Do people still construct garrison buildings in WH3 when it does not give walls any longer?

[Lampros]

Another provincial planning question: I have been reflexively just constructing these out of habit, but I am not sure whether they are doing anything. The AI seems to mostly walk over them without walls now?

[Enelith]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Rianne:

I always build garrison on frontlines. Only deep in my own territory will I not build them / replace them. And I do mean deep, like 6 turns movement deep.

No matter what people say, if you get a garrison battle you can win against a far more numerous enemy with the towers and the defensive center.

Even if you do not win, you'll inflict way more damage and most likely cripple a army from steamrolling town after town.

Same.

[Jukelo]

I use them, lack of walls is far from a deal breaker. The larger garrison size makes a big difference and a

Ursprungligen skrivet av ChaosKhan:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Rianne:

I always build garrison on frontlines. Only deep in my own territory will I not build them / replace them. And I do mean deep, like 6 turns movement deep.

No matter what people say, if you get a garrison battle you can win against a far more numerous enemy with the towers and the defensive center.

Even if you do not win, you'll inflict way more damage and most likely cripple a army from steamrolling town after town.

The issue with such an approach is tons of wasted opportunity cost. For the money you are usually wasting for not building economy buildings there, you could simply hire and sustain a whole stack or two for def instead and then disband them once they are not needed anymore.

Most minor settlements have one economy building. Plus if you're taken by surprise you're not recruiting a full stack for defense, you're recruiting what's in your ROR buffer.

[ChaosKhan]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Jukelo:

I use them, lack of walls is far from a deal breaker. The larger garrison size makes a big difference and a

Ursprungligen skrivet av ChaosKhan:

The issue with such an approach is tons of wasted opportunity cost. For the money you are usually wasting for not building economy buildings there, you could simply hire and sustain a whole stack or two for def instead and then disband them once they are not needed anymore.

Most minor settlements have one economy building. Plus if you're taken by surprise you're not recruiting a full stack for defense, you're recruiting what's in your ROR buffer.

Your first sentence is questionable at best. A lot of factions, for example Dark Elves and High Elves, have at least 2, or even 3, just for income. Even those that don't have a second or third income building still all have growth buildings, which is technically also an economy building. Growth has an "expiration date" for sure, but still. Then there are also control buildings, that raise income indirectly. Then there are also special buildings that are quite frequent and harbours. It's close to impossible to ever build garrison buildings without passively or actively bleeding income either immediately, or later in the campaign. That's why most garrison placements WILL without doubt have "upkeep". It's just an upkeep, that you usually don't see immediately.

If I am taken by surprise, I use everything available, which includes multiple lords that I pull together from neighbouring provinces with forced march, global recruitment, normal recruitment, RoRs, freespawns (if the faction allows some) and I also happen to grow a dedicated defender lord that has skills tailored to make the most out of the garrison and choke points. Sometimes I even use a throwaway lvl 1 lord to bait the AI into attacking him instead of the settlements. There are also "softer" means, like blocking stacks with agents.
There are a lot of ways to react to sudden incursions but I agree, that the garrison building and RoRs require the least planning and preparation to execute.

[CrUsHeR]

IIRC - the defensive buildings are actually considered by the AI in their diplomacy.

No defenses? Must be an easy target.



It also depends a lot on the faction you're playing:

Some factions like Greenskins effectively only have 1 building directly generating money.

Skaven have all buildings generate some money.

Tzeentch would always need the corruption building as multiplicator in every settlement, meaning you're pretty much locked to growth + money + corruption until the province is maxed out with population.

[irspence]

What I think could be a good addition to the game is when you want to update your armies instead of disbanding units you got the option to send them to a garrison instead. It could either be to a random garrison or perhaps you can choose where you send them.

[Falaris]

I'm partial to using a mod increasing garrison size a bit; it's worth also considering the difference a lvl 2 and 3 garrison building makes (T2 is useless).

With that said - yes, I put garrisons on borders regardless of using mods or not. They won't stop a determined army, but it makes you less of a target and makes it a bit costlier, so they must wait a turn or two before attacking the next settlement.

(Won't help that much against high replenishmnent armies though)

[pascal.difolco]

Nah
They cost too much, take too long to build, and most of the time only add some low tier trash units

[DasaKamov]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Lenfer:

should give an update to be able to put canon on wall , Siege are the weakest part of this game.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2854736437&searchtext=weapons+walls

[AkumulatoR]

They are mostly worthless, except for Nurgle which adds to hero count. So yes for Nurgle, no for everyone else.

[AmesNFire]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Enelith:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Rianne:

I always build garrison on frontlines. Only deep in my own territory will I not build them / replace them. And I do mean deep, like 6 turns movement deep.

No matter what people say, if you get a garrison battle you can win against a far more numerous enemy with the towers and the defensive center.

Even if you do not win, you'll inflict way more damage and most likely cripple a army from steamrolling town after town.

Same.

Vanilla or Modded, this logic holds up tbh.
I think the people who complain about AI 'beelining' for their "weak" cities don't bother to build garrisons either and just reply on constantly raiding enemy territory; they never wonder why a small AI army would choose to raid a rich but defenceless level 2 settlement with maybe 7 or 8 units of meh quality vs the level 5 capital with a full elite stack garrison by default.

[Good Night Owl]

Are we talking about those buildings that provide units? The ones in the... I guess yellow tree?

I usually build those to add units to my garrison when I'm constantly at war, and losing settlements early in the game. Often times when my home territories are under constant threat, and I need a defensive fort to separate it.

In short, yeah I build them, typically if it's neighboring a strong enemy.

[Jebe]

Build them where you don’t want to be attacked (valuable settlements for example) the ai will attack the easy targets first, means the ones without extra garrison

[FizzMan]

It just depends on your general position on the map and whether or not you believe others are going to attack you.

For most factions it's better early game to go all in on economy and some military buildings, why care about garrisions when they provide no passive benefit?

Usually in the mid to late game once I've hunkered enough and the end game crises are afoot then I'll go back, deconstruct and plop some down.

[killtastic201]

it really depends, because it's really frustrating when they end up doing nothing but being a dead slot, but other times I end up being able to use them really well.

[Isaac]

The garrison building is a waste of Gold, time and a building slot. Never use it