• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

HoI 4 Dev Diary - Policing Garrison Rework

Its Wednesday, so you know what that means. Today we will discuss a feature previously alluded to, the Policing Garrison rework.

The main thrust of this rework is the removal of the resistance suppression garrison mission from the map, and the addition of off-map suppression garrisons. This change is being made to increase performance, as well as remove what we feel is a tedious part of the game. Suppression garrison forces will now be managed through occupation laws and a choice in what division template will be used to provide suppression. The system will then distribute manpower and equipment to states with resistance. The old, defense-related, garrison missions will persist and will be named to “Area Defense.” This should result in a much cleaner map endgame. No more prebuilding and shuffling around horseybois.

DD_GARRISON_06.png


This feature is tied heavily to the rework of resistance. As we mentioned previously, resistance will no longer be so easily controlled. Active resistance will regularly attack defense forces and disrupt their local state. These attacks will result in a small but continuous loss in manpower and equipment. This should help to curb the power of a world conquest run (IE historical Germany).

DD_GARRISON_01.png


The higher the resistance level, the higher the suppression requirement. Suppression requirement is the main factor that controls how much garrison is needed. A secondary factor that controls how much garrison is needed is the occupation law. Different occupation laws will have modifications to suppression needs per for each percent of resistance. And finally, the player will be able to choose what type of garrison template they are using.

DD_GARRISON_03.png


The player will be able to design garrison forces as they always have, using the division designer. All existing templates available for recruitment will also be available to assign as a division template. The template being used will be able to be controlled at the national level, occupied nation level, and state level. A state may in turn use fractions of a division to meet suppression requirements.

DD_GARRISON_02.png


To manage these interactions, we have expanded the occupied territories menu to give a breakdown on resistance, compliance, and what forces the player has stationed in occupied territory they control. In the same menu the player can choose occupation law, and what division template is being used for policing garrison work. Different requirements in manpower and equipment will be shown when choosing which template to use. The player may choose to have no garrison present as well, but this will result in a huge boost to local resistance.

DD_GARRISON_04.png


When designing garrison templates, there will be a couple of factors to consider. Some existing battalions will have their suppression values reworked and battalions with hardness will have bonus to resisting damage taken from resistance activity. The result of this is that battalions with hardness will be more expensive materially, but provide protection for your manpower. If manpower is more of a long-term concern than production, there is a benefit to using battalions with hardness. If manpower is not a concern, using low hardness battalions in your division template is probably a good idea. This will also give some new life to light tanks that have found themselves collecting dust in your stockpile

That's all for this week. See youse guys next week.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
:confused: OK, new strategy, let German occupy the entire Europe and Soviet while we just sit on some islands and NA.
We will wait the resistance to eat up all German manpower.
 
I really wish that you allow us to turn off automatic repair in specific states of our choice, it's a nightmare to get the construction queue spammed just because stuff gets destroyed in a state that you don't even care about :(
 
Really liking these changes so far.
Will garrisons use fuel? If so how will it be distributed (i.e. how much will it steal from your navy/airforce/army)?

Well, you still get to choose how to design the garrison divisions, they just don't appear in the production queue or on the map when complete. So presumably they'd have fuel and supply costs based on how they were composed, just like any other division, and those would be supplied to the regions being garrisoned just like every other division.
 
Not remotely.
Alright, care to explain to why this
nhfhgnnghy.jpg


Is so different from this
images

That it warrants a completly new equipment type?
And why wouldn't motorized count?
300px-AEC_Mk_3_Armoured_Car.jpg

And sure this looks more like a tiny tank, but then again, you might aswel jsut take a light tank, so my questions til stands.
 
Will land doctrines be rebalanced? Right now Superior Firepower is the best doctrine in 90% of situations, and that doesn't feel right. Grand Battleplan (particularly the left Assault path) and Mass Assault need a buff.
 
Awesome stuff! This should help enormously. Suppression is better left abstract and it leaves you able to focus on combat units instead. I have to ask though, is there any way that germany might benefit from conscripting SS divisions from conquered lands or if that can work together at all with this? It seems like a scarcely used feature in the game.
 
Alright, care to explain to why this
Is so different from this

That it warrants a completly new equipment type?
And why wouldn't motorized count?

That's like asking the difference between a bomber aircraft and a transport aircraft. They may bear some resemblance on the outside, but their use, purpose, and construction are completely different.

The mechanised transport you posted the pic of is primarily a transport. It's lightly armored, and has a gun mount, but it's primary purpose to to carry infantry overland more safely than a truck, and with better offroad ability than a truck, so it's better able to keep up with tanks. They often carried a driver and 6-12 occupants, depending on nation, make, and model. You'll also note that the infantry inside it jumps out when it's time to fight, as very nicely illustrated in your photo.

An armored car is just that, a car with some armor slapped on it. A lot of them had more than 4 wheels to give some off-road capability, and some even had a gun mount, but mostly it's just a car with armor. It's purpose was mobile recon, it typically operated ahead of divisions and reported back enemy positions and so on. Most of them had a crew of the driver and one or two others, because transporting troops wasn't its purpose. Their primary function wasn't fighting front line units, although they could fight partisans just fine (hence why they came up in this conversation). If they came into contact with heavier units, they would mostly rely on their speed to run away.

Now, you are somewhat correct in asking about the difference between armored cars and mini tanks. In fact, you could argue that some vehicles we tend to classify as "light tanks" were in fact armored cars. In fact, Italian "tanks" in WWII actually went by the designation CA which stands for "carro armato". Now, I don't speak fluent Italian, but I have a pretty solid guess what that translates to. In cases like that, the difference was in their intended use.

Oh, and "why wouldn't motorized count"? Because motorized is just a truck. No armor, no gun, no different in fact than a truck you'd carry supplies in...but in this case it's carrying infantry so they don't have to walk.
 
Last edited:
Does designing garrison templates require army experience?
 
Nice.
 
That's like asking the difference between a bomber aircraft and a transport aircraft. They may bear some resemblance on the outside, but their use, purpose, and construction are completely different.

The mechanised transport you posted the pic of is primarily a transport. It's lightly armored, and has a gun mount, but it's primary purpose to to carry infantry overland more safely than a truck, and with better offroad ability than a truck, so it's better able to keep up with tanks. They often carried a driver and 6-12 occupants, depending on nation, make, and model. You'll also note that the infantry inside it jumps out when it's time to fight, as very nicely illustrated in your photo.

An armored car is just that, a car with some armor slapped on it. A lot of them had more than 4 wheels to give some off-road capability, and some even had a gun mount, but mostly it's just a car with armor. It's purpose was mobile recon, it typically operated ahead of divisions and reported back enemy positions and so on. Most of them had a crew of the driver and one or two others, because transporting troops wasn't its purpose. Their primary function wasn't fighting front line units, although they could fight partisans just fine (hence why they came up in this conversation). If they came into contact with heavier units, they would mostly rely on their speed to run away.

Now, you are somewhat correct in asking about the difference between armored cars and mini tanks. In fact, you could argue that some vehicles we tend to classify as "light tanks" were in fact armored cars. In fact, Italian "tanks" in WWII actually went by the designation CA which stands for "carro armato". Now, I don't speak fluent Italian, but I have a pretty solid guess what that translates to. In cases like that, the difference was in their intended use.
Okay, you explained the difference, but is there any reason why an armourd car can't just be part of the machhanized/light thank category the same way that infantery/support equipment isn't just a gun with a first aid kit? Adding another production line for something you'l likely won't even use in active combat are pointles clicks don't you think?

and even if you'd want to use armoured cars in a template to be used activly in the field, why not just a recon-company instead? Its cheaper :p
 
Okay, you explained the difference, but is there any reason why an armourd car can't just be part of the machhanized/light thank category the same way that infantery/support equipment isn't just a gun with a first aid kit?

For the same reason that you don't just build a basic airplane and use that to represent bombers and transports? Because they aren't the same?

Adding another production line for something you'l likely won't even use in active combat are pointles clicks don't you think?

Ah, but you could. There's no reason you couldn't have armored cars as support units as an option in armored units, and even as line units if you wanted. The Total War mod in fact does exactly that.

and even if you'd want to use armoured cars in a template to be used activly in the field, why not just a recon-company instead? Its cheaper :p

"Recon company" support unit should, by all rights, include armored cars, and/or motorcycles, and/or horses, or some other kind of transport unit. I don't know about you, but I would have to imagine a recon unit made up of armored cars would operate differently than one composed of horses. The fact that it doesn't is just an abstraction/simplification. If you prefer that fine, but you should at least know that's what is occurring.

I would prefer to have the ability to improve my armored cars over time with tech and get benefits from it, just the same as we currently do with all the other things we spend the effort researching...unless of course you see all of that as just "pointless clicks" as well?
 
Last edited:
The experience gained in the use of the mechanized cavalry groups during World War II led to the eventual postwar formation of armored cavalry regiments to act as corps reconnaissance and screening elements.

I am aware of the US term Mechanized Cavalry, but as far as I know, it was not used to supress resistance during the WWII. The occupying countries of WWII did not use it.
 
For the same reason that you don't just build a basic airplane and use that to represent bombers and transports? Because they aren't the same?
That isn't realy a convincing argument. They're used for completly different things. Now if you said STRAT and CAS that would've been closer, but then i could counter argue that STRAT has larger range.
In my opinion there needs to be a mechanical difference, something that sets it clearly apart.
What would armoured cars provide that warrants a seperation from Mech/Mot/light tank/Recon company?

Edit: can't we just add a "armoured recon" suport company instead? It could cost a bit of light tank/mot/mech whatever ontop of the regular cost, ads a litle bit of oil consumption and the main benit would be that it doesn't "soften" your Tank/Mot/Mech divisions?
 
Maybe we could get a similar system for forts. Each level costs manpower and equipment, but wouldn't need a division standing in it. When an enemy division tries to enter the province, they start combat with the garrison.

Could be an incentive to not fort spam as much if they use up manpower.
 
Does this mean that the best resistance-suppression divisions are going to always be 25 battalions of something plus military police now? Or will there be a suppression rework so battalions don't add a flat amount of suppression any more?
 
German SS Cavalry, as well as Army (Heer) cavalry, was mostly used for anti-partisan duties in the Eastern Front. Mid-war they had some light tanks, late war they were used to fight the Soviets with a company or two of tank destroyers, no tanks or haltracks. German cavalry was horse-transported infantry, it was not motorized or mechanized. Your text was not informative.

Apologies if this was not the point you were making, but I would just like to point out that, whilst the German army did use its cavalry in a CO-IN role, this was not because they were considered particularly good in that role, but rather because they were not considered useful in front-line combat.

The overwhelming majority of troops that the Germans deployed in CO-IN role (corresponding to in-game suppression) were simply poorly-equipped infantry. For example, here's the OOB of Heersgruppe E, covering Yugoslavia and Greece in July 1943:

Juli 1943
Kreta:
Festungsbereich Kreta, 22. ID, italienische Division Sienna​
LXVIII:
1. Panzerdivision, 117. JD​
Südgriechenland:
11. Luftwaffenfeld-Division, 104. JD​
Saloniki:
1. Gebirgs-Division​
Serbien:
297. ID, 7. bulg. Div., 9. bulg. Div., 21. bulg. Div.​
Kroatien:
100. JD, 114. JD, 118. ID, SS-Gebirgs-Division Prinz Eugen, 369. ID, 187. ID, 373. ID​

As you can see, in what was the biggest anti-partisan theatre during the war, at the height of the insurrection there, there was not even a single cavalry division deployed. I think the closest Axis cavalry got to this theatre was the single division of Cossacks in Heersgruppe F.

Instead the Germans used only poorly armed infantry (e.g., the Luftwaffe field division), Italians, Bulgarians, and light infantry units such as 114th Jager division (JD), as well as mountain infantry units like SS Prinz Eugen.

The story is the same if you look at the Japanese in China - relatively few cavalry units were deployed there despite this being the biggest CO-IN theatre for them. Even for the allied countries, I don't think even a single cavalry unit of any size was deployed by the British in Malaya to fight the insurgency there, or by the French to Indochina to fight the Vietminh, or by the Americans during the Banana wars.

Basically there's no basis to this idea that Cavalry were considered particularly good at CO-IN in the WW2 period.