF/experience" ratings are so so so bad compared to what you can build.

[Kielec]

Gil,

Excuse me for not digging deep enough to be able to actually discuss the matter (I am quite faaaaar away from my FoF comp now, and cannot consult the manuals.pdf... and so, I cannot be sure...), but I have a feeling thet your statement that "Garrisons do help to lower unrest" may be a bit of a flop. Now, do not get too excited, it is just that while watching them end of turn repports, I do not recall ever seeing a "the garrison of WhateverVille has lowered the unrest by #*%^&$" message. All there ever is to be seen, is them DIVs and CORPs etc. (containers) doing the job.
In case there is a garrison influence on lowering unrest, it does not seem to be showing 'explicite' while playing. And, as I said, I don't seem to have seen/felt any.

K.

[Kielec]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Was the governor is in control of the garrisons or was it the federals? That could make a major difference in how the garrisons get released for activation into the regular army.

Excellent question, MR!
Honestly, I do not know. I am only to start digging into the history of the conflict more seriously. I do hope to be able to answer that in a month or two (somebody will do it before that - the community is quite alive!), but as it is, (based on my general knowledge about the 19th century republican systems, and the US being a '(con)federate' state) I do have a feeling that the governors must have had ENORMOUS influence over 'their' troops movements and (possible) involvement. To an extent this is actually quite well represented within the game with the governors' requests.
As it is, playing FoF is playing "in God mode" - the player taking all of them decissions on all levels (a VERY nice attempt on go-around is the Grey Hunter's experiment:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showth ... genumber=1 )

And then, you would have the generals' attitudes, as with (for the South) Lee and some others only interested-in/devoted-to doing certain parts. Whether you could actually think there was ONE BRAIN, or ONE WILL behind any of the parties is a big question. Over-complicating the game on political level would be another. FoF has just about the steepest 'learning curve' as it is...

Still - I do find the garrisons idea underdevelopped. There SHOULD be more to them than a replacement pool and avoiding supply costs. With (possibly) governors' attitude towards releasing 'their' garrisons, or not. But there is a more pushing part with governors who's states are not on the front line demanding BDEs... The deeper you go into this game, the more you want... Hmm...

K.