City Anti-Partisan Garrisons

[TaoJah]

IMHO all this doesn't take one factor into account.

It's not a favorite subject to talk about, of course, but there were ALOT of people from occupied countries that joined the Germans army.

This was ofcourse before the truth about the concentration camps came out, but during big parts of the war, most troops that garrisoned a country came from Nazi-symphatist from that country.

To give the most controversial example : the King of Belgium Leopold III himself was known to be a nazi-symphatist. He didn't flee his country and lived in his Palace throughout the entire occupation. He even married under German occupation with his mistress. Needless to say that he was thrown of his throne after the war.

All this to say that there were alot of people who fought alongside the nazis in the occupying countries. Some by choice, some forced.

To reflect this, I think the soft limits of building corpses should be lowered : for every country that you occupy, you should be able to build one, two or three extra corpses.

[Lars]

Think I made the corpses when I invaded the place.

[jon_j_rambo]

@ToJo --- Yep, I've been preaching that for years. Europe was a bunch of Nazis. Germany was overrated, they had friends everywhere! No surprise Europe's position regarding Israel today, nothing has changed. They aren't sorry, just sorry they lost.

Buntas: Austria, Czechs, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, 1/2 Yugo, 3/4 France, 3/4 Netherlands, 100% Denmark, 75% Sweden, 90% Swiss, 75% Italy, 25% Russia, etc...

[ May 04, 2006, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Panzerkeil]

Rambo, I must ask from ignorance: What is/are Buntas?

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

[...]

All this to say that there were alot of people who fought alongside the nazis in the occupying countries. Some by choice, some forced.

To reflect this, I think the soft limits of building corpses should be lowered : for every country that you occupy, you should be able to build one, two or three extra corps.

Exactly.

-- Another method is to adapt the Clash of Steel system, in which there's an option called Liberation Recruiting or something along those lines. Cities such as Paris and the Soviet/Baltic cities automatically build a corps. It's just like a regular corps, except it appears in or adjacent to it's city of origin. There's no cost and, I think in this game system, as a low tech unit, it would be ideal for fighting the local partisans, freeing the upgraded corps for the actual battles.

=== The idea that came about through posts by Lars (who put it into viable form) and myself, is to have each occupied city build a garrison. This would represent the recruitment of locals. The garrison would be a city upgrade and would control the surrounding area -- it's extent of influence depending upon it's strength.

Because it isn't a unit it wouldn't prevent a corps or army from moving into the city to defend it from attack by regular enemy forces.

Using this system, each city would have a garrison function and every conquered territory would have a partisan factor countered building garrisons in it's major city or cities.

Some territories would be more prone to partisans than others, but all would be countered by central garrisons.

I think that's a realistic reflection of occupation forces.

[Panzerkeil]

I'm glad I'm not the only one here making references to Clash of Steel. There are more than a few parallels between these two games. That was one thing that CoS got right. It helped, but it was not a complete solution, of course. There wasn't a unit for every city, so you still needed to keep some corps sized units to secure your lines. I usually used minors for that.

[JerseyJohn]

Same here. I like the COS method for various reasons, especially as the garrisons only need to be placed in cities and not all over the landscape -- "Fewer parts mean fewer breakdowns" or the old "Keep it Simple" cliche.

[Panzerkeil]

I think the CoS rules for amphibious assaults would also bring the game back to reality.

[JerseyJohn]

Yes. Another part of CoS I liked.

There were a lot of threads in the original SC Forum (during 2002-03-04) on CoS and HiCom ideas being incorporated into SC. Myself and several others always favored the Sea Zone and CoS Amphibious method, but we never pushed it through. I think, fundamentally, it's incompatable with Hubert's game systems.

BTW, he is himself a big fan of both CoS and HiCom.

[willgamer]

Here's another approach, kinda a modified Lars...

Add a Partisan Suppression Effort parameter specified a percent. The game calculates the MPP cost based on this percent and the number of occupied cities. One hundred percent represents the best bang for the buck producing the fewest partisan at the lowest cost. The permitted values would range from 0-1000%. The game would automatically subtract the resulting MPPs each turn.

At least 3 advantages: no new units; expensive to totally supress, partisan appearance uncertain.

[JerseyJohn]

I'd go for that. Would also go for a hybrid system where corps or armies near a conquered city would also be added into the mix for the game turn they're located there.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@ToJo --- Yep, I've been preaching that for years. Europe was a bunch of Nazis. Germany was overrated, they had friends everywhere! No surprise Europe's position regarding Israel today, nothing has changed. They aren't sorry, just sorry they lost.

That was sooooo not what I said. If you knew the history of my own family, you'd be very ashamed to put those words in my mouth. The Germans had their supporters, but saying that Europe was anti-Jewish is simply not true.

And with regard to Israel : most Europeans were in favor of a Jewish state. And they still are.

But when that state starts to invade it's neighbours (and till today occupies those territories) people in Eruope get a liiiiiittle bit uncomfortable.

The US has never been occupied, so Americans tend to look at occupations a bit differently, but in Europe (the never-occupied UK as exception), in Europe we know a thing or two about occupations.

First thing we know : they suck.

Second thing : they suck.

So when a country invades other countries and keeps it territory occupied, we know what that means for the people involved...

That has nothing to do with anti-Jewish.

When the USSR occupied eastern Europe, we were against.

When Iraq occupied Kuwait, we were against.

When the US occupies Iraq, we are against.

And yes, when Israel occupies Palestine, we are against that too.

Saying that being against Israel occuping other countries proves that "we're sorry we lost the second world war" is TOTALLY out of line.

[JerseyJohn]

TaoJah

Yup, gotta agree, I've been saying almost the same things about Israel since the 60s.

I feel all religious states are a mistake but Israel more than most because

(1) It's based on a situation that didn't and doesn't exist, except as passed down through scriputres, which I don't feel justifies the displacement of one group of people from their homes to make way for a different group.

(2) The area is the seat of several major religions. No single one of them has the right to rule the area in it's own name. Historically we went through all of that at those same cities, with the Crusades. We know it doesn't work.

(3) I think it would have been good if the first act of the United Nations would have been to set up a viable mandate in Palastine, not a religious state, but a place under UN protection where Jews, Moslems and Christians could live peacefully together.

Glad you wrote that post, it explains a lot of interesting points.

[Ranchero]

TaoJoh,

I have to take exception to your equating the liberation of Iraq by the US (and 26 coalition Nations) in with the occupation of eastern Europe by the USSR, or with any other oppressive, dictatorial regime. “Occupation”, as I understand the way we are using the term in this discussion, would imply plundering, stealing and abuse by one force over the populace of the country it occupies. That is definitely NOT what is happening in Iraq. We, as in the coalition nations, are building up that country for self rule and governance. But like any fledgling free society it, will have its challenges to overcome, and will evolve to triumph over them.

Having spent a year on the ground there, 99% of the people want the freedom, not Saddam, and I served in the Al Anbar provence! It’s the 1%; Baathists, malcontents who lost power, foreign fighters, etc. who perpetuate the evil there, and as a consequence the headlines. I don’t think you want to imply that you prefer murderous dictators in power to liberation of a nation.

Thanks

R

[Blashy]

1) The US is occupying, since they are building PERMANENT military bases all over Iraq.

2) Yes they prefer freedom to Saddam, nobody ever disputes that. What they have right now is not that.

3) When you have a permanent military force from another country that is more powerfull than your own that is not self rule. The interests of USA are primary to the interest of Iraq.

USA might be there with a coalition, but those countries people in big majorities do not agree with this, so their government did not listen to the people (UK being the biggest example), so much for democracy. And even in USA support for this occupation was 50% EVEN if the people NEVER got BOTH sides of the story and now it is even bellow 50% and the people STILL do not have both sides of the story (thanks to media that is no longer interested in journalism but profits).

So basically probably 98% of the planet thinks this was wrong on how it was done. It was not done to liberate Iraq that word started to come out AFTER everything went to ****. It was being done to remove WMDs, funny how they are using WMDs now themselves, pretty hipocritical, but again anyone who listens to everyday news does not know that.

[JerseyJohn]

Ranchero, TaoJah, Blashy -- Why waste a terrific political discussion where it's totally out of place?

I'd like to get into it myself but won't while it's at this site because the whole thread will end up either being locked or moved to the Gerneral Forum, where I no longer post.

So, why not take it to SCBuntaland?

< SCBuntaland - noncommercial website >

Admined by Kuniworth and myself we feel there's no such thing as off topic and rarely lock a thread. Blashy is already a member but registration is easy and is still free!

[Ranchero]

Another way of stating what I was trying to point out, keeping it within the scope of this excellent game, is that you cannot make a blanket statement that all “occupations” are the same. Can you really say that an occupation by the western allies would result in the same reaction/results as an occupation by the axis powers? This should be considered when scripting results from occupations by different powers. I won’t address the other points Blashy made per your request. I am familiar with your SCBuntland site, I read it on occasion and the group has some lively conversations there, I may take you up on your offer and reigister. Been reading this forum since SC1. I have been war gamer since high school in the mid 70s. Back when I had the energy to stay up all night playing a game with my buddies and still go to school! Looking forward to trying an online game now that the kids are little older and I am between deployments.

Thanks

Ranchero