Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A new idea to model partisan warfare.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> A new idea to model partisan warfare. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 3:29:49 AM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
For various reasons I don't like the way partisans work right now so I thought of a new system.


Have the partisans work like an air unit. They would operate out of bases similar to air bases. Because partisans could only deploy to these partisan bases the scenario designer could limit their area of operations by putting bases only where he want them to go. So for instance in a barbarossa scenario, you could put guerrilla bases all over the pripet marshes, but none in Germany, so you could prevent guerrillas from marching on Berlin or things like that.

They would be assigned missions like air units, interdiction missions would give them a chance to strike moving enemies and also lower the enemy supply. They could make direct strikes on enemy units, bridge attack etc. The range of the units would be like 4 hexes or something small, and maybe 5-10 hex movement to move from base to base.

Military police units would be like interceptors, you set them up where you think the partisans are, set them to anti guerrilla mission, and they have a chance of intercepting an attack if they are in range.

What do you guys think?
Post #: 1
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 3:33:11 AM   
Adam Rinkleff

 

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline
Thats a really good idea. 

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 2
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 3:33:54 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline
Could get complicated. What happens if the partisans are intercepted? Would it resolve in normal combat, or would the effect be similar to moving adjacent to an enemy unit and receiving fire?

Adam, you think every new suggestion is a good idea.

< Message edited by desert -- 11/16/2007 3:35:14 AM >


_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 3
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 3:37:37 AM   
Adam Rinkleff

 

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline
Desert, you think every new suggestion is a complicated idea.

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 4
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 3:41:23 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline
I never said that. On the other hand, you said this:

quote:

Thats a really good idea. 


several times in this forum.

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)
Post #: 5
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 3:56:38 AM   
Adam Rinkleff

 

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline
Oh, I'm sorry; yah, I keep forgetting that this forum is dominated by people who don't like innovation, and all they want to do is tell everyone no. My bad, gee, here I was trying to be friendly and encourage Fungwu with what I think is a good idea; but what I really should have been doing is sitting around criticizing and flaming him, so that TOAW can stay just the way it is forever. Right? Then I can be really cool like you, and we can troll together like best buddies forever!!1!

Wow, so let's be awesome and find problems with Fungwu's idea; like, dude, the idea is obviously not implementable, because TOAW is a box, and we aren't allowed to think outside the box. And what about vague abstract complexities? Jeez, why would you post something without thinking through all the various ramifications? Don't you realize that there already is a wish list? Maybe you should play TOAW first, before you start trying to change it. And um, what's that old favourite, um, oh yah, TOAW is an operational level game, and partisans are already perfectly modelled as it is.

< Message edited by AdamRinkleff -- 11/16/2007 4:00:15 AM >

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 6
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 4:00:39 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline
You are the one trolling now. Oh well. While I ask some questions, you will demonstrate to everyone the art of the Internet rant. Remember:

Now, back to questions: Would partisan units be able to attack normally if they were modelled like that?

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)
Post #: 7
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 4:59:44 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

For various reasons I don't like the way partisans work right now so I thought of a new system.


Have the partisans work like an air unit. They would operate out of bases similar to air bases. Because partisans could only deploy to these partisan bases the scenario designer could limit their area of operations by putting bases only where he want them to go. So for instance in a barbarossa scenario, you could put guerrilla bases all over the pripet marshes, but none in Germany, so you could prevent guerrillas from marching on Berlin or things like that.

They would be assigned missions like air units, interdiction missions would give them a chance to strike moving enemies and also lower the enemy supply. They could make direct strikes on enemy units, bridge attack etc. The range of the units would be like 4 hexes or something small, and maybe 5-10 hex movement to move from base to base.

Military police units would be like interceptors, you set them up where you think the partisans are, set them to anti guerrilla mission, and they have a chance of intercepting an attack if they are in range.

What do you guys think?


..dunno for Barbarossa, but it might be part of a solution to the problems with a current war scen in Iraq, a means to do suicide bombers..

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 8
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 5:06:11 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline
quote:


..dunno for Barbarossa, but it might be part of a solution to the problems with a current war scen in Iraq, a means to do suicide bombers..


I would've used .25k nuke attacks on hexes for suicide bombers, but event editor  wouldn't have enough space for the whole occupation.

Yeah, and the military police would have a chance of capturing/killing the bomber(s) before they do it?

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 9
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 5:27:34 AM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
"Could get complicated. What happens if the partisans are intercepted? Would it resolve in normal combat, or would the effect be similar to moving adjacent to an enemy unit and receiving fire? "

It would be the same if bombers get intercepted, the fighters shoot at the bombers, the bombers shoot at the fighters, the bombers take many losses. Except in this case, the military police shoot at the partisans, the partisans shoot at the police, both sides take losses.

Basically the idea is to make partisans exactly identical to air units, except for the following: A very small radius, 4 hexes or 10 hexes or something like that. They can't use air bases, and air planes can't use their bases, but otherwise partisan bases are exactly the same as air bases. So the bases are placed by the scenario designer, and you can only move units from one base to another, etc.

Air units on air superiority don't intercept partisans making interdiction, or combat support strikes, and military police on anti partisans duty don't intercept air planes, but otherwise the missions available to partisans are identical to air missions,

air superiority=military police duties,

if you take possesion of a partisan base with your ground units, you then station military police in them, the police are assigned a mission equivalent to air superiority, so they have a chance of intercepting any partisan missions and causing losses to those units. Probably could put a base in every town, so military police would operate out of the towns behind your lines.

interdiction = partisan raids

If you put your partisans on this mission it is exactly like air interdiction, any movement within the radius of the unit, in this case just a few hexes, possibly comes under attack, the partisans shoot at the unit, cause a few losses, and the unit moves on. Also the enemy theater supply level is lessened.  (does a unit hit by an interdiction strike fire back?)

This represent partisans laying mines in the road, sniping at columns moving past, laying ambushes and then fleeing, derailing trains,  etc.


combat support = partisan attacks

You can set your partisans to make a specfic attack against a unit, just like an air strike they shoot at the unit, the unit shoots back, then the partisans return to base.

bridge strike = bridge strike

The partisans go out, and try to destroy a bridge. If there is an enemy unit on the bridge, it fires at them.

When you see an air unit on the battle field, the air base isn't really its exact location, at any given time, the air unit may be located at any given point within its radius.

Applying the same idea to partisans, you get the effect of the partisans patrolling out in a radius from their base and making random attacks against targets of opportunity.

I remember one scenario I played where my partisans appeared in my opponents turn, so he surrounded and killed every one of them before I ever got to issue any orders. I played another where enemy partisans were all over me, and invaded Austria taking over major cities, and putting ZOC over pazner divisions. Right now partisans don't really strike and melt away, sure they retreat all over the place if you attack them, but you can just split some useless motorized AA battalion and surround them every time.

Under my proposal Partisans
1: Can make hit and run attacks
2: Can realistically affect supply, but not tear up an entire country worth of train track and force your opponent to play railroad tycoon.
3. Can't pin whole panzer divisions in place
4. Can be resticted to an area of operation decided by the scenario designer
5. Can't storm major cities of millions of people.
6. Can be added to big scenarios, without forcing players to put undue amount of attention to them.


(in reply to desert)
Post #: 10
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 5:30:52 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

quote:


..dunno for Barbarossa, but it might be part of a solution to the problems with a current war scen in Iraq, a means to do suicide bombers..


I would've used .25k nuke attacks on hexes for suicide bombers, but event editor  wouldn't have enough space for the whole occupation.

Yeah, and the military police would have a chance of capturing/killing the bomber(s) before they do it?


..i did say "might"..

..maybe as interceptors ?..the problem is not the effect, it's getting the things to exist at all, hex ownership makes it problematic, and guerilla effect, my first thought, doesn't work well in urban or on roads..


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 11
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 5:49:58 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
It's a good idea -- assuming a detailed model of partisan warfare was needed.

The truth tends to be unromantic: most times and most places partisans have been such a low-grade nuisance that the current guerilla effect models the effect about right. The 'units' just don't rise above the military horizon in terms of the scale of attacks they can mount. If you put an actual 1-1 on the map, you're exaggerating.

Militarily, in your typical guerilla situation you want unimpeded movement and intact rail lines. You have to use a chain of low-grade units to keep those vital roads and rails under friendly control -- about what the Germans had to do in really guerilla-heavy places like Russia, Greece, and Yugoslavia for most of the war. Actual units for the guerillas are just making more of them than they were.

Things did get worse -- but by then, what you usually wind up needing is a multi-side model. Generally, more than two sides to the battles. Like, Partisans, Chetniks, Italians, Croats, and Germans in Yugoslavia. Italians fight Croats, who are allied with Germans, who fight Partisans, who fight Chetniks, who are allied with Italians...or something. Similar situation in Greece -- and the Ukraine, and China. These were rarely two-sided contests.

Lessee...looking at Yugoslavia, we've got...

Germans. Allied with Italians, Croats. Opposed to Partisans, Chetniks.

Italians. Allied with Germans, Chetniks (informally). Opposed to Partisans, Croats (informally).

Croats. Allied with Germans (but often not doing at all what the Germans would have wished). Opposed to Italians, Croats, Chetniks.

Chetniks. Allied with Italians (informally). Allied with the Germans (according to the Partisans). Opposed to Partisans, Croats.

Partisans. Allied with the Germans (according to the Chetniks). Opposed to everyone else.

Then there are bit players. Bulgarians, Hungarians, Bosnian Muslims, Britons, Americans...and the six hundred pound Russian bear that shows up on the last turn and tries to eat everybody. However, the whole thing certainly can't be reduced to a two-player model.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 12
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 5:54:37 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Oh, I'm sorry; yah, I keep forgetting that this forum is dominated by people who don't like innovation, and all they want to do is tell everyone no...


I'm getting a little confused. Other than uncritical admiration, what can we post?

There's usually something wrong with most ideas. How much is wrong, and whether the idea should be acted on as is anyway, modified, or just abandoned is what the forum is for. It's not just so that we can take turns posting our great ideas while everyone else says, 'Gee -- what a great idea. Let's do that!'


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)
Post #: 13
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 6:18:19 AM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
"It's a good idea -- assuming a detailed model of partisan warfare was needed. "
It is not a detailed model, it is simply an exact parallel model of the air system, except with partisans instead of air planes.

In fact you could implement my model right now, just make a unit with some biplanes, or some other type of short range, low power airplane, and a similarly structured unit for the military police, the only downside to that is that enemy fighters planes would shoot down your partisans and military police could intercept your bombers, so you have to make it so the two systems don't interact that way. Basically make a new flag called "partisan operations" and a new terrain type "partisan base" A unit with a PartOp flag can only enter hexes containing a partisan base. A unit flagged "partisan operations" has the same exact missions available as a unit flagged air operations except that they don't interact, so as in my example, enemy fighters don't intercept your partisans.

"The truth tends to be unromantic: most times and most places partisans have been such a low-grade nuisance"

Well that is exactly my intention, partisans can make a few interdiction strikes on passing units, and not a whole lot else. The controlling player puts his partisans along the enemy supply line and that is all he has to do. The other player put military police down his supply line and that is all he has to do. No chasing units around the map.

Right now I am playing a game where in about 4 months partisans have destroyed every major bridge and every kilometer of rail line in Northern Italy, as well as invading Austria and capturing Innsbruck. Under my system everything you suggest partisan warfare should look like will be the case, while all the unrealistic damage they can do will be impossible.


< Message edited by Fungwu -- 11/16/2007 6:26:48 AM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 14
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 6:24:03 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
'So Princess, let us discuss the location of your secret rebel base...'

Anyway, thinking about the 'air unit' concept. You know, it is possible to make 'land carriers' using the Bio-ed. Unlike normal airbases, these are not invariably visible -- and neither are the air units using them.

Moreover, only aircraft that have had the 'naval' tag checked could use them. So you could create 'partisan' units with whatever range and attack factors you saw fit. If you use the guerilla icon for the 'land carriers' these could pop up at various unsupplied locations and you could fly in your 'partisans' from Moscow Central or wherever you want their sinister directorate to be located.

Obviously, this would need to be tested -- but something could be made to work. The Forces of Evil and Oppression (FEO) would have to comb the woods pretty thoroughly or risk sudden bridge attacks deep in their rear and interdiction strikes and such. (Note in this connection that units using rail are peculiarly susceptible to interdiction.)

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 15
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 6:28:10 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

"It's a good idea -- assuming a detailed model of partisan warfare was needed. "
It is not a detailed model, it is simply an exact parallel model of the air system, except with partisans instead of air planes.


"The truth tends to be unromantic: most times and most places partisans have been such a low-grade nuisance"

Well that is exactly my intention, partisans can make a few interdiction strikes on passing units, and not a whole lot else. The controlling player puts his partisans along the enemy supply line and that is all he has to do. The other player put military police down his supply line and that is all he has to do. No chasing units around the map.

Right now I am playing a game where in about 4 months partisans have destroyed every major bridge and every kilometer of rail line in Northern Italy, as well as invading Austria and capturing Innsbruck. Under my system everything you suggest partisan warfare should look like will be the case, while all the unrealistic damage they can do will be impossible.



Yeah. My point is that the guerilla effect really models things pretty accurately. Your rail lines will get breaks in them if you don't garrison them, roads will become slower to move along unless they're similarly garrisoned. The only problem other than the lack of romance is that the effect is global.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 16
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 6:28:47 AM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
"Anyway, thinking about the 'air unit' concept. You know, it is possible to make 'land carriers' using the Bio-ed. Unlike normal airbases, these are not invariably visible -- and neither are the air units using them. "

I had heard that but I didn't know enough to work into my idea, but it does sound pretty good. I think the only real obstacle is to make so air units and partisan units don't intercept each other.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 17
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 6:31:13 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
More on the 'land carriers.'

You can't give them guerrilla icons -- not unless you want them to have the full naval movement rate. They can have some fixed unit icon and that'll keep them still -- but then they won't appear unless the location is supplied.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/16/2007 6:32:45 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 18
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 6:31:33 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline
What if regular infantry surround a partisan base full of men. Would they just move to another base or would it be resolved in normal combat? Or will it rely on some other factor? I'm talking about infantry ---> partisan.

Edit: If this were actually done in an update.

< Message edited by desert -- 11/16/2007 6:33:47 AM >


_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 19
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 6:33:47 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

What if regular infantry surround a partisan base full of men. Would they just move to another base or would it be resolved in normal combat? Or will it rely on some other factor? I'm talking about infantry ---> partisan.


The 'partisans' would fly off to another land carrier or conventional air base. The land carrier itself would behave in combat like a normal unit.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 20
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 6:35:11 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline
No, I meant if there were actual special bases for partisans and all he suggested in the beginning of the thread? What would happen there?

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 21
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 6:35:32 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
This might actually work okay for Yugoslavia 1943-44. After all, the Germans were generally trying to hunt the partisans down rather than fighting them in large-scale, conventional battles. We need lots of land carriers...

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 22
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 7:15:46 AM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
"What if regular infantry surround a partisan base full of men. Would they just move to another base or would it be resolved in normal combat? Or will it rely on some other factor? I'm talking about infantry ---> partisan."

Oh, well ideally they would die, but I guess they would just relocate. I guess what you would have to do is set their range to something like 10 hexes, then you could take control of all the partisan bases with 10 hexes with your infantry. When you took the base they were in they would have nowhere to go and should evaporate. I guess this could represent that you shouldn't really see where the partisans are, so taking all the bases around them is like hunting through the countryside looking for them.




(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 23
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 7:25:14 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

"What if regular infantry surround a partisan base full of men. Would they just move to another base or would it be resolved in normal combat? Or will it rely on some other factor? I'm talking about infantry ---> partisan."

Oh, well ideally they would die, but I guess they would just relocate. I guess what you would have to do is set their range to something like 10 hexes, then you could take control of all the partisan bases with 10 hexes with your infantry. When you took the base they were in they would have nowhere to go and should evaporate. I guess this could represent that you shouldn't really see where the partisans are, so taking all the bases around them is like hunting through the countryside looking for them.






That won't work. You could make the units have whatever combat radius you liked, but their movement range would remain whatever the standard for the scenario was. So your 'trapped' guerillas around Lago Gardo or whatever would just hop off to Foggia when you attacked their last base. Of course, if their range was set at two hexes or whatever, they wouldn't be much use once all the guerilla bases had been destroyed.

Another interesting thing about this idea is that if the bases are set to reconstitute in fixed locations, they'd all come back if supply s ever established to the area in question. So if FEO's front is ever actually broken, there'll be an eruption of partisan activity in his rear as everyone races to prove they were in the resistance all along.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 24
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 7:27:56 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

No, I meant if there were actual special bases for partisans and all he suggested in the beginning of the thread? What would happen there?


The bases would be destroyed. The 'guerillas' -- being air units -- would relocate to the nearest friendly airbase.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 25
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 7:55:46 AM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
"That won't work. You could make the units have whatever combat radius you liked, but their movement range would remain whatever the standard for the scenario was"

Well wouldn't that be about 14 for most scenarios? I'm sure you could throw something heavy in the unit to get it down to what was desired. To my mind 10 seems about right, but I guess that depends a lot on scale. I'm not too versed in the game engine, but if you take out the base and there isn't another in range air units do evaporate right?

"Another interesting thing about this idea is that if the bases are set to reconstitute in fixed locations, they'd all come back if supply s ever established to the area in question. So if FEO's front is ever actually broken, there'll be an eruption of partisan activity in his rear as everyone races to prove they were in the resistance all along. "

I didn't quite understand all this, I assume you are talking about land carriers. I don't think land carriers are really a good idea, too complicated, so forget about it. Do you mean if supply comes back all partisans come back or all land carriers? Why would partisans come back if supply is restablished? Aren't the units eliminated if they have no base?




< Message edited by Fungwu -- 11/16/2007 7:57:07 AM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 26
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 8:26:11 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

"That won't work. You could make the units have whatever combat radius you liked, but their movement range would remain whatever the standard for the scenario was"

Well wouldn't that be about 14 for most scenarios? I'm sure you could throw something heavy in the unit to get it down to what was desired. To my mind 10 seems about right, but I guess that depends a lot on scale. I'm not too versed in the game engine, but if you take out the base and there isn't another in range air units do evaporate right?


Yeah, the air units would evaporate if no other airbase was within the movement allowance of the air unit -- but the movement allowance for air units in a scenario is going to be 120 or 180 or 360 or something, depending on the time/distance scale you're using. Moreover, while this will shrink if the unit is tired, it won't shrink much -- and you can't modify it. If it's an aircraft unit -- and as far as the computer is concerned, that's what your 'partisan unit' is -- it'll skip off across half the map if need be to find a new home.
quote:



"Another interesting thing about this idea is that if the bases are set to reconstitute in fixed locations, they'd all come back if supply s ever established to the area in question. So if FEO's front is ever actually broken, there'll be an eruption of partisan activity in his rear as everyone races to prove they were in the resistance all along. "

I didn't quite understand all this, I assume you are talking about land carriers. I don't think land carriers are really a good idea, too complicated, so forget about it. Do you mean if supply comes back all partisans come back or all land carriers? Why would partisans come back if supply is restablished? Aren't the units eliminated if they have no base?


Any unit will reconstitute if you've set it to do so and enough replacements are in the pool. However, guerillas aside, it won't reconstitute at an unsupplied location. Hence my idea about a flood of 'partisan bases' reappearing if the front is broken and all those reconstitution hexes become supplied.

Otherwise, if you don't use land carriers, what are you going to use? If you use conventional units, you're back to all the problems that inspired this thread. If you use conventional airbases, (a) any air units on them will be visible, and (b) any air unit can use them. So why frig around with trying to blow that bridge with 'partisans'? Just fly three hundred B-26's up there and do the job right.






< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/16/2007 8:28:11 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 27
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 8:39:49 AM   
Fungwu

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
"but the movement allowance for air units in a scenario is going to be 120 or 180 or 360 or something, depending on the time/distance scale you're using"

Well then, if a unit with "air operations" has a range of 210 or whatever, you can set a different range for a unit with "partisan operations"

"If you use conventional airbases".

Huh? Didn't you read my other posts? You would need a new type of base, it would be the same as an air base, but only units flagged for "partisan operations" could land there. Thus no air units could use them.

You must of skimmed over my other posts. I said partisans would operate in the same manner as air units, but you would need a parallel system. So you could set a different movement allowance for partisans, so bases wouldn't be shared, and so partisans couldn't be shot down by fighters.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 28
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 8:47:34 AM   
Adam Rinkleff

 

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Huh? Didn't you read my other posts?

No dude, they don't read your posts; all they do is swarm like piranahs to tell you everything that is wrong with your idea, because they are nerdy dorks who think they sound cool if they contradict other people. You have a great idea but these people really aren't open to new ideas.

< Message edited by AdamRinkleff -- 11/16/2007 8:49:33 AM >

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 29
RE: A new idea to model partisan warfare. - 11/16/2007 8:52:04 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

"but the movement allowance for air units in a scenario is going to be 120 or 180 or 360 or something, depending on the time/distance scale you're using"

Well then, if a unit with "air operations" has a range of 210 or whatever, you can set a different range for a unit with "partisan operations"

"If you use conventional airbases".

Huh? Didn't you read my other posts? You would need a new type of base, it would be the same as an air base, but only units flagged for "partisan operations" could land there. Thus no air units could use them.

You must of skimmed over my other posts. I said partisans would operate in the same manner as air units, but you would need a parallel system. So you could set a different movement allowance for partisans, so bases wouldn't be shared, and so partisans couldn't be shot down by fighters.



Ah. Well then you're talking about doing something that can't be done with the current system. In that case, why don't we get rid of the flying partisan idea entirely? After all, they don't fly. They can and were effectively cordoned off and kept away from sensitive areas.

It sounds like you want guerilla units that can be 'tethered' to within x hexes of a specific hex. Tito's partisans may not wander off to Southern France and help out the Marquis, etc.

That seems doable -- but the question then is whether physically represented partisans are especially realistic in the first place. Shouldn't the effort go into something that is (a) more generally useful, and (b) in more obvious need of improvement? After all, the game really is about warfare in the battalion-division range. Bands of thirty to a hundred irregulars basically have no business being physically 'visible' in such a system.

My own vote would be to stick to the guerrilla effect and make it definable by hex radius from a given location. After all, in Seelowe if the Germans invade Ireland I'd like an immediate and ferocious Irish guerrilla effect. I don't particularly see English suddenly getting even more restive on that account. Such a radius can already be assigned to the refugee effect, so evidently the necessary programming mechanisms are more or less in place.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/16/2007 8:53:03 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Fungwu)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> A new idea to model partisan warfare. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.422