Garrisons Need An Overhaul

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

Since the game pushes doomstacking and to always fill up to the full 20 units, what's the point of vanilla garrisons, which are low tier and low in number? They're pure AR fodder in no time. They contribute nothing but free XP to the attacker on top of him getting the settlement anyway. At the same time it encourages spamming the garrison building which turns lategame into one siege after another. Boring!

So here's what needs to happen:

1.Remove garrisons from all minor settlements. They're useless and only contribute to the enemy anyway

2.Make the garrison building's troops much stronger and more numerous while also reducing an invader's movement speed by 50% and disable underground movement in the region they stand in so they become actual useful barriers. Towers also need an extended firing arc, more firepower and the gate needs to be more resistant to getting broken

3.Make the garrison building chain lower growth and economical output by 25% in the whole province so you actually have to weigh its usefulness against its economic impact and building more than one becomes expensive. Also double its building time and have it destroyed whenever a settlement with it is successfully assaulted forcing a rebuild

4.Reduce the siege timer when an army camps inside a settlement to immediate starvation if it gets besieged, but reduce attrition rates from 50% to 10%

That way building garrisons strategically becomes actually important.

Godefroy_de_Bouillon · January 11

3. makes absolutely zero sense, i'm sorry

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

Godefroy_de_Bouillon said:
3. makes absolutely zero sense, i'm sorry

Of course it does. You need money to pay your garrison and if you box your people in with walls and have near constant martial law, you will not have an easy time raising a bountiful economy.

Why do you think medieval towns, which were almost all heavily fortified, never quite got to be as big or prosperous as the less protected towns in the old Roman Empire?

Exarch · January 11

The default garrison is used to reinforce defensive armies to make taking a settlement more difficult than a field army.

1. Stops a single lord stack roaming around like in ToB gobbling up/sacking settlements, which is/was somewhat of an issue even in a game designed around it,, andso makes garrisons more vital to build rather than less.

3. Doesn't make sense in the context of the building system of the wider game- this is not Attila! There is already an opportunity cost in building the garrison.

4. Basically takes 'even' seige battles out of the game, as the optimal course for the besieger is to wait, while the defender either salllies out or waits for a relief army within a few turns. The attacker can always just wait a couple of turns for the disparity in power to be great enough, then attack in an uneven battle.

Vanilla_Gorilla · January 11

I'll add a 5) and 6) you may have mentioned these at some point in the past, or if you think it not pertinent to this particular discussion ignore this bit and skip to 1). Make all garrisons roughly equal value. Compare Brettonia's top garrison to say the Dark Elves. the DE have far more expensive garrisons. The fix is easy; have a set value for Garrisons which is roughly stuck to. I say roughly because it's hard to be exact due to the nature of things and because values will change with balance passes, but within a couple hundred points.

6) I'd also like to see the player be able to choose their own Garrison. It'd be very simple; you get a set amount of funds to purchase units and you purchase them with limit being that the max tier of unit is the same tier as the city. It'd make me actually get involved in my cities and it'd allow for clever players to maximize the value of their garrisons by catering them to counter the enemies of that region.

1) No thanks. Minor settlements with walls are essential in this game. Like it or not that's just how it's set up. Undefended Minor settlements can just be rolled over ad infinitum. If nothing else walls in minor settlements delay the enemy enough to let you get your forces either there, or on the way there.

2) I pretty much agree with this. Not necessarily with stronger troops per se, but the rest, yes. I'd even go a step further and have the deployment zone be outside of tower range. For example making tower range 550 and Deployment begin at 560, forcing someone who wants to bombard to walk in and do it.

3) Eh, I like Walls having an impact greater than just walls but probably not this. As I said walls are essential because of the games nature so that has to be taken into account.

4) I'm against this purely because I love big battles. Having a stack inside a city facing off against 2+ stacks attacking it is EPIC. Though I see where this comes from.

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

Exarch said:
The default garrison is used to reinforce defensive armies to make taking a settlement more difficult than a field army.

1. Stops a single lord stack roaming around like in ToB gobbling up/sacking settlements, which is/was somewhat of an issue even in a game designed around it,, andso makes garrisons more vital to build rather than less.

3. Doesn't make sense in the context of the building system of the wider game- this is not Attila! There is already an opportunity cost in building the garrison.

4. Basically takes 'even' seige battles out of the game, as the optimal course for the besieger is to wait, while the defender either salllies out or waits for a relief army within a few turns. The attacker can always just wait a couple of turns for the disparity in power to be great enough, then attack in an uneven battle.

No, these are all invalid points. Default garrisons are so weak, they contribute zilch once the lategame doomstacks roll around. Supply lines already prevent single lord armies from being efficient (and getting caught means free XP for your enemy). #3 makes absolute sense as I already said. You trade money for security. Objection #4 is absolutely nonsensical. The whole point of this is to create a roadblock to your opponent he has to overcome with not only overwhelming force but also quite a large investment of time. That means he has to concentrate forces in one point and can't just go wide and deal with other stuff, meaning he has to empty part of his empire of troops.

Is this so hard to get?

As garrisons work right now they suck, they only contribute to more AR and endless sieges in lategame.

I want less but in return more decisive sieges.

arghoz · January 11

The way SFO mod handles garrisons is a improvement over vanilla imo, it makes garrisons stronger, regular buildings adds troops to garrison(like 2 units from barracks etc.). They should implement this in vanilla for WH3.

Frank9945671 · January 11

Comment removed. This action does not have my consent.

Lucifer · January 11

Here's what doesn't need to happen: proposals 1, 3 and 4.

1. is very useful to slow down armies and you can still garrison an army within it to help it out.
3. Nobody is going to want to lose so much, and there's mods (sfo) that sort of fix some issues.
4. Some mods already cover this to some extent.

As for proposal 2:

What I would propose is the ability to garrison more than one army in a regional capital. These are vast necropolis's that can house thousands of troops, but make it interesting and it is currently doable I think with some modding.

More than one army present within capital:
+ to public order
+ to leadership
+ defence
+ able to recruit levies within city while under siege.

- "levies", lower actual population which will effect growth time, and may make city destitute, lose a level.
- negative or halted growth as all surplus goes to the army while more than one present, but not under siege.

zinsncabs · January 11

Removing garrisons works well in ToB, but I wouldn’t like it in WH.

Elements of points #2 and 3 exist in SFO and are well-implemented. I particularly like the idea of garrisons negating growth and income, but not to the extent you suggest.

Pocman · January 11

Just update the old world's races garrisons when they are revamped.

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

Nope, garrisons are badly implemented right now.

Minor settlement garrisons do nothing. They are just free XP to the conqueror and have no slowing effect whatsoever, especially not to the lategame doomstacks. So they need to go. No more free XP for a simple AR click. Oh, and it means you actually have to defend your territory actively and be wary of threats. Imagine that, strategic decisions to be made in a strategy game.

Garrison buildings should have bigger effects but also not be spammable, period. The siege battles you do get need to be bigger in scope, harder to win as the attacker but also fewer in number. Is anyone so enarmored with the lategame siege battle spam?

Ol_Nessie · January 11

No thanks to all of it. I'd rather not just give up any minor settlement for free and I'd rather not be further punished economically for wanting to protect my territories. I say further punished since by even building garrisons you are curbing your economic output since you could build an economic building in that slot instead or literally any other kind of building.

Personally I've found that settlement battles are some of the most exciting battles I've fought since they are so heavily out of your favor. When you win one it actually feels like an accomplishment. And even if the odds are impossible, I like see how much of the enemy army I can take down with me.

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

ben8vtedu said:
No thanks to all of it. I'd rather not just give up any minor settlement for free and I'd rather not be further punished economically for wanting to protect my territories. I say further punished since by even building garrisons you are curbing your economic output since you could build an economic building in that slot instead or literally any other kind of building.

Personally I've found that settlement battles are some of the most exciting battles I've fought since they are so heavily out of your favor. When you win one it actually feels like an accomplishment. And even if the odds are impossible, I like see how much of the enemy army I can take down with me.

That's absolutely not true. You are not punished at all for spamming garrison buildings since you are already so limited what you can put in minor settlements that you always have a free slot for a garrison chain. Unless you so badly want to spam economy buildings but then that means it's a cheesy playstyle that needs to be eliminated anyway.

WH sieges are not fun and especially not so fun that they should be 90% of the battles you get in lategame.

CaesarSahlertz · January 11

Ephraim_Dalton said:
Nope, garrisons are badly implemented right now.

Minor settlement garrisons do nothing. They are just free XP to the conqueror and have no slowing effect whatsoever, especially not to the lategame doomstacks. So they need to go. No more free XP for a simple AR click. Oh, and it means you actually have to defend your territory actively and be wary of threats. Imagine that, strategic decisions to be made in a strategy game.

Garrison buildings should have bigger effects but also not be spammable, period. The siege battles you do get need to be bigger in scope, harder to win as the attacker but also fewer in number. Is anyone so enarmored with the lategame siege battle spam?

The strategic choice right now is wether or not you want to build a defensive structure and therefore forego another economic building. And, as you so astutely point out, most of the time that defensive structure on its own, is rarely enough, which forces you to divert additional defenses to high-risk areas.

Most people actually enjoy the game, so they don't incessantly ask for an overhaul for this or a revamp for that... So yeah.. People are clearly "enarmoured" by the "lategame siege battle spam"..

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

CaesarSahlertz said:

Ephraim_Dalton said:
Nope, garrisons are badly implemented right now.

Minor settlement garrisons do nothing. They are just free XP to the conqueror and have no slowing effect whatsoever, especially not to the lategame doomstacks. So they need to go. No more free XP for a simple AR click. Oh, and it means you actually have to defend your territory actively and be wary of threats. Imagine that, strategic decisions to be made in a strategy game.

Garrison buildings should have bigger effects but also not be spammable, period. The siege battles you do get need to be bigger in scope, harder to win as the attacker but also fewer in number. Is anyone so enarmored with the lategame siege battle spam?
The strategic choice right now is wether or not you want to build a defensive structure and therefore forego another economic building. And, as you so astutely point out, most of the time that defensive structure on its own, is rarely enough, which forces you to divert additional defenses to high-risk areas.

Most people actually enjoy the game, so they don't incessantly ask for an overhaul for this or a revamp for that... So yeah.. People are clearly "enarmoured" by the "lategame siege battle spam"..

Unlimited money and unlimited garrisons is easily achievable in the game. There's 0 strategic choice involved.

The garrisons you do get can always hurt the one or two stacks the AI sends at you enough to blunt the charge and since they have to run a gauntlet of garrisons, you are never threatened. The reverse is not true, the AI spamming garrisons does not help it at all, just makes the game more tedious. The AI is simply too stupid to take advantage of it like the player can.

If you think people like the warhammer sieges then you have clearly not been paying attention.

The game being easy and simplistic makes it attractive to tons of casual players, but CA should not forget that seasoned veterans would like to enjoy the game too.

TheGuardianOfMetal · January 11

ben8vtedu said:
No thanks to all of it. I'd rather not just give up any minor settlement for free and I'd rather not be further punished economically for wanting to protect my territories. I say further punished since by even building garrisons you are curbing your economic output since you could build an economic building in that slot instead or literally any other kind of building.

Personally I've found that settlement battles are some of the most exciting battles I've fought since they are so heavily out of your favor. When you win one it actually feels like an accomplishment. And even if the odds are impossible, I like see how much of the enemy army I can take down with me.

Ol_Nessie · January 11

Ephraim_Dalton said:

ben8vtedu said:
No thanks to all of it. I'd rather not just give up any minor settlement for free and I'd rather not be further punished economically for wanting to protect my territories. I say further punished since by even building garrisons you are curbing your economic output since you could build an economic building in that slot instead or literally any other kind of building.

Personally I've found that settlement battles are some of the most exciting battles I've fought since they are so heavily out of your favor. When you win one it actually feels like an accomplishment. And even if the odds are impossible, I like see how much of the enemy army I can take down with me.
That's absolutely not true. You are not punished at all for spamming garrison buildings since you are already so limited what you can put in minor settlements that you always have a free slot for a garrison chain. Unless you so badly want to spam economy buildings but then that means it's a cheesy playstyle that needs to be eliminated anyway.

WH sieges are not fun and especially not so fun that they should be 90% of the battles you get in lategame.

I build recruitment buildings in every province since I don't like recruiting globally unless I absolutely have to. Also take into account the number of settlements which have either a port, resource, or landmark and I find that building slots are quickly in short supply. So yes, it does become a bit of a choice between a garrison or that income, growth, public order, or any other infrastructure building you might want to have there.

That's the way I like to play so I'm more or less fine with the current garrison system. Personally, I think the solution would be to overhaul siege battles and/or perhaps CA should take another cue from the modders and put minor settlement battles back in the game in lieu of throwing walls up everywhere. I find the GCCM maps to be fantastic.

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

Nope. Not true either since most of the hi-tier recruitment chains are, again, barred from being completed in minor settlements and so you still have enough slots for garrisons.

Stop trying to hoodwink me.

Ol_Nessie · January 11

Ephraim_Dalton said:
Nope. Not true either since most of the hi-tier recruitment chains are, again, barred from being completed in minor settlements and so you still have enough slots for garrisons.

Stop trying to hoodwink me.

I'm not trying to hoodwink you dude, I'm just explaining how quickly slots can fill up and how that creates a dilemma when it comes to garrisons. Yea, some chains go above tier 3. Some races also have a few recruitment chains that cap out at tier 3. And just because a recruitment building caps out above tier 3 doesn't mean I don't consider building it in a minor settlement; if I'm not building doom-stacks, I'm perfectly fine building a recruitment center in a minor settlement, especially if I need to free up space in the province capital for other important buildings (since there are so many that cap out above tier 3).

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

That you have to sacrifice income for the garrison building is factually wrong. You can have unlimited money by midgame and every settlement fortified easily at the same time. Most building chains cannot be build in minor settlements or completed in minor settlements, leaving a pittance of building options and always one slot for the garrison chain. Military buildings are also for the most part restricted to major settlements, so they can't be using up slots either.

The last TW game that forced decisions on the player WRT settlement buildings was Attila. This title in comparison is so simplistic and straightforward that I can't believe people actually struggle with it.

GingerRoeBro · January 11

Must keep village garrisons. Just because you want this to be more like ToB, Doesn't mean everybody else want this to be more like ToB. There's a reason its a 56%.
Some people like having to actually fight for a settlement instead of boring causal clickfest.

Making the garrisons any stronger will result in me never losing a single settlement.

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

GingerRoeBro said:
Must keep village garrisons. Just because you want this to be more like ToB, Doesn't mean everybody else want this to be more like ToB. There's a reason its a 56%.
Some people like having to actually fight for a settlement instead of boring causal clickfest.

Making the garrisons any stronger will result in me never losing a single settlement.
This is warhammer, not noob hammer. Stop trying to make it any easier than it already is.

Some of us would rather not turn this game into a boring casual clickfest.
So download a mod or lower it to easy. Simple enough?

Yeah no. Vanilla garrisons cannot stop lategame doomstacks. Mere AR fodder and free XP.

Removing them would hurt no one.

FinishingLast · January 11

Ephraim_Dalton said:

FinishingLast said:

Ephraim_Dalton said:
Nope. Not true either since most of the hi-tier recruitment chains are, again, barred from being completed in minor settlements and so you still have enough slots for garrisons.

Stop trying to hoodwink me.
Why do you even make these posts if you're not open to discussion on them? You might be better served writing this in an email to yourself so you'll have what you want, someone who will only reply in the affirmative. I, like so far the majority here, are against most of these changes. I have no desire to discuss it with you because what's the point? To you we're all already wrong, lying, and trying to deceive you somehow.
That you have to sacrifice income for the garrison building is factually wrong. You can have unlimited money by midgame and every settlement fortified easily at the same time. Most building chains cannot be build in minor settlements or completed in minor settlements, leaving a pittance of building options and always one slot for the garrison chain. Military buildings are also for the most part restricted to major settlements, so they can't be using up slots either.

The last TW game that forced decisions on the player WRT settlement buildings was Attila. This title in comparison is so simplistic and straightforward that I can't believe people actually struggle with it.

While I agree with multiple points there, the type of overhaul you are suggesting of just getting rid of most garrisons isn't the solution. My personal experience with them is that they do slow down steamrolling in a small way, but still measurable. The turn(s) it takes for the army to attack and replenish is a turn it isn't steaming full speed towards a more important target and is time you can raise or bring back an army to face them. Making it even easier to steamroll these settlements isn't a move in a better direction. And as for defense on these, I've won many minor settlement battles with just the garrison and as was pointed out here, even when you're facing multiple stacks and have no chance of winning, you can still make it extremely painful for the enemy to take the settlement. I use these times to target and take out powerful single entity monsters or artillery. Units that they can't immediately replenish or recruit.

There is still strategy here. Slowing down the enemy and chipping at their army is an almost necessity in the Vortex campaign when Chaos stacks teleport only to where none of your armies are at. Just because a battle is one that can't be won doesn't mean there is nothing that can be strategically gained from it.

The majority of your issues stems from the issue of doomstacks being the default gameplay style come mid to late game. That would be a much better target for changing to incentivize smarter, composed armies than just making it even easier for them to cut through the map leaving you with dozens of turns to recolonize and rebuild. That would not be fun to do every time any army even with just a couple of units a garrison could easily handle came through your lands.

Vanilla_Gorilla · January 11

Removing them would allow enemy AI stacks to roam around terrorizing minor settlements ad infinitum. Walls exist to slow down enemy forces and put a dent in them. They do an excellent job at this.

In the current game they're simply necessary.

Canuovea · January 11

I had to delete several comments that were disrespectful and off topic.

Generally the discussion here is not going anywhere, and if this continues I will just close the thread.

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

Vanilla_Gorilla said:
Removing them would allow enemy AI stacks to roam around terrorizing minor settlements ad infinitum. Walls exist to slow down enemy forces and put a dent in them. They do an excellent job at this.

In the current game they're simply necessary.

I see that as a positive. Forces you to actually use your armies to defend your territory instead of committing 100% on the offense enabling easy steamrolls.

Also, has everyone actually overlooked I don't want garrison buildings to be barred from minor settlements? I just don't want them spammed.

Vanilla_Gorilla · January 11

Ephraim_Dalton said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:
Removing them would allow enemy AI stacks to roam around terrorizing minor settlements ad infinitum. Walls exist to slow down enemy forces and put a dent in them. They do an excellent job at this.

In the current game they're simply necessary.
I see that as a positive. Forces you to actually use your armies to defend your territory instead of committing 100% on the offense enabling easy steamrolls.

Also, has everyone actually overlooked I don't want garrison buildings to be barred from minor settlements? I just don't want them spammed.

People think that because it's what your OP says.

Ephraim_Dalton said:

1.Remove garrisons from all minor settlements. They're useless and only contribute to the enemy anyway

As to what you say that's simply not fun or how the game works. It's not fun to have to chase around enemy stacks which run rampant wiping out settlements.

Ephraim_Dalton · January 11

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Ephraim_Dalton said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:
Removing them would allow enemy AI stacks to roam around terrorizing minor settlements ad infinitum. Walls exist to slow down enemy forces and put a dent in them. They do an excellent job at this.

In the current game they're simply necessary.
I see that as a positive. Forces you to actually use your armies to defend your territory instead of committing 100% on the offense enabling easy steamrolls.

Also, has everyone actually overlooked I don't want garrison buildings to be barred from minor settlements? I just don't want them spammed.
People think that because it's what your OP says.
Ephraim_Dalton said:

1.Remove garrisons from all minor settlements. They're useless and only contribute to the enemy anyway
As to what you say that's simply not fun or how the game works. It's not fun to have to chase around enemy stacks which run rampant wiping out settlements.

The VANILLA garrisons should be removed. Just reading the whole article should be clear enough about that.

Ol_Nessie · January 11

Ephraim_Dalton said:
Military buildings are also for the most part restricted to major settlements, so they can't be using up slots either.

Dwarfs: Infantry chain and Ranger barracks are capped at tier 3

High Elves: Militia chain, Cavalry Chain, and Hunting grounds are capped at tier 3

Lizardmen: Skink chain, Terradons, and Cold Ones are capped at tier 3

Tomb Kings: Barracks chain, Chariot chain, and Arkhan's VC chain are capped at tier 3

Vampires: Infantry chain and Abyssal Wood are capped at tier 3

Dark Elves: Barracks chain, Dark Rider chain, and Shade chain are capped at tier 3

I could go on, but I've made my point. There are plenty of military recruitment buildings capped at tier 3 to the point where it does become a dilemma on which buildings to choose, especially in 2-3 settlement provinces and especially for races with more than 2 recruitment buildings capped at tier 3.

Itharus · January 11

I prefer the old TW system where your garrison was just troops you hired and they were stuck in the garrison at an upkeep discount. Worked perfectly. I'm honestly not sure why they ever got rid of this. This is basically how the "garrisons" for a Black Ark work.

As an aside to that... I miss the ability to take those forces out onto the map under command of a "captain" that you could promote to a general if you kicked some major butt with them in a battle.

Welcome

Categories

Garrisons Need An Overhaul

Comments

Welcome

Quick Links

Categories

Garrisons Need An Overhaul

Comments