Soviet Partisans wipe out half of German airforce

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith

Quite confident in the current state of the game I doubt I'll start new games as Axis too.
Between Partisans, no oil to pratically do anything post Barbarossa, and in '43 being pratically manpower depleted as even 10:1 attacks equal to get slaps in the face is not exactly amusing.

Albeit I may try to study the editor - something that digs more and more in my mind. But then again, no one would play 'edited map' for 'balance' as balance in the end is a subjective perception.

You forgot to mention that there is no way for the Germans to get anywhere near the generals they had in place for Barbarossa. People seem to miss this, but fighting without these 'good' generals is a severe handicap based off how the combat calculations go.

I also am having a hard time wanting to play axis in this game for many reasons already stated. I'm sure many hard core axis players just bite their tongue and play on. Only reason to play would be to have more first hand evidence of the imbalances I've already mentioned and/or suspect. Don't get me wrong, their are some areas where the allies could have been considers slighted, but not with the impact of what I've seen on the axis side.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

1941 90,000 partisans in the field
1944 500,000 partisans in the field

This was only in Russia.

Cohen just doesn't like peasants in his lebensraum. I have no problems with partisans when I play test.

Not going to 100% dispute these numbers, but I find the 1944 numbers very high. Especially considering many partisan units were merged into regular army units. Think there's some classic double dipping stats on the Soviet ledgers here. Oh yeah, Soviets where facing serious manpower shortages at this time too.

Let's say for fun these number are correct. What about the ~500k Hiwis that the Germans employed as support or even sometimes front-line soldiers in German divisions. How are the being represented??? IMO they had almost as great an impact for the Germans as the partisans did. But nobody wants to talk about that.

Oh did I tell the true story of how Stalin killed or had sent to gulags his census department members after they came back with numbers he didn't like? Well it happen just before WW2. This and many other similar episodes during WW2 speaks volumes on what weight you should put on data coming from Soviet sources.

[goodwoodrw]

Why not introduce security BNs into the game to police the back blocks of conquest.

[Michael T]

Why not introduce security BNs into the game to police the back blocks of conquest

I really prefer to just not have to play this silly partisan game. Just abstract the whole thing. Get them off them map entirely. Introduce a Partisan War system that both sides can allocate resources too. Then have random stuff happen depending on the commitment levels of both sides. You could have so much more flavor than just rail line cuts.
eg. Some random General gets killed or wounded due to partisan ambush.
Random units loose strength or supply or effectiveness due to partisans, a whole raft of different stuff that actually occurred. Rather than this idiotic situation where an entire section of front or even a whole theatre is cut off.

It's the most unfun part of the game.

[AlvaroSousa]

I read it and even my jaw dropped.

The Security BNs are divisions.

Use minor country divisions to kill them. That is one of the tactics I use.
They gain XP and there are plenty of them.

[Flaviusx]

Honestly guys, this is what Axis minors are for.

In my present game the vast majority of my security troops are axis minor infantry divisions. They have no business in the front line anyways, so far as I am concerned.

[Michael T]

Look at what Partisans actually achieved, Then introduce a system that can replicate that. An the effects can be either mitigated or increased by the attention or inattention of the players.

Please show me examples of where entire sections of front were cut off completely so that no supplies were received at all for 2 weeks or more?

From what I have seen supplies were hindered or reduced. Never just blocked completely.

[Flaviusx]

If you were to abstract this, you would also have to abstract many units taken off the map for partisan duty.

Net effect is the same as present.

If you are seeing large portions of your front lines shut down for lack of supply due to partisans imo you haven't set up your rear correctly. This shouldn't be happening. It has never happened to me.

[AlbertN]

I must be the only so poor German player that has to regularly use Axis Minors are frontline troops.
And I've Yugos too. And I am getting mauled in '43.
My antipartisan units are the depleted German units that are switched out of the front whilst they're weak... but now the Allies have kicked in France and have litterally the Highway to the Reich.

[Michael T]

If you were to abstract this, you would also have to abstract many units taken off the map for partisan duty.

I am fine with that. WarPlan has so much more engaging and interesting aspects than having to waste time on Partisans.

I am almost at the point of not wanting to play Axis anymore. Not due to any other reason than the partisan pain. I thought they were bad enough in WITE, these are even worse.

[AlbertN]

I have to disagree, WITE partisans are worse. Worst are HOI ones though.

But I rest in my case in most games partisans are overrated, and so are an amount of books. Major partisan operations only occurred in conjunction of regular armies about to liberate the area - to avoid also too severe repercussions that the Germans were known for.

[Michael T]

At least the WITE devs listened, I believe WITE 2.0 has an abstracted partisan system.

[AlbertN]

Alvaro do read and listen.
There is always the big difference in understanding that a Dev is entitled to do as they please in the end with their game. And many players think that 'not listening' is 'not doing as I say'.

On partisans it seems there are different voices - and whilst we agree on the Partisan one, Alvaro is certainly one who listens, and replies.

[AlvaroSousa]

I do. I read every post. If I don't answer it is because someone answered for me or I missed it. Sometimes things get marked as read and I don't know how.

I look at it this way. If a there is a debate with people on both sides.... then I know I did it right.
If the post is clearly one sided by many people then obviously something is wrong.

There are things in WarPlan I didn't want to put it. HQs and diplomacy. I did it for the players.

[AlbertN]

I think both HQ and Diplomacy are good things.

I don't like leaders dieing though - and I think command points need to be tuned for nation, maybe even altering them over time (ie, Soviets gain 1 a turn prewar and 2 once war with Germany starts. Germany should gain more command points per turn be default. Minors do not need that many comand points. USA should gain 0 pre-war and 2 once at war. They hda to wait for Kasserine to have a shuffle up).

Diplomacy - I'd have simply used it differently. TO be able to make more trade deals, passage rights, etc - instead of a straight 'allied or enemy' binary function. And atm it's anyhow non useable because Allies have way too many diplomatic actions that overwhelm the Axis. Axis should have more diplomacy til USA kicks in.
Like a nation achieves a success, puts a trade marker on 1 thing of the other nation. Like Germany starts already with a trade of Swedish Ore (I know it's worth 30 and Germany gets 25). Germany achieves a success on Spain, 'grab' a strategic resource for instance. UK does the same, they grab the other!

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If you were to abstract this, you would also have to abstract many units taken off the map for partisan duty.

Net effect is the same as present.

If you are seeing large portions of your front lines shut down for lack of supply due to partisans imo you haven't set up your rear correctly. This shouldn't be happening. It has never happened to me.

I think you're missing the point here. If this game is intended to have historical parameters as a basis, than it's very apparent to those who have read the actual facts that partisans in Warplan have the ability to contribute much more to the war effort than reality. Much more. That just seems silly. It would be like having German tiger tanks, once they arrived, increase all German armor units by a factor of 2x. Against silly and not historical. If you want to take up my knowledge of WW2 in another thread or PM me on this subject. Bring it on. I'll be happy to enlighten any and all takers.

Not to mention that the structure to which partisans are managed in Warplan reduces the play-ability/fun for the axis player. This is been mention by several people here and about 12 people in my personal gaming circle to me. Nobody is saying remove them as a factor from WW2 complete, as they did play a role.

My comments are NOT meant to be a personal attack on Alvaro and/or Warplan, quite the contrary. I've already stated this is the best European theater level computer war game on the market. Is it perfect ... no. Could it be better .. yes. Why not make a great game even better? I and others just want to help facilitate that. Not trying to brag or boast, but I've been involved in hundreds or war games (board and computer) since the late 80's. Read over 500 books on WW2. So I think I know some things that can help here. Iterate and improve [:)]

[AlvaroSousa]

Damn 500 books.

I don't take offense to anyone.

I have played WarPlan enough that the partisans should be very easy to deal with. I have a number of players who are happy with it.

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Damn 500 books.

I don't take offense to anyone.

I have played WarPlan enough that the partisans should be very easy to deal with. I have a number of players who are happy with it.

Maybe, but I see this number 'in favor' of the current partisan game play as the minority. I don't know any friends that like the system. But the real vote that matter is yours, so the conversation and tries for improvement are mute.

[Essro]

I'd propose something like this:

-certain cities (think Warsaw, Kharkov, probably Paris etc) that did or were at least capable of uprising should have a garrison requirement. Abandon it, and a partisan shows up. This would satisfy the vague garrison requirement while serving the historical narrative of the war.

-in the USSR and Yugoslavia, occasional partisan units should appear similar to currently but perhaps not as often. However, I would argue they should be static and located in rugged terrain. If they show up in an inconvenient location, well then, it's time to conduct an anti-partisan campaign. Let the USSR disband them for manpower. In Yugoslavia, half the partisan should be western powers and half soviet controlled.

-as far as the current rail lines blowing up. I'd find it far more interesting as a player if it was something I could influence (perhaps purchase and deploy). Sort of like a 'shock' effect representing concentrated partisan activity in conjunction with a major operation (examples being Normandy, Bagration, and others). As gameplay that would be more engaging.

[AlvaroSousa]

So let me explain a little about design. And this doesn't mean to poo-poo anyone's ideas.

Sometimes what a player, or coder in my case, thinks they want isn't what they want. Certain things need to have inefficient work involved to make the system interesting for the players. Think about any game you play. You press buttons, you move units, you make choices. Well why not simply have one button that says "roll to win". You press it games over you know if you won or lost. No work. That wouldn't sell.... except in a casino as a slot machine.

So to make a system of assignment for partisans where the effects are relatively invisible and potentially invisibly frustrating wouldn't be interesting for the players.
Ok I put in a system where partisans affect supply a little. Different minors have different effects. Axis assign anti-partisan points to suppress this.

I call this system ZZZZZzzzzzzzz system (insert snoring noise here).
#1 you don't see the visual punishment for invading a country
#2 you click a couple of buttons and it is suppressed more not making it visible.
Boring.
#3 so say I add the ability of the Soviet player to put the partisan activity where they want. Now it becomes an absolute decision in the simplest of formats with very low level thinking and strategy.

But wait Al, your sub vs escort system is like this!!

Very good point sir. But in this case it mimics the unit partisan system and expands the level of strategic thinking. In both you must use positioning and unit determination to decide how to counter the threat. The threat can move. But the system is also very easy to use where the work is in the thinking not the micro managing. Decisions aren't absolute.

So say now I make both the Battle of the Atlantic and Partisans a you put points here, I counter by simply putting points there. This equates to the LOWEST level complexity, and the LOWEST level strategy solution.

The current way both are done now is a LOW level of complexity with a MODERATE level of strategic solution.

There were many ideas I toyed with for both convoy and partisan systems. I actually did a point assignment system and put myself to sleep playing it. That is how we arrived at this.

As Bill Clinton said.... A good game has a certain level of anxiety to it.... and I fully agree. It needs just enough anxiety with some complexity and a good level of depth.

Is that to say this is statically set? No. For something as finesse as this it will take time to see all the permutations to play out. I read all the posts and look at all the comments. There is what is practical, what is painful, what is fun and not fun, what is invisible, and where there is a balance where the majority is happy. So this might be adjusted down the road. Luckily with the editor you can adjust it and save as a different scenario and play that.

Like we have....
Europe 1939

You don't like the partisans so you reduce the frequency and rename it to
Europe 1939 with less stupid partisan rules

You can play it vs the A.I. or PBEM.

Some concepts in a game take a lot of time to see it fully play out. Uboat war and partisans are two of these ideas in WarPlan because it is very specific and hard to get right.

Shoot Cohen came up with a smart idea for using the Large Warship tech and pointed out something I didn't realize. So it will be implemented in v4. So I will be watching for now.