Partisans in SC 2

[hellraiser]

Will the effect of partisans be the same as in SC 1 ?

I think partisans in SC 1 are way too powerful - a single lousy partisan unit can ruin an entire offensive due to supply disruption , which is too much. They were important but not that important during the war. I think penalties caused by partisan activities should be reduced a bit.

[Edwin P.]

A single lousy partisan can only occur if you fail to garrison your rear. In fact, during Germany's invasion of Russia a sizable number of troops were tied up guarding the newly conquered areas.

I think that SC1's model handles this quite nicely without a lot of complexity and forces players to adequately garrison their rear areas if they want to avoid the effects of partisans.

Naturally, during the course of battle you may be forced to weigh the risks of drawing garrison units into the front lines vs risk of not doing so. A most delicate balancing ask that demonstrates the tradeoffs one must make.

[jon_j_rambo]

true, they weren't that powerful as a "corp", but in reality there more types of resistance across the map.

[JerseyJohn]

I'd suggest it be changed and this would also make it simpler; the Axis needs to place a corps or army in every occupied city. Forget the forest swamp thing, it's confusing and leads to unnecessary problems. With a corps in a city it can be abstracted that the entire surrounding area is under control.

In that there are something like twenty cities in the USSR this is a huge number of occupation troops, about 1,000,000 if the country is on the verge of falling.

As was stated elsewhere, the Axis should need to continue having a garrison in the USSR even after it falls. It's reasonable to assume that ~1,000,000 troops would have been required to keep all of European Russia under control even after defeating the USSR.

But, as I suggested earlier, with the occupation troops being one unit per city.

[Edwin P.]

I like the idea of requiring the Axis to garrison each city in the USSR after it surrenders to prevent the appearance of partisans.

In fact, I could see this as affecting the chance for partisan units. Example: If no cities are garrisoned after the USSR surrenders then the chance for partisan units is 20 (cities) x 5% = 100%, if 13 cities are garrisoned then the chance for partisans = Non-garrisoned cities(20 - 13) x 5% = 35%.

This reflects the fact that partisan activity increases if there are too few occupying troops.

I would also increase the chance for partisans by 10% for each partisan controlled city.

Example: IF Partisans control 2 Russian Cities and Axis garrisons 13 of 20 cities:

Chance for Partisans = Non-Garrisoned Cites((20-13)x5%)+ Liberated Cities (2 x 10%) = 55%.

Naturally, if the chance for partisans is above 100% then there should be a 100% for one partisan unit to appear with an additional percentage chance for a second unit to appear.

[ March 26, 2005, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Glad you like the idea, Edwin.

Also, I think cities should be the only thing that needs to be garrisoned, I'd like to cut out entirely the part about mountains, swamps and forests. If you have a unit in the cities the surrounding countryside is covered, that's all. If you don't, then, as you show, there'll be a a partisan problem behind the lines.

By contrast I think the system works well in Yugoslavia, where it requires three Axis corps to keep things under control (one in Belgrade and two in the mountains) with the one in Bucharest covering the other mountain area. But the same system, in my opinion, is wrong in Russia where it makes things needlessly complicated.

Part of the problem, though, is I'm talking in terms of SC-1 as I don't really know how the USSR will be represented in tiles in SC-2.

[ March 26, 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Retributar]

Interesting discussion...I also like your idea 'John'...it follows the KISS-Principal (Keep It Simple Stupid)...and will not needlessly complicate the game!. Im presently working at a Tar-Sands project (SYNCRUDE)here in Alberta, Canada...and i have a cable station from SHAW-CABLE in the camp similar to the 'History Channel' in the United States,...it's called 'History Television'.

It is here on this 'History Television' station that i watched an episode on 'RUSSIA'S WAR'...and it stated that the Russians had around 1,500,000 partisans operating behind German lines. These Russian Partisans controlled large areas behind the German Lines. They governed towns, grew and harvested crops and continually harassed the Germans. Also that it required at least 300,000 German troops to try keep these Partisans under control. Most of the troops used for this purpose were not first rate front-line combat-soldiers...they were largely made up of men 50 years of age and older.

Comrade STALIN did not trust these Partisans to start with as he thought that they would try to form their own government and country and secede from Russia. But, then will the abismal losses from the front...was forced to concede that he needed them to tie down German troops and interdict their reinforcements and supplies...so, he sent them party-advisers [To make sure that they stayed loyal to STALIN] as well he air-dropped them guns, ammunition and supplies.

The French also had over 300,000 Partisans in France and i don't know how many Partisans were in Yugoslavia...but, they were considerable...as it required another 300,000 German troops to try secure that Partisan problem!. Partisans were also active in Norway and other places...they were and are all part of WW2.

So what im trying to say here is that...YES...Partisans were a major-force to be contended with and any game worth it's SALT should consider including them. They were not some petty minor nuisance!...that could be ignored!.

[JerseyJohn]

Retributar

Glad we have the same idea in mind -- yes, that was the way I was also thinking about it, keeping the idea simple. Also, the way it's set up now the Axis has to keep a lot more than 20 corps in the rear areas in order to watch things, it's got to garrison both, the cities and the rough terrain hexes to be safe, or am I missing something? That comes to several times more than the 300,000 to control 1,500,000 that you cite!

Of course, if the nazis hadn't gone around killing commissars and Jews and local villagers of all ages at random, if they hadn't also confiscated all of their food and left them eat roots, they might not have had a partisan problem at all, they might well have had those 1,500,000 people rallying to fight with them rather than against them. Certainly very few of them were enraptured with Stalinism -- in that the old boy was perfectly correct. But alas, that's an old story, it was the choice of two evils, theirs and one that was imposed, so they chose theirs, literally the lesser of two evils.

Great documentation, I enjoyed all of it.

After making the earlier post I remembered that Clash of Steel required 1 ground unit (airfleets didn't do it) in each conquered city to prevent partisan activity. In that system partisan units didn't appear, but their effects on the front were much more severe than in Strategic Command.

[Bill101]

Jersey John Wrote:

"Also, I think cities should be the only thing that needs to be garrisoned, I'd like to cut out entirely the part about mountains, swamps and forests. If you have a unit in the cities the surrounding countryside is covered, that's all."

John, I disagree as it was the supply lines that were the most vulnerable targets of partisan attacks, and they were generally attacked in the countryside between the towns and cities.

Having partisans appear in the mountains and swamps also adds more to the flavour of the real partisan war, for that is where the large groups of partisans generally did appear. To not have them appear there is unhistorical and will quite simply make them a total irrelevance in the game.

For instance, if the Axis only have to garrison the cities in the USSR, then they will need less troops in their rear areas than they currently do. Any experienced Axis player already knows how to conquer the USSR without any partisans appearing, and making it even easier for the Axis isn't a good idea.

The end result would simply be that partisans would never appear, and the Axis would have even more troops to use in their operations to take Moscow and beyond... and I can't see that we'd gain anything at all from that.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill101:

Having partisans appear in the mountains and swamps also adds more to the flavour of the real partisan war, for that is where the large groups of partisans generally did appear. To not have them appear there is unhistorical and will quite simply make them a total irrelevance in the game.

Several things:

1) You now have "force pool limits," so no longer can the Axis player simply place inexpensive "basic unadorned" Corps in EVERY conceivable locale, as with SC-1.

**Not to mention, cover EVERY coastal tile in northern and western France.

2) Partisans can be selected yes/no for each Country. Also, opt for... upon invasion, after surrender, or both.

[... this would satisfy all who are wanting Russia to have partisans EVEN IF conquered; though, accomplishing that feat isn't QUITE so easy as it used to be ]

So, for instance, you may allow marginally effective "French underground" or not. And when they might up-rise.

3) Partisan appearance can be precisely controlled by "scripting." :cool:

IOW, limited to those historical areas where they, in fact, conducted major harrassment activities... such as specific mountains in the case of Yugoslavia or Greece or Spain or Norway, or a few select cities as with France (... not so many places to hide in the map of that country)

Example: it may not be advisable to leave Bordeaux without a garrison until later in the game. May be. May not be, depending on script and "trigger percentages."

Default game will take all of the above into account, and keep the whole "partisan issue" in balance with EVERYTHING else.

What YOU decide to do with the Editor and pre-game choices, is another matter.

However it works out, it's gonna be MUCH more interesting and challenging than previously.

Alternately, IF you don't want to be bothered with any of that partisan aspect of the game, and want to concentrate on more basic S&T, well, you can do that too.

[ March 28, 2005, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[JerseyJohn]

Dave,

Thanks for clarifying those points, it brings a whole new aspect to how the game will be handling these things.

-- I'd also recommend, in order to make the national force pool limits more versatile -- allowing the recruitment of auxilleries into the Axis. In Russia, for example, there were many non-Soviet Russians fighting for the Axis, especially after their bloodbaths outside of Moscow and after Stalingrad. They opened the floodgates after Kursk, accepting almost anyone at all who wanted to be with them, but by then it was too late. If they'd had that policy from the start their war in Russia might have been vastly different.

Many of those units, historically, were used behind the lines to fight against partisans. Germany followed a similar policy in Yugoslavia and Greece, where most of the hostility was toward the Italians.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill101

What I'm saying is this, if the Axis has a corps in each city, it means the troops might be anywhere in the surrounding vicinity, say a contingent of 5-10,000 of the 50,000 being five hexes away in the Pripyet Marshes from Kiev.

Placing one corps or army in each city is an abstraction, nothing more.

As Germany committed 300,000 men to anti partisan duty in Russia, their ersatz units, it can be seen that after occupying only six Soviet cities with corps, that figure would already be equalled as each corps = 50,000 troops.

I think this would cover things with great accuracy and leave the players free to fight the battles instead of needing to assign entire corps to do tasks in rear areas that historically were done by security brigades and divisions, which strictly speaking isn't even a kind of unit represented in SC-1!

[Edwin P.]

I believe that in SC2, minor allied nations will have their own force pool limits and troops may be recruited from these nations. Although, as I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), major nation research advancements will not apply to units from minor nations.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin, that's a good idea, but what I was thinking was, for example, a given part of the USSR being ID'd as Ukraine, another part as Belorussia etc and the Axis being able to recruit low tech auxillery corps from each of them, not counted against their own manpower base (they'd be recruited from outside of it after all) to be used primarily for rear area protection against partisans.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn, I understand. The problem as I see it is that the number of minor countries in the game is limited. If HC were to increase this you could have the Ukraine be a Minor Axis ally when liberated from Soviet control. They could then contribute a limited number of troops to the Axis cause.

Ideally, I would like to see functionality for 4 more minor nations and 2 more major nations added, even if they are not used in the default version of SC2.

Why 2 more major nations?

1. For a WWI Mod (adding the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Turkey).

2. For a WWII Mod adding Turkey as a Neutral Major Power that is non-cooporative with most other major powers if activated - ie Russian, French, British and Italian forces can't enter Turkish territory due to historical reasons dating from WWI. German and American forces can.

[ March 28, 2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Ed, that would be similar but not the same because the Ukraine wouldn't be subject to producing partisans if it were an independent minor nation.

Interestingly, the Germans did this in WWI and it was a great help in their winning on the Eastern Front. Also, the Kaiser's troops didn't have the handicap of SS goons running around burning villages behind the lines, creating enemies in the rear areas.

I'd like to see a system where we'd be able to choose either of those options. Hitler's government would never have been sensible enough to create protectorate states, but in making scenarios I'd like to have the freedom of doing that sort of thing.

[Edwin P.]

I hadn't thought of the Ukraine not producting pro-soviet partisans if they were an independent minor nation.

In fact, I really like your idea of the Axis player being able to choose to have the Urkaine be an independent nation.

The key would be to assign costs and benefits so there would be a reason not to follow this path. Perhaps, no production from an independent Ukraine (I assume that all production would go towards maintaining good relations with the local populace) but you can purchase Ukrainian units and thus increase the size of your force pool.

The popup to create an independent Ukrainian state would occur only once, and only when no Soviet units are in Ukrainian territory. This would force the German player to make an early decision.

Do I want to recruit Ukranian troops or do I want the Ukranian production?

[ March 29, 2005, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Perfect Edwin!

[Desert Dave]

I'd also recommend, in order to make the national force pool limits more versatile -- allowing the recruitment of auxilleries into the Axis. In Russia, for example, there were many non-Soviet Russians fighting for the Axis

JJ,

You will be able to add units using another unique script event, so that, for example... you could have

A Free Ukraine unit appear, given a particular set of circumstances.

Or, let's say - GErman recruited "nationalist" units to appear in Warsaw or Oslo for instance.

Or, ANZAC unit to arrive in Egypt, again, depending on assigned script parameters and provisions.

Therefore, yes, you could indeed have some Soviet units helping the GErmans, though they would be depicted as Axis units and not "red" ones.

[JerseyJohn]

Desert Dave,

Great! Thanks for filling us in, that's the sort of thing I was hoping for. Where the auxillery unit is similar to the other units it's original nation produces, but fighting for the other side. Excellent!

[jon_j_rambo]

Is something going on that I'm not aware of? Meaning, some of you dudes are play testing SC-2 right now? Sentences with,"You will be able" sounds rather confident. I hope this game is good. If you are testing, do a good job, find those defects!