• 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:
Basically there's no basis to this idea that Cavalry were considered particularly good at CO-IN in the WW2 period.
Well, they weren't good, but they were effective. Meaning that cavalry, eating forage instead of precious gasoline, was a cheap way for giving your CO-IN theater some mobile units, and was used as such, just not as military units but police ones.
EDIT: Still, that's not meaning such units should be represented as "cavalry battalions", not by support "security company" or how it's named.

By the way, this makes me wonder (and it was already asked on first page, I believe) - what's about fuel consumption of garrison units?
 
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, ads a litle bit of oil consumption and the main benit would be that it doesn't "soften" your Tank/Mot/Mech divisions?

Some countries might have used armored car companies/battalions as independent recon/combat units. The Germans mixed wheeled armored cars and light tanks with halftracks in their armored reconnaissance battalion.
German Spähpanzerkompanies (reconnaissance tank companies) could have either wheeled armored cars, halftracked recon vehicles with an armored car turret (Sdkfz 250/9) or light tanks; they all were Spähpanzer when in that role. So, for the Germans, armored cars were interchangeable with halftracks and light tanks, and from that perspective there is no need to a new vehicle type.
About the Soviet Union: they had a lot armored cars of different types in the beginning of WWII. Later, the heavy armored cars were discontinued. Late in WWII, the Red Army used Lend-Leased American halftracks interchangeably with armored cars as their recon vehicles, as well as light tanks. So, in the SU also, new vehicle type is not really needed.

My conclusion: armored cars can be represented by light tanks or mechanized, since they were mostly used for similar purposes.
 
Seeing Czechoslovakia as the example here, does germany has to garrison them even if they got them due to the foci or only when occupied during wartime?
 
Well, they weren't good, but they were effective. Meaning that cavalry, eating forage instead of precious gasoline, was a cheap way for giving your CO-IN theater some mobile units, and was used as such, just not as military units but police ones.
EDIT: Still, that's not meaning such units should be represented as "cavalry battalions", not by support "security company" or how it's named.

Agreed. They were basically more or less as effective against partisans as light infantry divisions were, but light infantry divisions don't require trained horse-riders and thoroughbred horses.

The basic German CO-IN unit were Sicherungs-Divisionen which were simply poorly-armed light infantry, and it would make more sense to represent anti-partisan troops as these than as cavalry.
 
Seeing Czechoslovakia as the example here, does germany has to garrison them even if they got them due to the foci or only when occupied during wartime?
As far it was shown, in peace you'll need to suppress resistance as well, but state of war is increasing resistance growth.
 
Is there a way to permanently end the need to garrison?
I believe a dev said that they need weapons to be engage in partisan activity. So someone like the UK or the USA, supplying French resistance is one way to increase their efforts. No supporter, no activity I would believe. Or much less at the least anyhow.
 
Basically there's no basis to this idea that Cavalry were considered particularly good at CO-IN in the WW2 period.

I answered for the claim that cavalry was not used in CO-IN, I did not claim cavalry was the best or most used in that role. In some areas they did quite well, moving in forested areas with few roads faster than infantry could, even with trucks. In Yugoslavia German cavalry was not used (except Cossacks). It was mountainous country, with relative large enemy formations, so mountain and light infantry divisions were preferred. However, they were supported by armored units, mostly with captured French tanks.

The most common German CO-IN division was the Sicherungs-Division (Security Division). It had an infantry regiment with 3 battalions and an anti-tank company, an artillery battalion (12 guns), plus varying number of separate (second-class) security battalions, and a police battalion. The police battalion and the anti-tank company were motorized. No cavalry, except a reconnaissance platoon/company with horses or bicycles.
 
That isn't realy a convincing argument.

I just explained how they were completely different equipment, used for different roles. If that's not good enough for you, I can't help you.
 
Basically there's no basis to this idea that Cavalry were considered particularly good at CO-IN in the WW2 period.

Thank you! Can we get rid of the horses now?
 
To me, this screams out for a need for the addition of armored car production/tech. Those would be a nice option for giving a little hardness to garrison units without breaking the bank.
Of course, as you add more techs to research, you also need to start adding more tech slots. There's not much point to more tech options if you only have enough research to pick the same must haves every game, without the research available to ever try out different "nice to haves".
 
The most common German CO-IN division was the Sicherungs-Division (Security Division). It had an infantry regiment with 3 battalions and an anti-tank company, an artillery battalion (12 guns), plus varying number of separate (second-class) security battalions, and a police battalion. The police battalion and the anti-tank company were motorized. No cavalry, except a reconnaissance platoon/company with horses or bicycles.
As far as I can recall, there was no such thing as "standard Security Division"; they were kind of ad-hoc divisions clustered from whatever it was accessible without damage to frontline effort.
 
Ahhh. so now Tanks can be used to suppress well. Interesting, the use of suppression using Tanks came in the Cold War era.

Very Nice!
 
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.

So one thing that occurred to me:

1. You can limit divisions to use certain weapons
2. Certain weapons may not be available
3. Lack of weapons doesn't currently affect a division's suppression capability (this info via @Secret Master )

Would this mean that:

4. You could suppress resistance without costing you weapons? Just restrict garrison divisions to infantry weapons that you don't actually have in numbers.
 
Last edited:
Thank you! Can we get rid of the horses now?

Well, let's remember that the entire reason why Paradox introduced this idea that Cav were CO-IN specialists back in HOI2 was so players wouldn't simply disband the historical Cav divisions...