Some players can choose to garrison infantry and/or artillery units on selected territories.
Garrison territories are Gibraltar and Malaya (but only get the defense bonus if attacked from sea zone), Malta*, and any originally controlled islands EXCEPT Borneo, Hawaii, Aleutians, Philippines, and Atlantic, Mediterranean*, Indian Ocean, and ANZAC islands.
Procedure: As a separate and distinct non-combat move, the player can choose to convert one (1) artillery or infantry unit to a garrison unit. This changes the unit to A0 D3 M0. The change is permanent. They can be transported in a non-combat move and can occupy a fortification.
Sound interesting.
It is a way to explained why Iwo Jima and Okinawa were so bloody for the attacker.
Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason why this option is limited to Japan and the UK, and why some UK territories are excluded from exercising this option? If the garrison concept basically represents infantry and artillery units “digging in” (preparing trenches and field fortifications, from which to conduct a static defense from a protected position), there’s no reason why other powers wouldn’t be able to use the same technique: it’s very low-tech and inexpensive, requiring no special skills or technology other than a shovel, so in principle it should be accessible to anybody. For instance it would be particularly useful to China, which in the game is poor and has virtually no equipment and is basically fighting a defensive war.
I tend to take a historical slant, so thinking mainly of Iwo and Malta - but you would be correct where A&A powers are all treated equally and have the same capabilities. Its a house rule - adjust and use as you wish. I do like your China comment - will put some thought into that.
I agree with CWO Marc about expanding it to include all nations and territories, however… I think all infantry and artillery defending @3 is overpowering. Not sure of a solution right now though.
To those thinking of using this rule, just want to give my rationale on why not all territories. An island, like Iwo, can have garrison force that must be defeated to take the island. A garrison force in Ukraine? so what, any attacker would just go around them since the garrison force is not mobile. But, again, its a house rule, play as you wish. For all other territories - the concept of fortifications would seem more appropriate.
Perhaps it would help for your proposed unit to be called an “island garrison” rather than just a garrison, since what you have in mind seems to be limited very specifically to islands.
Incidentally, the concept that “An island, like Iwo, can have garrison force that must be defeated to take the island” ought to apply to Wake Island (whose Marine garrison did need to be defeated before the Japanese could secure the island). Arguably, it applies even more to Wake than to Malta because Malta – although it was heavily bombed – was never invaded by Axis troops.
@Carolina:
I tend to take a historical slant, so thinking mainly of Iwo and Malta - but you would be correct where A&A powers are all treated equally and have the same capabilities. Its a house rule - adjust and use as you wish. I do like your China comment - will put some thought into that.
Another way to depict Iwo and Malta higher defense per soldier implied is simply that a single Inf unit represent pretty much less soldiers compared to European land units.
So this Inf worth the same combat value than 10x soldiers per unit in Russian battle field.
So no need to change from OOB.
