To Garrison or Not?

[TargetSlayer]

Folks,

Currently playing a British campaign learning the new features of the game (previously played Rome & Medieval II). Is garrisoning necessary? In the past I always placed an appropriate garrison in my settlements (more along my fronts). Asking because when I was given the Thirteen Colonies the AI had no garrison in the majority of the settlements.

Regards

[Tidybeard]

I would - I just lost Flanders because Hessen, who I was at war with, put an army in my territory. I stupidly took 90% of my large army out of the garrison and stood it somewhere between the capital and the enemy army. The next turn, said enemy practically walked into Flanders and took it off me. Took me several turns to get it back. If your region is near enemy territory, make sure its got a reasonable garrison, or you might get check-mated like I did, and therefore look a twonk.

[Samir]

if the territory is not actually a war front province i often find it cheaper to crush the occasional rebel troops and maintain order that way than to pay for garrison troops. it depends of course which province you talk about, some minor one with almost no economic value or a main province with 2 fully developable towns in which a garrison may pay off faster...

[TargetSlayer]

Thanks. I was worried that I missed the memo about not to bother garrisoning anymore.

[BlackBart213]

I tend to have minimal garrisons (like one unit of the cheapest available troops) in the region capitals that are far from the front lines, but not in the towns/villages. Sometimes I flirt with danger with fairly minimal garrisons in the other cities near the front, relying instead on my armies and my abilities to capture cities, cut off the enemy, etc...

It's come back to bite me occasionally, but it's usually worked for me.

[TargetSlayer]

That makes sense to me mate. One shouldn’t need military garrisoned in every settlement. In Medieval II this was necessary after reaching a certain population, as happiness buildings were not sufficient. My sense with Empire, but again I am relatively new to this game, is that troops are not necessary, or at least not until a much larger population is reached.

Notwithstanding, I will see if my growing British economy can sustain at least one garrisoned troop, with major centers getting two or three (especially along my fronts). I also tend to protect my territories with well placed armies, preferring moving into enemy territory.

Aside note, I purchased Empire in a retail bundle that came with Medieval II and the Kingdoms expansion. This package was at a great price and replaced my damaged copy of Medieval II. Because I entered Empire at such a late stage of development my experience with this game has been much more positive then unfortunately many other fans of the series. As a strictly offline TW player, it is the storyline one can create in building their empire that ultimately appeals to me. Bundle some tactical play and history in the mix and this series remains engaging, even though there is a growing predictability to it.

TS!

[MoulderingCorpse]

It also pays to keep a keen eye on your neighbors attitudes toward your nation. Friendly borders don't need much of a garrison, but beware of those who don't like you very much and aren't yet at war with you.

[Aeohjie]

Keep your armies where your potential enemies can see them. The AI is far less likely to attack if your frontier with them is heavily guarded. An unprotected city on your border with any non-ally is an invitation for war. Some places, such as the Balkens or Russian steppe are so poor, especially in the early stages, that there's no economic point in garrisoning them. When you make only 86 gold a turn from a province, it doesn't make any sense to place a 120g per turn militia to keep order. You lose less by just exempting the region from taxes. Everywhere else it's just best to keep a bare minimum and either disband excess regiments or send them to the front.

[Wingate]

Use militia as cannon fodder in battle and use the shrunken remnant units as garrison troops since their maintenance shrinks in proportion but their effectiveness does not. The realistic effect is to accumulate weak garrison units - fine for cowing civilians but needing time to refit to face armed opponents. I put at least one understrength garrrison unit in most cities and often in ports while at war to keep it from being raided (for ports reserve fleet units work well against raids by sea - near wrecks that sit in port with low maintenance until they need to be repaired for action).

What I don't know is whether the AI needs to use espionage to determine the actual strength of the garrison units you have, just as the player must for the enemy.

Not making your border areas temptingly weak is simple common sense. It's only reasonable for Austria to get Hungary for a tasty unguarded piece of Turkey.

[Tidybeard]

Mmmmm....turkey.....

Sorry.

[nopasties]

Garrison a region until it does not need one from building upgrades and tax changes.

I've been generally only leaving a garrison on borders where I dont want a fight yet or only enough to mop up stray raiding troops. I like to mass my troops and keep them mobile. Sometimes it is beneficial to keep borders with a country barren if you want a war with them but their alliance list is too big. Alliances often kick in for defensive reasons but the AI often doesnt help join wars that other AI countries start. If you are spread thin and regaining a territory would be difficult because you are busy somewhere else then a stronger garrison is a good idea but generally I like to focus my power as much as possible so I can close wars faster and consolidate regions faster.

[Tim1988]

I also play as the British in most of my campaigns and rarely garrison any of the North American settlements at all. Because of my strategy (I attack from the North, working my way down and round the 13 colonies before attacking Cherokee territory last to gain control of the 13 colonies) I am usually only fighting in North America on one front (the South). I therefore make sure I have a large army on my border to the South and leave all of the other territories undefended (apart from a couple of units in Quebec and Philadelphia). Using the large cities you can always raise an army quickly if you are attacked.

I always have taxes down very low anyway (gives massive growth bonus and pays off in the long run as towns develop quicker) and so don't have to worry about rebellions.

It is a different story when I attack India though, where large garrisons are needed to defend against the hordes of Marathan armies.

[PVT-Kanaka]

Excellent discussion!

For my part, I tend to tier the quality of my garrisons based on proximity to the active front, with militia and obsolete units in "safe" areas and higher quality troops sprinkled into the garrisons near active fronts. These garrisons also serve as an operational reserve, being immediately available to reinforce my field forces or to coalesce into an ad hoc field force in a pinch.

I am experimenting with some of the mid-tier units available in DMUC - Freikorps, Expat Infantry, etc. Almost as good as real troops, but a tad cheaper. I'll see how that works.

[Erik3E]

I am simply adjusting myself as how the Campaign map looks at the moment do I feel threatened from someone I simply move my troops to the regions closest to the threat but when in neutral mode I try to have small garisons in the most outer regions of my empire and the main forces close to my capital or in the center of my empire. Usualy never declare war but allways gett declared war at (possibly becaous I am always playing as Sweden... ). Only times I declare war are when I try to start a colony somewhere and then its usualy against Native americans or indian factions.

///3inar

[trench]

I like to leave relatively unimportant cities ungarrisoned next to a country I want to go to war with.