Warplan is a World War 2 simulation engine. It is a balance of realism and playability incorporating the best from 50 years of World War 2 board wargaming.
I don't really mind how it is now but maybe add a buildable Support Unit that the player can place like the Flak and Coastal Defense units.
You can build AA and add it to any hex. An HQ can rail it out.
You can put a coastal defense on a land tile that is better defense vs attackers from a beach.
I am sorry I wasn't clear. I am aware of the Coastal Defense and AA unit functions; I was just offering a suggestion for a possible additional Support Unit to deal with Partisans.
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
Hmm about partisans now that I've reached Russia - sadly it is running after partisans again.
Simply there is not enough logistic points to cover partisans, and the beaches, and the front, and the rail damage skyrockets over time.
There should be a partisan on / off setting for Multiplayer games, like Diplomacy option on / off too that are visible before to join a challenge at least.
Hmm about partisans now that I've reached Russia - sadly it is running after partisans again.
Simply there is not enough logistic points to cover partisans, and the beaches, and the front, and the rail damage skyrockets over time.
There should be a partisan on / off setting for Multiplayer games, like Diplomacy option on / off too that are visible before to join a challenge at least.
And I got here as well the whole Army Group cut out of supply by partisans!
Partisan needs reworking, and a severe nerfing down of them. (among other changes I feel the game needs for the sake of being playable long term on Multiplayer especially)
Corps are needed to fight ... not to garrison vs partisans.
If you're saying Axis needs 20+ infantry corps to garrison vs Partisan, only for Russia (God forbid to think of all other countries) and people think it's right ... I am simply gobsmacked.
It's just the mechanic that is wrong. Besides - it is partisan hunt again, which is something I am awfully allergic to as game mechanic.
Not shooting you - just saying current rules must be changed.
And I do not know from where these statistics came from - but partisans historically were netting the effect of a mosquito sting on a human, to Germany.
I need to throw in my two cents and say the partisans are way too strong. I am in December 1941 with attacks all over the place and even 7 partisan divisions appearing on the map in Russia. The attack frequency needs to be lowered and then increased over time.
Then when I send infantry units to attack these partisan divisions I am taking losses. There is no way that partisan units could be causing severe casualties to German combat units. These partisans should disappear once attacked. They are only a nuisance at this strategic level and definitely this early in the war. Partisans should not be a battlefield liability to regular combat units.
Maybe later in the war partisans can draw some blood but against combat infantry it should be very difficult. I had a Hungarian division attack a partisan division and took 4 hits without hurting the partisan unit. Ok, Hungarians may not be the best troops but against partisans they would be and especially in December '41.
As for the rule (or even the suggestion) of having to send infantry corps all around Europe just to chase down partisans is ridiculous and not historical. Historically, regiments and battalions chased partisans. Not entire divisions of 10,000 to 20,000 men were sent to hunt down one group of partisans, unless that division was spread out over a large area chasing multiple groups. And no way were entire corps devoted to this.
I agree. Corps are an overkill for the task.
I am in August 41 (!) and until now 4 Partisan units have appeared in the Hinterland and resulting in frontline
Units out of supply.
Feels not correct.
Partisan fighting was done on battalion and regiment scale. Not corps.
And the effect was minor on a strategic scale, exeption maybe Yugoslavia in the late war.
I think everyone is not understanding about non-unit partisans. They will damage rail but the rail will be repaired at a rate of 2 a turn. You don't have to chase down broken rail.
Only the physical units appear on the map and have to be destroyed.
Partisans were about 80k strong at the end of 1941. By 1943 they grew to 500,000 in Russia.
There is already a recommendation to make Divs block partisan entry on the map with a larger area. I decided to put that in the game for the 1st update.
Maybe a "non-unit based" method could be a potential elegant solution? Hence instead of having to keep actual onboard units to garrison missions we could allocate certain Manpower Quota to the garrison efforts (e.g. similar to Reinf./Upgrade). The more MP you commit the less destruction through Partisans you get but you are trading off Manpower for that which hampers you in Unit production.
But a blown up rail hex can mean no supply. So in Russia I envisage a multitude of rear area corps on rail lines just to guarantee supply. I really don't know why designers think players like fighting partisan wars. We don't like it. Just abstract it please.
I accept the partisans need to be factored in and security units required and allocated to anti partisan duties. I am happy to allocate resources to keep them reasonably under control. Happy to see the odd negative affect even with correct garrison. But I really do not wish to be spending time setting up optimal rail net guard system and chasing up rear area partisans in Russia. I really want to just allocate the forces and forget it, and every now and then some random thing happens that is attributed to partisans.
As it is now, screw what they said the beta testers and remove the partisan all together.
Even if 2 rails a turn are repaired, 4-6 rails a turn are destroyed. (or so happened in my games)
At that rate, by '42 supply will be a nightmare everywhere.
Just remove the partisans and be done with.
Alas there is only -1- game that got partisans straight, and that is a tabletop game.
How do they work there? They appear in -non clear terrain- and not in ZoC, and have a 3 hex range to hit (These are the cells - cannot be removed, or anything unless by the play of some options, won't enter there).
The 'Partisan' side player does not know what that partisan cell will do, it's an incognita. Once they decide to fire the partisan attack the counter is flipped to the other side, and it can vary from a 'no effect' to 'out of supply' (it puts -1- unit out of supply, just imagine, the depot of that division was blown up), it can damage one air unit (damage in that game means the next turn the air unit is simply repaired instead of flying, think here the partisan 'eats' 1 action of the 2 of 1 air unit, it can hit a rail - it does not destroy the rail, it eats rail / strategic movement instead, for a game like Warplan is pratically subtract 10 or 20 from your total allotment of rail traffic for the turn)
The basic partisans are like 50% no effect and then a mix of other effects that I just listed a few of, of about 8-10 effects they may have.
The Partisan Player can select options, once per year, to add another batch of Partisans in the cup where they're fished at random, 1 per turn. (Soviet and West are two separate entities, so 2 total if so), which have better outcomes (pratically it shrinks the chance of the partisan cell to have no effect). - Given to play these options has a cost.
Now that is an elegant and functioning way to handle partisan. The Soviets / West won't know if that partisan will have an effect, and when it has effect, it's a nuisance. (In that game the out of supply status simply implies halved attack value, a unit does not begin to melt away and so forth, that's called being isolated).
The options mirror efforts to fuel / equip partisan in the style of the West to Tito. Later on Partisan can also get to be fighting units (But you need to select options for, and options in comparison are better attack, more plane production, offensive in the mud, name this or that general with special bonuses, etc - so to boost partisans a player has to sacrifice something else). Being an option repeatable yearly it means also that in '43 partisans will be more efficient than '41.
But partisans can even be many, but in the end of the day they stand no chance against trained troops.
I am wondering what level of the Game are you all playing because if you are playing on a hard / very hard level then the partisans would have more of an effect than say in an easy or historical game.
Manstein 63
'There is not, nor aught there be, nothing so exalted on the face of god's great earth, as that prince of foods. THE MUFFIN!!!'
As it is now, screw what they said the beta testers and remove the partisan all together.
That is a very nice and constructive statement. Al introduced partisans and we worked with him to get it right and balanced. I think your over reacting,
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2 SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator Tester for WDS games
I am quite confident I am not over reacting here.
I just expressed a blunt opinion without grand reservations, and on my end it is constructive and positive to suggest an alternative that is more viable from my perspective.
If I was complaining, I'd just say 'Partisan does not work'. The positive part is the suggesting the removal of a broken system.
How the fact it is broken eluded the beta-testers simply suggests me that testers were more focused on just playing the game than testing out things.
Just a deduction coming out - seeing a variety of posts about supposed problems that would have easily emerged over time and experimentation (From the Heavy Panzer Mech, to the lack of generation of Influence Points and so forth)
Given, I understand rarely balance is tested out - due to that emerging through multiplayer experiences more so than the default testing practices which are single player ones.
