RE: Partisans

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Partisans

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Partisans

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Partisans - 5/27/2012 8:20:24 AM

Redmarkus5

Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

The partisan side of this game doesn't work very well.I think it's a by-product of the rail network being too abstracted.
Ideally they would cause supply to be reduced, not cut altogether.
Garrisoning cities to 100% doesn't make a noticeable difference in my experience.
I think partisan activity should be proportionally related on their distance to the nearest enemy unit, whether in cities or not.Axis security units would have a bonus in this regard.
I like the idea of partisans being able to do recon on Axis units behind the lines.

I agree with Flavius - more abstraction is actually the solution here.

The game attempts to model too many different things in great detail. This complexity leads to a situation in which every new 'fix' has unintended consequences.

The partisans are a historical fact and it's unlikely that any decision we can take in game terms would have made much difference to this in real life. So, just abstract the conversion of the rail net along historical lines (so many hexes get repaired per turn) build in a supply reduction factor that increases over time and is linked to the proximity of Soviet forces, take the police and auxiliary units out of the game and focus on Divisional and Corps-level combat operations.

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 31

RE: Partisans - 5/27/2012 9:42:26 AM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

I beg to differ.

Actually I think that partisan units should be made more 'solid'. What I'm trying to say is that partisan units in the east tended to be relatively organised formations, with HQ and all. They were not a real guerilla force in the strictest of sense but something intermediate between guerilla and regulars. So they should be made into 'proper' units that require clearing, but if they get hit by military units, they should be destroyable like any other line unit and not bounce off somewhere else. Only then would anti partisan sweeps make sense and have the Germans detach frontline formations in order to deal with them (as happened in real life).

I would also be in favour of having more anti partisan units in the form of all those units of up to regimental strength, that the Germans used. It should be noted that the Germans and their allies expended quite some resources in dealing with this problem and that most of the Ukranian formations etc which were quite numerous, ended up fighting this part of the war.

(in reply to Redmarkus5)

Post #: 32

RE: Partisans - 5/27/2012 4:08:00 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

1+

The Partisan units often engaged in coordinated operations with Red Army units, not only just as railroad track and bridge destroyers. This historical fact presents an interesting dilemma to discussion: in a game where players can micromanage individual units at times down to the company level, and assign the deployment of squadrons of 4 aircraft, why oversimplify an aspect of the war which had a significant impact on the outcome of logistics and strategic planning? To be fair and consistent, there are ample opportunites to simplify and automate many things in this game, but to cherry pick would be inconsistent.

Personally, I vote for simplification but it would also be very nice to also have an option for directing partisan activity even more if a player wanted more control. An interesting idea would be to attach security units to higher level HQs as SUs, and given them an operational antipartisan radius. The same could be done for the Soviets: attach partisan SUs to Soviet HQs with an operational radius; the further away the unit from it's HQ the less likely the action would carried out. There could be logistical actions which decrease supply disbursement and combat actions which add a few CVs to an attack.

And what about antiSoviet partisan activity after 1943 in the reconquored Ukraine........?