Partisans active in All Large Occupied Allied Countries

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Good thread and interesting points.

Regarding the bond between Germany and Japan, I don't think any of that was Hitler's idea. There's a lot of space devoted to it in Mein Kampf but I think it was all written by Rudolf Hess and his geopolitics mentor Professor Houshouffer -- mispelled, I'm sure, I can never get the name straight, they were father and son academicians who figured prominently in what passed for Nazi Political thinking. Anyway, in Mein Kampf there are passages that go on about how Japan solved it's Jewish problem and they were a noble warrior race, the eastern branch of the Arryan people, etc. and etc.. It never takes into account that there was never any Jewish migration to Japan in the first place and, oddly, Jewish refugees living in occupied China were very well liked by the Japanese!

All part and parcel of that whacky time we call the Twentieth Century!

I hope at some point someone opens a thread on Nazi Geopolitics. It would be very interesting as it encompassed the world view as seen by Hitler's cronnies. Liam --?

[disorder]

LIAM SAID---I would say that if Russia invaded Sweden and Iraq in WW2 that the UK wouldn't of sat back and watched it. She would've maybe lived with it. You tend to forget that invading nations doesn't go along at all with the Ally philosphy. It doesn't fit correctly unless there was the presence of Axis elements! It's Ahistorical!

dont know if this was directed specifically at me, but thought i would comment on it.

historical or "ahistorical" should go out the door once the game starts, ergo the random settings (based on what they MAY have done)

for example the u.s. declaring war on germany prior to end of 1941.should they have done it?would they really have done it? in SC they can do it, and therefore they feel that they MUST do it.it is of vital importance for them.

as it was of vital importance for the us to violate the laws of it's own land to gather japanese-americans into camps. as it was for the us to bomb non-military targets, use the atomic bomb, etc. etc.

whatever piece of neutral territory, if it was felt to be of VITAL necessity to have it, they should take it. amen and amen

iceland comes to mind first. they didn't want the us there. definite anti-us and pro-german feelings.and if iceland had had the wherewithal to defend itself, it may have, who knows. but when the big kid on the block says it is of vast importance to take your land, what are you supposed to do?

if as the leader of the allies in the sc game, i suddenly find myself in need of a certain neutral country to stage for invasion, then it must be done. it is for the good of the "whole". (i assume that i have already gone through long prolonged talks with the ignorant neutral country anyway, and they have refused me use of their landing strips and staging areas)

how far would england have gone to save the homeland? could they have justified a neutral attack? as our northern neighbors who use the term "bush is a BASTARD" say;

"youbetcha!".... in a heartbeat.

we can't say that because it didn't happen, it wouldn't have. to what extremes are you willing to go to win a war? with the allies not able to attack neutrals, you can find yourself hamstrung, as in vietnam. you can do THIS, but you can't do THIS.now play nice by the queensbury rules of war and we won't have any problems.

as for the original quote by liam of ussr swallowing up neutrals and offending the uk, a simple fix for sc2 would allow combat after the fall of germany, and the us and former nazis led by patton could make a trek into the wastelands of russia. problem solved.

[Edwin P.]

Here's a simple way to handle partisans that would reflect the likelihood of partisans for countries as diverse as Denmark and Russia.

Partisan Tech = + 5%/level to base chance of partisans appearing.

Proposed base percentage chances for partisan activity are listed below:

Yugoslavia – Base 15% / 75% (winter)

Spain – Base 5% / 25%

Turkey – Base 5% / 25%

Russia – Base 15% / 75%

Norway – Base 0% / 0% (No Partisan activity without Partisan Tech level 1+)

Greece – Base 0% / 0% (No Partisan activity without Partisan Tech level 1+)

France - Base -5% / -5% (No partisan activity without Partisan Tech level 2+)

Denmark - Base -15% / -15% (No partisans until without Partisan Tech Level 4+)

Iraq - Base -15% / -15%

Low Countries - Base -20% / -20% (No Partisans until Partisan Tech Level 5)

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

A fine way of handling the problem.

An alternative method might be to affect the readiness or movement or supply of Axis units pitcked at random within the occupied nation.

I think either approach would work, or perhaps a combination of the two; your method for countries like Yugoslavia, Spain, Russia and Swededn -- places which either had partisan army-type units during the war or probably would have had them if occupied, and invisible partisans for Western countries where they would more likely have been organized in small underground cells.

[KDG]

I'd also like to see the Winter turns increased from the existing 3-4 turns to a winter of 6-7 turns(this works with all turns being 2 weeks). Thus partisons would be in play more often in winter, adding to the winter effect.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

By itself, that change would mean Fall/Winter are no different.

[KDG]

I'm not sure what you mean. Currently Winter is a 1 month turn resulting in 3 Winter turns(Summer is 1 week turn which is the balance for this).

Switching to two week turns would give us 6.5 winter turns a year, thus we would have twice as many Winter turns, thus a greater chance for partisons during the winter(Yugo and Russia at 75% chance partisons in winter).

Remember that Partisons mess with supply, which affects the battle odds and movement. Thus more partisons in more countries, with a greater chance of occurance in more turns in winter means more of a winter effect, which is what everyone wants.

[santabear]

Historically, Russian partisans only became relevant in 1943. The Soviet government encouraged partisan armies from the beginning, but had no resources to aid them with until after Stalingrad. Russian partisans were also a regional phenominon. Some areas were really "off-limits" to the Germans, while others never had any partisan movements.

I would suggest that SC partisans could be improved by giving an increasing chance of their appearing as the game goes on and by varying the locations in which they appear from game to game (to make "garrisoning" of swamps ineffective).

In Russia, it's 2 corps for the Pripet marshes plus 1 corps or Balkan army to do "weed duty" and occupy whatever swamp is colored grey. The effect is to reduce the appearance of partisans to 0%.

In Yugoslavia, it's two corps in the mountains and keep the cities garrisoned (Belgrade, Bulgarian city and Albanian city). Tito never shows up.

If Italy gets IT lvl 2, the corps cost 100 each--for less than 1K MPP the partisan problem is solved for the game.

This isn't right. If there are partisans in the game, they should show up SOMEWHERE.

And Jersey: About Warsaw. There is some thought that the Russians actually couldn't advance on Warsaw because of supply problems, and that the Poles were the vicitms of very bad timing. I agree, though, that this was coincidentally so convenient for the Russians that it's suspicious.

[JerseyJohn]

SantaBear

Yes, I agree entirely that they may have been at the end of their supply line and badly in need of provisions. The fault, really, was with the Poles. They saw the Soviets approaching and, as you put it so well, it became a case of bad timing. It's hard to blame the Soviets for not making an attack they never said they'd make in the first place!

I've come to take the view you've stated; the Russians were halted awaiting provisions and couldn't possibly mount an offensive.

From Stalin's view it was a pleasant coincidence.

Not that any of that mattered very much. One can rest assured Stalin and Beria would have set up the government they wanted regardless of what the locals or Churchill desired. For the poor wretches who sought better things the only question was whether their bullet would be fired by an SS man, or a commissar.

[ June 03, 2003, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Santabear

I second your idea of Partisans appearing in hexes other than swamps.

In my opinion, they would be most likely to show up in cities( , mountains, forests and swamps.

[ June 03, 2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

santabear and Edwin

Yes, partisans might appear anywhere they aren't physically prevented from doing so by an occupying presence. If a city is left poorly garrisoned it might happen there as well as in the Warsaw Uprising (and the earlier Warsaw Ghetto uprising), both crushed by the SS, but after considerable inconvenience and loss to the occupiers.

[ June 03, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wachtmeister]

Some details on the formation and operations of USSR partisans: Partisan Ops

[Hueristic]

I think u missed one big one. CANADA and USA if some gamey ******* sneaks a unit across the Atlantic Partisons should be popping up every turn.