Remove Garrison Max Limit

[small shell]

There is no reason to have a limit. It punishes teams for building them.

[solar steppe]

I agree, also remove the minimum distance between them and make them free. It's enough work for an Officer to get to where he needs to go, shouldn't need to also bring a Support player.

[glossy leaf]

No just no. This game thrives on strategy. Go play a mindless run and gun if you don't want to strategize.

[ashen wraith]

I think getting rid of the commander cool down for destroying them would be good to. Especially now that we have vote to kick.

Iffy on it being unlimited though. Support players not being limited to one supply box on the ground at one time would be intresting to see.

[frozen glacier]

This will kill all strategy so that it becomes another weak minded fps game this is a fat thumbs down for me especially @solar steppe's comment. @small shell removing the limit allows for mindless spamming. "Placing garrisons is strategy" it's only strategy when you require to think about where to place it and 8 garrisons is more than enough under any circumstances. Then there's the other dude who wants them to be free and have no spacing limit and that will completely shatter everything in the game. @blazing hawk probably because having infinite garrisons every 200m is just a mind-numbing aspect or as @solar steppe wants no spacing limit and no supplies. But that's not even my main point that is that infinite garrisons will make the game to easily on offense or especially defense, at the moment you can have 2-3 garrisons per defensive point effectively and 2-6 red zone garrisons per point on offense it's just not needed and will lessen the strategic placement of garrisons since there's 7 more 200 meters away in all directions. Oh and I was unaware that strategic in a strategic fps game was a buzzword I promise I'll dumb down everything from now on. Since my "buzzwords" are too much for you to handle and make you act rude. @small shell you're right I made a mistake and was thinking of another game thanks for the correction

[small shell]

Creating garrisons is strategic. It gives more access to the battlefield and teams more flexibility which increases strategic mobility. How is destroying garrisons (removing access to other areas, usually backline garries) strategic?

The garry maximum punishes teams that coordinate and build garries. Why do this to teams?

@ashen wraith i think the minimum range between garries is enough to circumvent garry spam

@frozen glacier are you saying the 200m limit isn’t enough to stop garry clustering?

@frozen glacier its 200m (the width or height of a grid square) and I would absolutely making that distance shorter as to make it possible to cluster them.

But realistically within the game and map context, between the 200m and the terrain of the maps themselves there are many more spots where it would be bad to place a garry than good. So it’s really a non-issue.

I make this suggestion because as commander its more of a chore than anything strategic or exciting to spawn at garries near HQ to destroy them so the guys at the other end of the map can place theirs. Also just the waste of manpower resource in doing so through the ability.

And if you are going to make garry destruction free and unlimited, may as well just remove the limit

[blazing hawk]

How does having a garry limit improve gameplay or make it less “weak minded” or “more strategic” or whatever meaningless buzzword you’ve chosen to use today.
I ask because I’m legitimately curious as to how you think this change will specifically damage gameplay

[jagged aspen]

Since a point may swap with a sneaky and silly teleport and reduce all the hard-built garries by half or more, the limit kinda punishes teams that are winning by sheer effort. One man crawling in the grass for a few minutes to push a button should not be able to cause that much damage, nor should the meta be such that you always need to have one dude standing in the rear for 90 minutes just in case an airhead or other pops up. With more garris available, a sneakily captured point could at least have that many more places to come back from, without sacrificing the offense. The game advertises frontlines, so it should be about that. A tug of war where straight up skill wins.

Honestly, I'd rather just make it so that you cant build any spawns inside a tight net of enemy garrisons. Or any grid that has an enemy garrison. Something like that.

[glossy leaf]

If people cannot see how the ability to willy nilly place as many garrisons all over the map as you please wouldn't defeat the entire strategic purpose of this game........ I have nothing left to say to you. I hear fortnight is fun? This current generation's logic baffles me. Thank goodness this idea would never be implemented into the game.

[small shell]

removing max limit means will nilly placement even though there is 200m distance mandate and limited available options for optimal garry placement on maps
this is comparable to Fortnite gameplay

Absolutely infallible logic

@hidden jetty I have over 500 hours in playing SL/Commander I can tell you for a fact that neither I nor any other person in command chat for even a second bases decisions on the garrison maximum in a proactive manner. It’s always a matter of not having enough, not “strategically choosing how many to place where”

Nobody ever says “I want to place this garry but we are at 5/8 at this moment and can only fit two more if I place this.”

The max handicaps good teams and creates chores for the commander. Thats all it does

[hidden jetty]

Limiting garrisons forces strategic decisions.

How many red-zone, how many blue? How many fall-back?

How many do I need around the active defence point? Have I got enough spare to fall back on if things go south? Will the team work together to re-establish a solid network again if the sector falls, instead of having a network ready and waiting?

Can I supplement my garrisons with half tracks to overcome the limit and improve lockout distance? (Yes, is the answer).

Sure, removing the limit means you don’t have to teleport back and dismantle a garrison as commander (oh the horror!).

It also means I can wander around with a supply truck and pack every single sector with a stupid amount of garrisons. Which makes no sense.

Keep the limit, force the choices.

@small shell

Congrats, I also have over 500 hours playing SL / commander.

And whilst it might not impact the strategic decision when you’re placing garrison 5/8 it will absolutely 100% impact your decision once you reach that limit and you have to decide what gets placed and what stays throughout the rest of the game.

Otherwise I’ll just build my garrisons across the entire sector, thank you very much. Not only will they tell me when and where the enemy is approaching, but I’ll be able to teleport some troops behind them to outflank the enemy. Plus I have a very strong defensive garry network whenever the enemy takes a sector.

Every. Single. Time.

You really want your own attacking forces to find themselves shot at from all angles simply because the enemy has spammed defensive garrisons? A flank is a flank no longer.

[true jacinth]

It's chess NOT checkers.

[glossy leaf]

Sounds like you need a few more hours under your belt. I always consider how many garries are out and what their placement is. Infallible logic 😂 more like smart game play and well thought out decision making that leads to wins.

[small shell]

@glossy leaf @hidden jetty okay, so you both have allegiance to current to the status quo. So then, I seriously want to challenge to think critically about this: what’s the purpose? What point does it serve?

You might say it’s strategic. Hardly, it takes half a second to realize that you are at or nearing max and another half to decide which one to destroy (usually the one back near HQ point which is far away from the front)

But then also, why is it strategic? Because you have to make choices? For what purpose do you have to make choices in the first place? To prevent garry spamming? There’s already 200m distance mandate that works well to prevent clusters. And players who have played SL/Commander enough know how predictable garry placements are to begin with.

But even then is having too many garrisons a bad thing? I say no. You have to ask yourself what the garry represents. The garry represents territory control and team flexibility. And what is the focus of the game? WWII. Territory control and flexibility on the battlefield is the entire point of WWII. So what’s wrong with having as much of that as possible as long as there are no garry clusters?

The garry max forces decisions where its ultimately unnecessary.

And @hidden jetty if a flanking force gets repelled by defenders by a counterflank or in some other form or fashion, then that goes to show how little battlefield control that force had. I would hope defensive teams would put up resistance

@frozen glacier infinite garries serve to allow teams that playing well to continue playing well without being artificially handicapped. And it’s near impossible to have 6 garrisons all in the same sector and be in good spots.

garry amounts have nothing to do with pace of the game. Thats a fallacy. Also since when has this game been about surviving? You play as a cog in the machine

@glossy leaf no constructive feedback? Thats a shame

[frozen glacier]

What purpose does infinite garrisons serve if there's already enough available dude. We don't need to have 6 garrisons per sector it's overkill just leave it how it is. Just because YOU want a fast paced spawn die game doesn't mean everyone does this game is centered around slower paced fighting and attempting to keep yourself alive if YOU chose not to play this way then its your own fault I'm sorry. That's flawed you don't need good garrisons spots when you can have as many as you can fit per sector you want an easy game where the enemy cant destroy your spawns and win that's all this is. Just leave it as is it's fine as is your logic is flawed and will make the game boring @small shell if you play to die it's on you and infinite garrisons just allows you to never run out of spawns on defense making strategy less it's common sense that infinite spawns turns the game into a cod meat grinder and that's not what this is you should be able to hunt and destroy their 2-3 garrisons and cut off their troops via sabotage think of destroying garrisons as blocking a road to stop troops.

[jagged aspen]

It's only "strategic" because it's arbitrarily limited. In the past, garry limit was 10, distance could be as low as 100m, they could be destroyed by arty. Outside of comp games, I dont really recall the games being so much different. In any case, the main reason why people dislike the idea of garry spam is because the way to detect and destroy them is very limited, to the point where recon and lonewolfing is way more efficient than the advertised frontline combat should be. Spawns decide where the frontline is, but to destroy that ONE spawn, you might have to kill the entire squad 2-3 times over, even after you've figured out where they're coming from, simply because the only practical tools against OPs and garrys at range are tanks and rockets. If destroying garries was easier, perhaps with mortars, then having more of them could suddenly make sense

[glossy leaf]

This guy is a troll. No other explanation. If people being serious have brains that operate like this then hopefully they are the .01% of the player base.

[small shell]

Subtle reminder that WWII was a meatgrinder. Think Battle of Iwo Jima where Marines and Japanese fought tooth and nail for quite literally every inch or Stalingrad where the German 6th army fought for months on end in house-to-house fighting that had no end in sight until they were surrounded. Also the fact that it took 3 years from the defeat of Stalingrad for Russia to reach Berlin.

If this adds to more meatgrinders then I'm all for it. I'm always trying storm straight into the first objective on Omaha U.S. Offensive in the beginning because thats the best way to take the point. Move in hard and fast with sheer determination.

The problem is people whine about dying in a video game and so everyone tries to flank. That's the reason airheads were given.

Furthermore, Everyone is like "I want house-to-house fighting" but when it actually happens they don't realize that the meatgrinder fight that they are getting themselves in is house-to-house fighting. Think of fighting over the houses in Kharkov.

If allowing more garries creates more intense fighting rather than just sneaky airheads and red garries where people are playing tag, then I'm all for it.

@frozen glacier Whats the strategy in avoiding combat and spawning the whole team behind enemy lines in a sneak attack?

It not challenging to check how many garries on the map there are and which obvious ones aren’t needed at the moment. And why are you contesting more action in an action FPS game?

@lethal oriole you act as if WWII battlefield commanders never had intel on where they were being attacked and that they should never do anything to increase integrity of their defense. and those scenarios you bring up about the 20+ OP's is an unlikely extreme caused by the meta of squad makeup and garries, not the amount of garries

Both of your counterpoints seem to sum up to “Attacking should work every time and I don’t like it when I get resistance”

[regal roost]

No, the limit is not there for nothing

Learn how to play this game and stop trying to change the game in the easy way....

[frozen glacier]

Yea because every single field was a self termination mission like d day that's not how war works. People don't just run into enemy fire besides a war Like ww1 and prior with exceptions in ww2 like d day landings and the island hoping in the Pacific. The game you're explaining and wanting this one turned into is a cluster of garbage that will take every ounce of strategy and throw it away just so there's more "action" your arguement makes no sense and cant make sense because the current garrison limit is high enough to be convenient and challenging at times key word challenging.

[lethal oriole]

If you actually think this is a good idea, then you have a lot to learn about this game yet. This couldn't be a worse idea. A competent team wouldn't even let an attack get started anywhere on the map if this feature was added. Having a 50 meter ping every 200 meters is so OP, that it would literally turn the game inside out. Every airhead you drop, every supply truck you drive, will be visible to the entire team via red pinging garrisons all over the map, not to mention, making it IMPOSSIBLE for armor to flank AT ALL.

Competitive players(In the HLL Competitive scene) already do this with outposts, and its really annoying. there will be 20+ squads, most solo, with ops spaced along throughout the map to have AT players spawn on to kill flanking armor, or supply trucks.

If you remove the garrison limit then there is literally no counterplay to this type of gameplay at all. Its just worthless to try to attack, and if you are on defense then you are losing. The person who first caps the mid point wins the game.

[verbal flicker]

I would 100% be the SL to go around and drop a Garrison via Supply Truck in EVERY SECTOR INTERSECTION

Every intersecting location would have a garry
No Enemy could be stealthy with my garry spam
I'd ball-n-chain my support with me to get them in Supply truck locked territory

The map will be painted Green with my garry army

[blazing hawk]

I don’t see how removing the limit impacts frontline combat. All 8 garries are generally at or around the front and maxing out the 200m distance requirements already anyway, this change wouldn’t impact frontline combat in the slightest, nor would it impact “pacing”.

• YOU want a cluster of garbage!
• This will destroy strategy and gameplay!
• Your argument makes no sense!
  This kind of rhetoric isn’t constructive in the slightest, nor have you provided any compelling argument for why any of these things would be the case. Your whole argument is centred on emotionally-charged buzzwords and ad-hominem fallacies carrying the day, rather than any actual reasoning.

[regal roost]

This is already good in the game, I don't want 6 garrison on a defensive point

[glossy leaf]

The compelling argument is that the garrison mechanics and limits are in the game. The game is fun. Unlimited garrisons is not fun.

[solar steppe]

Sorry guys. I really thought I made my comment outlandish enough for people to get that it was a joke. I obviously wasn't being serious.

[ashen wraith]

I mean the biggest con is that a team can max out the max number you can place in a map ( which is a decent number but nothing ridiculous) and it sound create a larger disparity in teams that do place and teams that don't which can result in more steamrolls. ( whether that is a good or bad thing is up to you and your perspective)

Some big pros though are that it would remove the frustration of destroying old garrasions and that combined with the commamders ability on a longer cooldown can really slow down a good pace of battle that you could be in. ( A possible counter to this is that this slowdown helps prevent steamrolls because a highly proficient team is forced to slow down but considering how common steamrolls still are I don't think it makes that much of a difference).

Recon's job being more engaging and more important because of how many potential garrasions they need to take out before the sector flips is a good thing I think.

Biggest pro probably is it will help with player frustration of trying to achieve flanking maneuvers when the 8 garrasion limit has alrealy been hit.

It will also help defending teams in map control as they can use them for the "radar" technique and could make a really good defensive team's job easier.

[small shell]

I would hope that you would do those things. But even then, majority of pub matches I play, the garry limit is never reached. It is commendable if you are the one that goes around building garries for the whole team every game o7. But I know that your actions are an extremity in the general playerbase.

Garry limits are always reached by winning teams of which its ridiculous to artificially make it harder to do things that help you win the game just because the other team can’t get it together. A sort of “free market vs socialism” approach. Garry maximums are a skill ceiling on teams.

Comp players, as much as I respect them as a noncomp player, are a different breed and do everything to the extremity for a win. If they win because they take the time to build more garries, i would hope that would be the case. I don’t think thats wholly ridiculous considering garries win games in the first place

The problems around “radar” and AT spam are symptoms of other meta unrelated to the topic.

I echo Sinatras arguments

[blazing hawk]

That’s not even an argument, let alone a compelling one. Why does having garrison limits improve gameplay, and what would be the negative consequences of removing them?

[frozen glacier]

Adding exclamation points onto quotes of mine trying to make me sound aggresive is the top of the propaganda book try again. And a garrison every 200 meters is a stupid possibility to even consider wanting I've already explained why as well as a few others but overlook those, why not. It's common sense that infinite spawns reduce offensive strategy it will turn the game into cod zombies with infinite unstoppable waves of enemies with no ability to effectively counter offense or offense on to the defending point in general I've summed this up twice.

[hidden jetty]

I already outlined why the garrison limit contributes to strategic decisions and ultimately an impact on the wider game.

Removing the limit leads to garrison spam. Which isn’t about garrison clustering, it’s spamming of garrisons across the whole map both for radar and reflanking. Also creates a snowball effect against the losing team. If every single garrison placed simply stays there, the winning team build up a huge blue-zone network whilst the team under pressure has garrisons wiped every time a sector is taken.

@small shell your flanking attack force can’t hold map control when there are garrisons everywhere. You can destroy a couple and there are more just waiting for teleported troops to flank you again.

Yes we want defence to put up resistance but not simply because they have spammed garrisons and can teleport a squad or two to flank the offensive force every time they attack. It’s not a fair fight and leans even further into the questionable redeploy meta.

A garrison does not represent territory control, it enables it via spawning and redeploy. You can have three garrisons on the west flank but that doesn’t mean you control the area if there aren’t any troops there. But having those garrisons both acts as a radar and allows that swift redeployment.

Now imagine there is no limit and you have that ability across the entire map. Pretty ridiculous imo.

[supple skiff]

I’m honestly flabbergasted unlimited garrisons are even debatable.

However, with increased movement speeds; one could certainly argue increasing the maximum limit, and reducing the minimum distance.

Also for consideration; reducing outpost spawn wave times, and possibly making them only destroyed with interaction, rather than proximity.

With increased number of garrisons, reintroducing destruction by arty suddenly becomes more feasible.

[small shell]

Sounds like a skill on the part of the losing team. If they are allowing themselves to get into that position, then they deserve to lose.

Garries do represent territory claim as they represent “troops”; the ones at the front are frontline troops and the rear ones are reserve. wall of garries allows there to be a “front.” If you destroy those garries and there are no rear garries, you have broken through their defenses and can push the enemy back much like WWII

On another note, Below are pictures of SME arguably a very balanced map. Now assume with the photos that you are the Americans and St Mere Eglise is being defended by Americans.

Refer to the picture of the zoomed in sector of SME. For those of you arguing 6 garries in the sector, the pic with black x’s is something similar to what it would have to be. No one places garries like that. The picture with the red x’s is more realistic of actual gameplay.

For those of you referencing map-wide spam reference the second set of two showing the 6 columns presumably owned by the US in the scenario. the black x’s map represent the maximum. Again, no one places garrisons like this. The map with red x’s represents more realistic garry placement.

These placements come under the assumption that:

1. People actually place those garries
2. The enemy isn’t actively undermining it.

Furthermore the realistic placement of garries is pretty predictable, no? It’s not like you are forbidden from going to those places and placing your own spawn there. You yourself want those areas where the garries are because it allows more battlefield access. And it’s not like all of the garries are going to be relevant in the moment. Only 3 of those garries are near the point, the other 5 in a ring around the point are far away and the rest aren’t even relevant to the situation at hand assuming, of course, that they are present and active

So why penalize teams for creating a proactive defense when your team should be doing a proactive offense?

[verbal flicker]

I think we have learned that the best solution to this is to reply as they have

Big L bruh, skill issue needing that many places to spawn

[solar steppe]

You could argue to bring the number back up to 10 garrisons or something like that, but removing the limit isn't a good option. If you just remove the limit completely, the winning team will just be the one that has a player without a life and is willing to build 50 garrisons in a game.

[hidden jetty]

It has nothing to do with skill, it’s a snowball effect. In the same way the old node system handicapped teams losing sectors.

No limit handicaps the team losing a sector because the other side keep every single garrison placed instead of adjusting their back lines. If the losers do manage to push back they are running into an already established defensive line. That’s ridiculous. Like wading through treacle.

SME below shows garry spam. Garries 1-5 expected, garrisons A - L are ‘spams’.

If the enemy flanks

1. I know they are there
2. Troops can redeploy to reflank
3. That same redeploy locks out red zone garries
4. Even if they destroy some, I have plenty more to get troops back in place quickly and re-establish more blue zone spam

Spam garrisons don’t even need to be well-placed. They aren’t expecting much contact and are mainly a radar & redeploy system.

Usually that NW flank might push to take out garrison 3 and establish themselves behind, offering an opportunity for a strong W/NW push. With spam garrisons that’s not possible, I know they’re coming and a quick redeploy means everything is locked or under pressure from multiple angles.

Same applies to any southern attempt. Even if they destroy 5 or take a wide flank to 4 there can be reflank pressure from A or B.

Whilst you would only expect to see extreme versions in organised games where you can rely on co-operative SL’s and supports to build 10 garrisons in 5 minutes, it would still bleed into public matches. Even just an extra 3 garrisons NW and SW ignoring map edge make a huge difference to radar and reflank pressure.

it’s not like all garries are going to be relevant in the moment

Exactly! Yet removing the limit allows you to simply spam garrisons everywhere and teleport troops when and where the situation calls for it, locking down your blue zone. Instead of deciding which are important enough to keep and adjusting your offence / defence accordingly.

[versed zenith]

I hope that this is sarcasm

[vocal heron]

Hell no. If enemy captures a point it will make them to think about which garries are needed and which not. By having infinite amout it will ruin gameplay

[small shell]

A good team proactively defending wouldn’t let there be an already established defensive line of that many red garries. And red garries are bad meta because they turn into blue garries afterwards.
My point to this is that red garries should be removed in general

And this goes to the next point about the radar; it should only flash when not spawnable.

Those two byproducts of garry meta need to be removed in general. your point about having too many being bad, is well taken but is undermined by these characteristics of garries of which I don’t agree to begin with.

No red garries means no preset defensive line when turned blue (which already happens in the current game and is unfair to defensive teams as 4 columns or rows of garries are wiped; in other words a team lost control of almost half the map because they lost a point and the attackers can maintain and improve on their position because of red garries This causes steamrolls)

No radar means surprise flanks can still occur without imminent response. Thus when it is discovered by organic means (meaning contact) then it would make sense to use rear garries set in place

Red garries cause steamrolls and radar cause stalemates. Number of garrisons by itself doesn’t cause this.

Your points are very much valid; by itself, increasing the maximum is a bad idea, but only as a consequence of external characteristics of garries themselves. I think if those were addressed it would a good option.

@undone python so you are saying that its bad for the game because more teamwork and coordination is required in a game about teamwork and coordination? Also your one SL does it all hypothesis doesn’t count for anything because that happens in matches anyway.

And what? You don’t like fighting tooth and nail in a game about WWII where frontline combat is the point? Also, god forbid the battle be something besides hive-minding the objective.

And your issue with offensive game mode sounds like a lack of confidence.

[blazing hawk]

Why does everyone in this thread think that no garry limit will somehow exacerbate steamrolls? It will have the exact opposite effect, because the losing team will have a new defence line of ready garrisons to defend from. Attacking gameplay doesn’t change at all.

[undone python]

I really don't like this idea. All possible arguments have already been exposed and I cannot comprehend how you people still think it's a good one. The game would become boring, it would turn into a bogged down version of the game. Jelly talks about public matches but proceeds to talk about "good teams". This is antithesis, good teams are rare. A common team would absolutely abuse this mechanic. The one officer that cares about garrison will nuke the entire match constructing them, the unlimited spawn point will make the players fight for every inch of ground, making them scour the whole enemy line and holding absolutely every angle encouraging camping. Making the battles not have the focused point of combat that the cap objective represents. Sure, Recon teams will be more busy, but making garrison changes alone will create so many problems with the already existing busted mechanics like artillery.

The limit is fine, as you said it yourself Jelly, its not even reached, so why change something that isn't broken? I still do not comprehend your need for more spawn points and unfortunately I will have to say that sounds more like a skill issue. You are also forgetting Offensive game mode. It would be literally IMPOSSIBLE, to break through the defense without an extremely coordinated tank battalion and infantry corps. Something the average HLL match tends to lack. Whatever experience in SL and Command you claim to have is nullified by your clear lack of awareness and detachment from reality on the wider effects the limit has on the
average player's decision-making process.

Regarding Commissar's comments. How are you claiming this will have no impact in frontline combat? Garrisons mold the entire battle. Their positioning is what dictates the battle zones and influence SLs to set up their OPs. Having easy access to every corner of the map within seconds will remove the sense of priority certain sectors have at a particular moment. Making every engagement redundant.

[hidden jetty]

Never said it would exacerbate steamrolls. I said it had a snowball effect where the ‘winning’ team doesn’t lose any garrisons and end up with a massive surplus across all blue sectors.

Meaning the ‘losing’ team has a much harder time turning it around because they run into a wall of garrisons every time.

Doesn’t mean they’ll get steamrolled but it makes a turnaround unnecessarily difficult.

The majority of my post was about how defensive spam garries stop an attack in its tracks, of course it changes attacking gameplay.

[frozen glacier]

[regal roost]

No, the limit is not there for nothing

Learn how to play this game and stop trying to change the game in the easy way....

[small shell]

Okay, so I acknowledge Scott's argument about radar. So then lets do a scenario using Scott's picture that I included@hidden jetty @frozen glacier @undone python:

Assume its U.S. Offensive (because Marshal thinks its impossible) SME. The U.S. have to take SME point next and the German garry system is exactly as depicted except we ignore the red blue people movement. Also assume the radar ability is removed.

We first have to consider the 1 min cap so garries A-E, F-I, and L garries would be too far away to reach the garry in time to contest in time if its started.

From the looks of this, it looks like the attacking team could be interdicted at any point while trying to reach the objective after destroying garries 1,2,3, and 5. The defense team took time to prepare. They created integrity in their defense structure to the almost to the point of mundanity.

For the sake of argument, lets say the americans take out garries 1,4,5,A, and K. A huge amount of the south central garries. But the defense team can still counter with 2,3,B,D,E,L, and J garries.

But what's wrong with that instance occuring? The more defense the team pulls away the less defenders there are. And who says the attackers aren't already planning to attack thorugh J and 2 garries?

Your assumptions that it will be an impossible meatgrinder are based off:
1: the enemy team accurately counter attacking from rear garries.
2: the attacking team won't have a breakthrough when the defenders pull back squads.

and so what if attacking squads are being counter attacked, I would hope that would be the case rather than just turtling up.

And WWII was grindy warfare anyway. Otherwise, with red garries, airheads, and uncontested flanks with surprise attacks it turns into vietnam where map control is nonexistent.

@novel iron May be madness. But my favorite moments in HLL were overcoming difficult combat situations, not sneak attacking via airheads and red garries uncontested.

[novel iron]

Play your wet meatgrinder dream El-Alamein 24/7. Or start playing competitive and fight over the midpoint for 90 minutes. Anything - just stop this madness.

[undone python]

I still cannot get behind this idea. There are barely any bases in reality of gameplay. People will bunch up closer to the hardpoint making most Garrisons irrelevant. Now I see it will become a waste of supplies to build them. Maybe you are right in regards of people ignoring the change and maybe not abusing, however that would just make the change pointless (this was already addressed heavily in previous replies). Attacking will still be highly annoying. For Warfare, we would just be creating a new frustration. There will be stalemates and constant swap of the same objective, making a close defeat feel ten times worse than a steamroll.
The game needn't be harder just because you feel you've reached your peak performance in it, get that through your skull. Meatgrinder gameplay is not fun. This is no milsim, but its no arcade shooter either. A HLL Guide I read said "Riflemen are cannon fodder, but not expendable". Switch to Verdun, Tannenberg or Isonzo for a meat grinder.
Additionally this change would be too large to implement and it will drastically alter the game. However, a better formulation of this idea could be: Add a game-mode without garrison limit. Perhaps on a smaller map, or perhaps make the teams fight for map sectors instead of hardpoints, similar to Company of Heroes' annihilation mode; where there are no hardpoints to contest rather an ever changing frontline in order to anihilate the enemy forces, perhaps to reduce player tickets like a classic large scale shooter or to reach the opponents base until destruction of their HQ spawns. Otherwise another new game mode could be made, one I've already thought about but still haven't made the suggestion thread. But in general terms just making a smaller game-mode with the objective of searching and destroying the enemy spawn points while defending your own.
These are the only ideas I can add to your suggestion, given I do not believe removing the garry limit would benefit the game as it currently stands.

[jagged aspen]

If spam like that would become the meta, and both sides would do it, then you'd practically have two 1200-meter long lines fighting each other. There might not be much flanking the SP itself, just squads trying to swipe their side of the map clean of enemy spawns. Even now it sometimes happens that the teams are evenly spread across the whole map, but here's the problem: if you take out both the flanks of the enemy, their only frontline spawns are in the center, and they may just push through your thin line faster than your flanks can converge on them, especially on dense maps where squads can hardly support the squads on their sides. Garry spam would take the strategy of placing them away, but you'd still be left with the strategy of where squads should place themselves, how deep into the enemy sectors they should go, what place is actually meaningful and supportive to other units. The flanks could no longer be a big direction of attack because they would likely be flanked themselves from the "spam garris" (although flanking the attackers is even now something that defenders should always do), meaning that they could only hold position on the flank of an SP as they're getting flanked in turn, but still: all the defenders trying to recapture a flank are away from the SP defense, and the attacker flank prevents (or should prevent) their center from being crossfired or flanked from there. Attacking a point directly is so much easier when you're only getting shot at from your own cone of fire, and that's what flanks should enable. Personally I like the idea that both teams would have to exist in only one "bubble", instead of separate bubbles for defenders and sneaky flankers that can happen only because of arbitrary limitations on garris. It is advertised as a game of frontlines, after all. (the problem is that nobody would bother creating so many garris. I wouldnt mind it if CMDR could place them for a fee in locked territories from a bird's eye view, really.)

[solar steppe]

Rebuilding garrisons is the most boring task in the whole game, which is why most people don't do it. So don't expect both teams to actually build this many garrisons in an actual game. At most one team will do it occassionally and then it's pretty much GG.

It might be worth giving the supply truck 3 boxes of 100 supplies instead of 2x150 to make it less painful for the 1 or 2 people who actually bother to help out the team. Not sure though, just a thought.

[lethal oriole]

how is this thread not deleted yet?

[trim bough]

You can get 8 garries around a strongpoint. Not including OPs and halftracks. Not sure if unlimited would be good. I think maybe bumping it to 10 might be good. Usually I don't run into garry limit until trying to set up red zone garrison for 5th or MAYBE 4th point.

[supple skiff]

The garrison limit serves to make the offensive/defensive balance an explicit choice, without a limit you have the opportunity to maximise both.

[small shell]

The explicit choice that you mention is arbitrary but the purpose and effects of it being there and not there are debatable; Views of it being positive or negative are shaped purely by the hypotheticals, of which, perceptions of each player dictates as has been determined by the standoff in this thread which is fine

[blazing hawk]

Delete the thread? Why?

[hidden jetty]

I don’t quite understand your disdain for quiet flanking via airhead etc.

Whether to achieve fire superiority or ambush the enemy, flanking manoeuvres were integral to warfare through history. Particularly as WW2 started to reach reliable levels of mechanisation. Taking advantage of weak spots in defensive lines. We shouldn’t cripple that with garry spam.

I also love the fight and pushing through to defeat the enemy. Superior combat effectiveness. But this game is also supposed to have a tactical element and being able to switch things up either by surprising the enemy or a swift change of attacking direction is all part of that.

It sounds like a lot of game changes are required to make unlimited garrisons even palatable, let alone preferred, and the limit really isn’t that much of a problem to start with.

[frozen glacier]

Because it's balderdash.

[south flax]

Hahaha what

[solar steppe]

Sorry, forgot to mention that teams should also start will a bunch if garrisons already built. If the devs felt the need to build a load of barbed wire for us, they might as well also build our garrisons.

[supple skiff]

Is this a joke about offensive mode?

[small shell]

If you create a wall of defensive garries and are just able to magically transport all attacking squads behind all of the garries, then how is that strategic? There’s a fundamental difference in ambushing where a squad actually travels to the place to commit an ambush and just spawning there avoiding on contact.

Considering that both sides can do this, what even is a “defensive line” anyway and why try to make breakthroughs and use smart combat tactics if it can be avoided altogether? There is no skill or thoughtful movement for attackers in the commander placing an airhead and spawning there to get to that place; and it creates a chore for the poor fellow who sees it midair and has to go run to destroy it

And this isn’t even anything indicative of garrison limits

@frozen glacier don’t be myopic

[jagged aspen]

I suppose it stems from looking at military maps where such flanks were done on company level, and that the game portrays and simulates battles fought between divisions for the most part. Sure, there are historical examples of smaller units doing heroic acts, and I guess that every game in HLL is just a repeated instance of squad-scale tactics, but any meta about stealth just doesnt sit well with me in a WW2 game. Spawns and their warning beacons kind of simulate supporting units too. But it's not like I'm totally for unlimited garrisons, I think 10-12 would be fine. I've always thought of other, radical ways to handle the win/lose conditions and how the sectors work. My favorite alternative would be taking the frontline mechanic from the Wargame series and have teamspawns be very easy to build, even automatic by the system itself. For the same reason that I dislike Foxhole: why design a game in such a way that it forces some players into menial, even humiliating work?

[dusty quarry]

What? No bad idea sorry

[lime night]

[blazing hawk]

I have no idea how foxhole succeeded as a game, and i am baffled that people actually spend time doing said menial tasks, like farming ore piles for 12h+ a day. I don’t understand it at all

[white badger]

at what point wouldnt we just simply play bf5 as a better option? theres a reason that people play the game. Its already positioned well in between bf5 and a milsim, why push it further toward bf5 by removing those distinctions? (also an inf squad can make a garry very quickly if they have the squad cohesion that the game intends)

[paper kiln]

Ngl guys this is probably the worst take y’all have had in a while. You do realize that games require balance. Just because every once in awhile you run into the problem where you’ve hit 8 garrisons doesn’t mean you have to remove the limit all together. Like jeez does anyone in here think at all. The limit is there to keep from Garry spam and control the game. You have to us StRaTeGy GuYs. That’s like the whole point of the game. This isn’t Battlefield guys. If the entire team can spawn anywhere on the map it sort of defeats the purpose of OPs airheads Halftracks and transports. Literally breaks the game. Remove the garrison limit let’s just give everyone unlimited ammo while we’re at it cuz don’t you guys just hate when you run out of ammo? Ammo counts are stupid we should remove the limits on ammo guys. You see how stupid this sounds?

[violet aspen]

I feel like 8 garrison limit is just fine for the game, its pretty rare to see a match where the team actually reaches such limit, and when it does its because its all well organized, 3 front garrisons, 3 backup garrisons, 1 inside the point, or 2 attack garrisons, though I would lower or remove the commander ability cooldown, since its pretty annoying to have such, but honestly I like having to remove old garrisons, makes recon job ( when its not artillery ) a bit more fair, makes backup garrisons much more valuable and requires that extra attention to locked points garrisons, since there might be none then someone will have to go and build, otherwise game over

[small shell]

You obvy haven’t read the whole thread. The change would incorporate the removal of red garries and “radar.” And it’s a fallacy to think that unlimited blue garries would invalidate other spawn mechanics. If anything, unlimited blue garries would solidify map control, something indicative of WWII.

And is it so bad to spawn anywhere that your team controls?

Your ammo analogy is incredibly misguided.

Those opposing it brought up the perception that it would cause more stalemates which is a fair assessment but one that I ultimately reject. And so it boils down to perception as to whether it would be a good thing.

Is it for balance? No, because its equal across both teams.
Is it strategic? No, anyone with a brain the size of squirrel can see that the team and is at or nearing the limit and decide which garry is the least useful in the moment.

The current limit “works” but i have the perception it could be better based off above arguments.

[wintry copper]

Welp that’s the dumbest thing I’ve read today

[frank canopy]

You started this thread by stating:

"Remove Garrison Max Limit. There is no reason to have a limit. It punishes teams for building them."

Multiple arguments were put forward as to why this is a bad idea.

Now you claim:

"The change would incorporate the removal of red garries & "radar.""

You can keep moving the goalposts when trying to justify your reasoning or accept that perhaps it's just a bad idea.

The number of garrisons, their supply cost, spacing & red zone mechanics have evolved over time, based on careful analysis & community feedback.

Not everyone has agreed with these changes and perhaps they need some further tweaking but they have created the game we have today.

However, you are seeking to fundamentally change the entire game and the way it's played from something that you concur "works". You are effectively throwing the baby out with the bathwater in an attempt to create mechanics which you "have the perception ... could be better" but are completely untested.

Perhaps you just need to accept the status quo & suggest small improvements or seek out another game which more closely fits your desired style of play.

[paper kiln]

The current system is based in logic and this argument for no limits on garrisons is not, thats the point.

And my point with the ammo thing is to prove this point. That there’s a reason there’s limits on things. Just like there’s a vehicle limit. Believe me I know it would be cool to have an entire wave of Sherman’s crest the hill. But is it feasible gameplay wise? No. Is it feasible for your team to be able to place an unlimited amount of spawn points anywhere? No

Now I will agree that maybe the devs should test increasing the cap to 10 garrisons. But then again I think the current amount is fine. Because of this it forces your team/commander to be a lot more strategic with how they place their spawns. Kinda how the game is supposed to be played, strategic and fast paced you get me? This is exactly the sort of suggestions that ruin the game and get the devs to do stupid stuff like oh idk add a heavy tank without a hill machine gun.

Also ur point about stalemates can’t be proven at all. If anything the opposite has been proven. The more spawns both sides have the more impossible it becomes to try and outflank them or attack from another direction.

[blazing hawk]

The current system is based in logic, and this argument for limits on garrisons is not
“My argument is logical and yours isn’t.”, on it’s own isn’t an argument, you actually have to present your reasoning for why his claims are illogical or else this is no better than name-calling, which is the lowest form of discussion.
There’s a reason there are limits
And what might that be? What is the reason for Garrison limits? Because i’ve yet to hear a convincing argument so far.
It forces your team/commander to be a lot more strategic
What does this even mean? All you people do is throw around meaningless buzzwords like “This makes the game less tactical!” or “There is less strategy now!” in lieu of actual constructive reasoning. It’s nonsense, and if you want people to take you seriously, then stop being cognitively dissonant.

[maiden wedge]

one counter arguement is the spam could get really annoying if one team can hide garrisons everywhere with no limit making them choose where they want them

[full seal]

Ban these trolls

[frank canopy]

"in lieu of actual constructive reasoning. It’s nonsense, and if you want people to take you seriously, then stop being cognitively dissonant."

Pot, kettle, black! Nothing you wrote (here or in several other posts) adds to the debate other than to attack the person to whom you're responding.

"Why does everyone in this thread think that no garry limit will somehow exacerbate steamrolls? It will have the exact opposite effect, because the losing team will have a new defence line of ready garrisons to defend from. Attacking gameplay doesn’t change at all.

In Warfare, both teams are simultaneously attacking & defending. Accordingly, the team which captures a Sector will be able to establish yet another line of defence, which will make a comeback even more difficult.

"Why does having garrison limits improve gameplay, and what would be the negative consequences of removing them?"

See above. If an attacking team flanks, the defending team would be able to immediately relocate a Squad of defenders behind the flankers and destroy their Red Zone Garrison & / or Outpost.

The above problems would only be amplified if Red Zone Garrisons were removed from the game. Battles would evolve into almost purely head-on attacks. Some may argue that this would be a good thing but others would disagree.

"How does having a garry limit improve gameplay . . . I ask because I’m legitimately curious as to how you think this change will specifically damage gameplay"

See above. Some people say Garrisons win games. I have a slightly different view . . . lack of Garrisons loses games.

Having a Garrison limit, choosing where to situate them, needing to defend them and replacing those destroyed necessitates action & choice.

Identifying from where the enemy is reinforcing and neutralising that possibility is a large part of the game. It's rewarding to co-ordinate simultaneous destruction of multiple defensive Garrisons before squeezing the enemy on their Strongpoint.

[lime night]

👍

[frozen glacier]

For a guy that complains about normal words being buzzwords you do sure use real buzzwords a lot, this idea had been proven as a bad idea by multiple people but common sense is a thing of the past I guess. This is honestly flawed in every way and completely changes the game if you cant see that then I think there's a possible issue with either accepting the idea is bad or with genuinely wanting to turn this game into another boring meat grinder with no emphasis on attempting to survive.

[small shell]

You still haven’t disproven my claims. And, saying the current spawn system is based in logic is an incredibly tenuous argument. BM changed the way spawns worked in just about every update until “giving up” in 1.0 release.

@frank canopy the argument about more frontline action is and it being positive is what is being discussed as to whether it is a good or bad thing. Choosing, where to place garries and needing to defend them takes action and choice. Destroying them because of an artificial cap is more busy work than anything else.

Imo more headon engagements are a good thing and I wouldn’t fault defenders for being so prepared and responsive in their defense should their be a line of garries.

@paper kiln @frozen glacier to both your points about it being proven. Nothing has been proven. Like i said, if you have read my prior post, both arguments are based off hypotheticals and perceptions. You both are just so quick to dismiss it that you assume it’s going to be bad. Calling things “balderdash” and using terrible analogies doesn’t accurately refute my points. Just because you think it may be bad, doesn’t mean it automatically is; thats true for life in general.

You are welcome to disagree as much as you want.

@pale tapir your perception is taken note of

[tardy cipher]

I like the 8 garrison limit. It forces you to be more careful with the garrison you place and ads a level "resource" management.
I’d rather have them ad an outpost for the commander.

[pale tapir]

The fact that this thread actually exists makes me lament the fact they merged the console suggestions with PC, I can deal with "Server browser when" but eliminating garrison caps will turn this game into the most static boring game ever

[rancid widget]

Maxed out SL and almost maxed out commander, there are very few times where I've hit 8/8 Garry's and was like like damn I need more. If I wanted that I would bring in a halftrack to increase spawn density if you are playing right with a team that works together to reestablish after you lose a sector like in a "team based" game everything works out.

What I might suggest is that when I'm against a team that is experienced they find your Garry's super fast in a essence feeling like Garry placement has kinda been "solved" for lack of a better word and I've heard the suggestion that maybe dropping the distance between to 150M would break up the meta enough without changing the core to much because as it sits the way it plays now is great.

[frozen glacier]

I was definitely correct about my statement of common sense being in the past and my statement about wanting to destroy the game I request that this thread is dropped its obvious that only like 2 people that have looked at this agree. we are just saying the same arguement over and over again. Infinite spawns lessens strategy its just that obvious. @small shell let me put it Like this if they removed garrisons all together you would be more entitled to play realistically and not die and run or drive from hq it would be like this only backwards.

[small shell]

Well you are a very close-minded individual. just because other people have different viewpoints than you doesn't mean they lack common sense. Common sense is only common sense is communities of people who think similarly

[paper kiln]

If you read the whole thing I present arguments of why it’s illogical to not have a limit. And calling my argument dumb of breaking down jts construction literally contributes nothing, I’m over here actually saying what I think about the topic while your over just nit picking the logical fallacies of peoples opinions😂like why are you even replying to me 💀😂

[frank canopy]

"the argument about more frontline action is and it being positive is what is being discussed as to whether it is a good or bad thing."

No, it is not. That may be what you intended but is not what you initially wrote. Just look at your Thread title and first post.

"Imo more headon engagements are a good thing"

If you'd titled your Thread more like that and added that the way to achieve it would be via the removal of the Garrison limit, you would have received a very different debate.

The current game is completely different and consequently has more depth than just head on engagements.

Perhaps you'll prefer the new Objective game mode which will come in Update 15. It will be a shorter, 30-40 minute, game based on an assault of Brecourt Battery (i.e. a small part of existing map) and was inspired by D Winters (101st Airborne) made famous in Band of Brothers. It will have no Armour & limited Commander abilities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJqh61nfuTs&t=283s

Alternatively, you may prefer an entirely different game.

By your own admission, the current game "works". It doesn't need fixing by the removal of the Garrison limit.

NB Perhaps also take a read of Developer Briefing #107 in respect of the issues of removing Red Zone Garrisons.