• 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:
It would be nice if you could deploy these garrison divisions as a stop gap measure, they should be rookies, so making them lackluster at direct combat.

Why rookies? Some garrison divisions were very experienced , decorated and meticulous.
 
Great! Now can we get rid of the horses please? When did Gestapo and SS use horsies to hunt down resistance? On the same topic, late war cavalry should use half-tracks and light tanks equipment.

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.
 
I mean the SS Cossack division was used fiercely in hunting down partisans...

The Cossack Legions/Divisions were mostly used agaist partisans, and so was the SS Cavalry Brigade (later 8th SS Cavalry Division "Florian Geyer"), and the Army (Heer) cavalry regiments, later 3rd and 4th Cavalry Brigades/Divisions.
 
Last edited:
@YaBoy_Bobby

Can you tell us what happens when an enemy occupies one of our occupied territories? Does the manpower and equipment return to us, or is it lost? If it is lost, is this if there is a no port or land-contiguous connection to our other terrotries; or just in all circumstances? Thanks.
 
Imo cheap inf brigades with a bit of cavalry on the side should be the go to occupation force, it seems silly that Germany will be fielding cav only as its occupation force

They mostly used cavalry that way IRL. In the Poland, France and beginning of Barbarossa the Germans had one Cavalry Division that was converted to a Panzer Division. New cavalry units were formed later just for anti-partisan duties. As a desperate measure in the Winter 1944/45, some of these were strengthened to brigade or division strenght, to fight agaist the Soviets. For example the 8th SS Cavalry Division was mostly an anti-partisan unit, until it was used (and lost) in the Battle of Budapest.
 
Will the (completely ahistorical) better suppression ratings for cavalry be changed?

There is no reason at all to think that cavalry were better at CO-IN warfare. Go and look at what the Axis OOB for Yugoslavia in ‘43 looked like if you don’t believe me. Or the Japanese garrisons in China/the Philippines.

Special forces and light infantry are the best for this purpose, not cavalry.

PS - the Cossacks and other cavalry recruited by the SS are always brought up in this kind of discussion, but 1) they were mostly Cossacks, of course they were formed as cavalry, and 2) go and look at any picture of these divisions on CO-IN patrol (and there were only a few of them used as such, not the dozens you see in-game) and chances are you’ll see them patrolling on foot.
 
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.


Mechanized cavalry
Prior to World War II, the Army commenced experimenting with mechanization and had partially mechanized some cavalry regiments, such as the Wyoming National Guard's 115th Cavalry Horse-Mechanized. During the war, many of the Army's cavalry units were mechanized with tanks and reconnaissance vehicles, while others fought dismounted as infantry. Some units were converted into other types of units entirely, some of which made use of the cavalry's experience with horses. The Mars Men of the China Burma India Theater give such an example.

The principal reconnaissance element of an Infantry Division was a mechanized cavalry troop, whilst an armored division was provided with a full cavalry squadron. Several cavalry groups, each of two squadrons, were formed to serve as the reconnaissance elements for U.S. corps headquarters in the European Theater of Operations during 1944–45.


The new M24 Chaffee light tank that was issued to the 106th Cavalry Group in February 1945. Its 75 mm gun was vastly superior to the M5A1 Stuart tank.
Besides HQ and service elements, each cavalry troop comprised three cavalry platoons, each of which was equipped with six Bantam jeeps and three M8 Greyhound armored cars.[17]

Three of the jeeps were mounted with a 60mm mortar manned by two soldiers; the other three had a bracket-mounted .30 caliber machine gun, manned by a soldier sitting in the front passenger seat – although sometimes the M1919 was replaced by a .50 caliber machine gun. To maximize speed and maneuverability on the battlefield, the Bantams were not given extra armor protection.[18]

The M8 Greyhound was a six-wheeled, light-weight armored car, mounting a 37 mm gun in a movable turret that could swing a full 360 degrees. It also featured a .30 caliber coaxial machine gun that could move independently of the turret. The M8 was equipped with powerful FM radios to enable battlefield communications.

A cavalry squadron comprised a HQ Troop, three cavalry troops (four for those in armored divisions), a light tank company and an assault gun troop.

The light tank company had 17 tanks; two in the company headquarters and three platoons of five tanks. Initially, the tanks were M3 Stuarts, later M5 Stuarts; both of which were equipped with 37mm guns. The Stuart was capable of speeds of up to 36 mph (58 km/h) on the road. While fast and maneuverable, its armor plating and cannon were soon found to be no match for the German tanks. In February 1945 they were replaced with the M24 Chaffee light tank, which was equipped with a 75 mm gun.[17]

The assault gun troop comprised three assault gun platoons (four for those in armored divisions), each with two M8 HMCs – M5 Stuarts with their turrets replaced by an open-turreted 75 mm howitzer – and two M3 Half-tracks; one for the platoon HQ, the other for the ammunition section.

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.
 
Off-maps garrisons are one of the best addition ever, though like everyone I want to know how they're are going to interact with active combat divisions once the war knock their door.

Some for Great Britain to ship arms to the communist in Yugoslavia would be amazing by the way
 
Division size is of little importance in this situation. A state will take fractions of a division and meet its suppression requirements exactly
So, theoretically, a division with 1 battalion of light tanks and 1 battalion of cavalry would serve the same purpose as one with 10 of each, the garrison would just take (for example) 5 of the former and 1/2 of the latter for the same total cost in equipment and manpower. Correct?
 
Will some territories have different levels of resistance and complicity depending on the population, for example, will Danzig
the same level of resistance as Warsaw after the German conquest?

@YaBoy_Bobby Will you please make sure that historically compliant states are not resisting "occupation" in game. For example, the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia had more than 90 % ethnic German population and there was no resistance, while in the Czech populated areas there was quite a strong resistance.

Sudetenland should be German core from the beginning. IRL Sudetenland population served in the military just as natural born Germans and one of them, Kurt Knispel, became Germany's number 1 tank ace. I have never seen Czechoslovakia claiming Knispel as a Czech, although he was born and died there.

The same with Danzig: it was an old German city with few Poles, and "resistance" in Danzig after occupation/annexation would be absurd and ahistorical.

Another thing:
Germans should not be the only ones to suffer from resistance. Population in the Baltic States resisted Soviet occupation/annexation, and there was an anti-Soviet partisan movement called the Forest Brothers at least until 1955. That should be represented in the game, together with other partisans.

Also, If the Soviet Union occupy, annex or puppet Finland in game there should be very strong resistance. IRL the Soviets did not occupy Finland, but the Finns prepared for that possibility by hiding tens of thousands of military weapons. When Stalin was asked after armistice between the Soviet Union and Finland in Fall 1944, why didn't he still try to occupy Finland, he answered "who wants that hornets nest", so he might have heard about weapon caches and anyway expected a hard resistance for occupation.
 
So I assume we no longer have to train garrison divisions and that they'll trickle up over time like in EU4, but until suppression is met?

What would the difference be between designing a template with one cav and one with three, other than the additional cost for support companies as the number of divisions needed to suppress an area increases? What happens to garrisons when an enemy advances? Would we be able to raise these division if things got a little hot?
 
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.

View attachment 513254

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).

View attachment 513259

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.

View attachment 513266

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.

View attachment 513267

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.

View attachment 513268

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.
Looking good so far. Now I'm wondering if some of the stockpile of nations that capitulate will go to partisans to continue the fight? I'm not sure about other countries, but I know that Yugoslavia wasn't even fully mobilized when they surrendered to Germany. Many soldiers that weren't even in the fight were able to get to weapons stockpiles and that became the nucleus of the heavy partisan activity in that country.
 
Last edited:
Does it really make sense to allow tanks to operate as anti-partisan forces? Armoured cars, bicycles, and horses most definitely, but tanks? All it would take for a partisan unit to outrun an anti-partisan tank unit would be a high hedge, large stone wall, forest, or deep stream. I can see the appeal for putting equipment to use that would languish otherwise, but it doesn't make a great deal of sense to allow it for this purpose. If they are to be allowed, then their effectiveness must be abysmal.
 
Sudetenland should be German core from the beginning.
Perhaps it should be an Austrian core that flips to German after Anschluss. Iirc the Republic of German Austria claimed it before the treaty of Saint Germain. Danzig and Sudetenland should perhaps start as occupied German and Austrian cores respectively, to prevent resistance when reclaimed, and Poland and Czechoslovakia could get an event post war to flip the cores (including all of Prussia for Poland and Russia) if Germany is defeated. However, forceful demographic transfer is a touchy subject, and I understand the devs not wanting to touch on it.

Germans should not be the only ones to suffer from resistance.
In the previous diary on resistance it was stated that any occupied territory with a foreign core is affected, even colonies.
 
So in theory you could set full panzer divisions to be used for suppression? Why would you choose that over making single infantry battalions? Can you use these suppression divisions to fight?
Cost? Tanks aren´t cheap to use for supression, in theory they are busy in Africa and Russia...