How many folks ignore China's Garrison Req?

[Charles2222]

Understand, that I don't know what the rule is, but I'm guessing it's for the cities in Chine ONLY, and not for Asia total, because when I first said that there are quite a number in Indochina and Manchuria, but what I was talking about was "no unit at all". But, as this rule applies I suppose no matter how many units are at a base, if they contribute nothing to the garrison (assault points) then there really is no garrison, and for the sake of the rule itself almost no unit since they stop nothing.

I have another problem in that I'm not sure of China's borders, but, here goes (oh, now I see, any city that has a garrison rating is obviously China):

Ungarrisoned (no garrison points but usually 1 or more units there): Pakoi, Haichow,

Garrisoned but not adaquately: Shanghai, Tientsin, Chengting

Same as Tanaka's list.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Understand, that I don't know what the rule is, but I'm guessing it's for the cities in Chine ONLY, and not for Asia total, because when I first said that there are quite a number in Indochina and Manchuria, but what I was talking about was "no unit at all". But, as this rule applies I suppose no matter how many units are at a base, if they contribute nothing to the garrison (assault points) then there really is no garrison, and for the sake of the rule itself almost no unit since they stop nothing.

I have another problem in that I'm not sure of China's borders, but, here goes (oh, now I see, any city that has a garrison rating is obviously China):

Ungarrisoned (no garrison points but usually 1 or more units there): Pakoi, Haichow,

Garrisoned but not adaquately: Shanghai, Tientsin, Chengting

Same as Tanaka's list.

the rule is:

if left unfully garrisoned then there is a chance that:

Base facilities and industry facilities are subject to damage. This includes ports, airfields, fuel, supplies, oil, resources, and industry. Manpower is not affected.

Thus: Increasing the garrison requirement will do nothing because:

The problem is that most of the bases have none if few of these and you can just ignore them and protect only the major/important bases. Thus you really only need to garrison a select very few bases if any at all....

thus the NEED to garrison needs to be changed not just the requirement.

i think the best solution is if you do not garrison your city it reverts back to chinese control and your supply is cut off. thus you HAVE to garrison!!!

giving the chinese extra bonuses etc, is not very realistic or historical IMO but losing empty cities to partisians is.

you would garrison if your armies got cut off when the chinese partisians took cities back from you behind your lines. thus in real life they had to garrison. in the game as it is now you dont have to worry about it.

[Charles2222]

Is this garrison thing another example of a one-sided rule? Are there any others that suffer such a penalty? If the idea is that the populace opposes foreign occupation (and obviously not all of them would), shouldn't there be penalties elsewhere too? The one most obvious to me would be of anyone occupying Japanese territory, particularly GB or the US. Maybe there is a provision like that, but I've never heard of it. Naturally it ought to apply to US territory invaded as well, but those places if taken by Japan, wouldn't hold anyway without a sizeable army.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Is this garrison thing another example of a one-sided rule? Are there any others that suffer such a penalty? If the idea is that the populace opposes foreign occupation (and obviously not all of them would), shouldn't there be penalties elsewhere too? The one most obvious to me would be of anyone occupying Japanese territory, particularly GB or the US. Maybe there is a provision like that, but I've never heard of it. Naturally it ought to apply to US territory invaded as well, but those places if taken by Japan, and not occupied by force, wouldn't hold anyway without a sizeable army.

yes I totally agree here!!! and why does japan not get automatically respawned divisions when usa invades japan like the usa gets when japan invades usa???

i say get rid of the respawning "poof" units appearing crap and make the garrison rules harsh on both sides!!!

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Is this garrison thing another example of a one-sided rule? Are there any others that suffer such a penalty? If the idea is that the populace opposes foreign occupation (and obviously not all of them would), shouldn't there be penalties elsewhere too? The one most obvious to me would be of anyone occupying Japanese territory, particularly GB or the US. Maybe there is a provision like that, but I've never heard of it. Naturally it ought to apply to US territory invaded as well, but those places if taken by Japan, and not occupied by force, wouldn't hold anyway without a sizeable army.

yes I totally agree here!!! and why does japan not get automatically respawned divisions when usa invades japan like the usa gets when japan invades usa???

They respawn divisions as well as ships? How disgusting! Maybe you got that confused with those divisions that have their deployment date jump-started?

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Is this garrison thing another example of a one-sided rule? Are there any others that suffer such a penalty? If the idea is that the populace opposes foreign occupation (and obviously not all of them would), shouldn't there be penalties elsewhere too? The one most obvious to me would be of anyone occupying Japanese territory, particularly GB or the US. Maybe there is a provision like that, but I've never heard of it. Naturally it ought to apply to US territory invaded as well, but those places if taken by Japan, and not occupied by force, wouldn't hold anyway without a sizeable army.

yes I totally agree here!!! and why does japan not get automatically respawned divisions when usa invades japan like the usa gets when japan invades usa???

i say get rid of the respawning "poof" units appearing crap and make the garrison rules harsh on both sides!!!

(I'm now commenting on the above post after it was edited some) I don't think you can apply garrison rules across the board. You just have to figure which populaces would have a problem with it. Obviously China, US mainland and Japanese starting territories (actually PH might be one US location that would be friendly towards a Japanese occupation) would qualify.

[Mr.Frag]

why does japan not get automatically respawned divisions when usa invades japan

Umm, because they do [;)]

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Is this garrison thing another example of a one-sided rule? Are there any others that suffer such a penalty? If the idea is that the populace opposes foreign occupation (and obviously not all of them would), shouldn't there be penalties elsewhere too? The one most obvious to me would be of anyone occupying Japanese territory, particularly GB or the US. Maybe there is a provision like that, but I've never heard of it. Naturally it ought to apply to US territory invaded as well, but those places if taken by Japan, and not occupied by force, wouldn't hold anyway without a sizeable army.

yes I totally agree here!!! and why does japan not get automatically respawned divisions when usa invades japan like the usa gets when japan invades usa???

They respawn divisions as well as ships? How disgusting! Maybe you got that confused with those divisions that have their deployment date jump-started?

yep thats what im talking about...air units too...

but several divisions "poof" suddenly appear as well!!!

See: 8.3.2 Japanese Movement in Manual:

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

why does japan not get automatically respawned divisions when usa invades japan

Umm, because they do [;)]

i dont see this in the manual. could you be more specific please???

[Mr.Frag]

Japanese Home Defense divisions are spawned 1 a day if memory serves, don't tell me that rule missed the manual too [:(]

[Tanaka]

next page...

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Japanese Home Defense divisions are spawned 1 a day if memory serves, don't tell me that rule missed the manual too [:(]

well thats good to know. whats fair is fair. but i still hate the idea of anything "magically appearing!!!" (spawning ships, units, air units etc....)

i prefer harsher garrisoning rules.

[Mr.Frag]

Slot 1940-1979 are reserved for these guys when they activate, 40 extra divisions for Japan in 1945.

[Charles2222]

Ah, sounds good.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Japanese Home Defense divisions are spawned 1 a day if memory serves, don't tell me that rule missed the manual too [:(]

That rule missed the manual. A search of the manual for 'Home Defense' only finds two instances, both listing it as one of the command areas (i.e. China Expedition, Central Pacific, etc.).

[mlees]

40 divisions?!! Holy Moly!!

I invaded Hokkaido in a game vs AI. Didn't see any.Were they triggered then?

Was the AI leaving them in Tokyo? Or will it ship them out to other objectives?

[mogami]

Hi, The Japanese div are not triggered by invasion. They are triggered by date. After a certain date (Jan 1945?) 1 div per day is raised. I'm not sure if they arrive full strength. I think they draw from pool so they might only be 25 percent if the pool is low.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Slot 1940-1979 are reserved for these guys when they activate, 40 extra divisions for Japan in 1945.

Frag.... What kind of "values" do these "free divisions" have? Are these the "bamboo
spear" militia? I mean, the Japanese were trying to replace their standard military
rifle since before the war started, and could never produce enough to do it.

Secondly, is it one a day?..., or one a week? Getting 40 free divisions by the middle
of February, 1945 is allowing an awful lot of time for them to "prep". In the case of
the US being invaded, the "freebies" are actually the divisions being trained in various
camps all over the country. This process took about a year, but obviously would have
been short-circuted is an invasion occurred. Training states would have varied, but
the organizations were real. Giving Japan 40 extra "real" divisions sounds like a pie-
in-the-sky idea. So what do they consist of?

[WiTP_Dude]

Hopefully they are low experience divisions. These are mostly civilians, right?

[mogami]

Hi, There are 27 bases in the Home Islands. So these units do not even provide 2 for each.
They are exp 35-40.
Japan had been at war for 10 years and had a large number of former soldiers to call back along with new recruits.
If Japan has supply for these units then the defense of the Home Islands will be vastly improved. If Japan is out of supply then they are just so many more VP.
If the Japanese still have transports and the Allies are not yet in possession of Islands where they can base B-29 then...........[X(]