Get rid of partisan units

[sillyflower]

I must start by saying that I have always hated them in strategic games. Indeed it often puts me off playing as axis altogether because of the tedium of partisan-whack-a-mole. The axis player's job is to command of the world's great powers, and several other nations, not to run anti-partisan ops. I have already posted 1 rant on the subject ('illiterate partisans') but this one is more generic in the hope of starting a wider debate.

I fully accept that during WWII, many citizens in occupied countries (though perhaps not nearly as many who claimed to have done so post-liberation) showed great resource and enormous courage to help the allies; for which they often paid a terrible price. However, with the possible exceptions of USSR and Yugoslavia, there were nothing resembling partisan units which appear in games. I haven't forgotten Warsaw in '44 but that was au urban popular uprising which was very different. The help given to the allies by resistence movement in Wetern Europe was very valuable, but essentially confined to helping individual fugitives, gathering useful intelligence and very small-scale sabotage either in the workplace or elsewhere. Again I am not trying to belittle those efforts. However, these activities are covered by fog-of-war issues and production levels, and neither required or were resolved by sending army divisions or larger formations marching back and forth on strategic maps.

Turning to Yugoslavia, it is the case that partisans there (when not doing deals with the Germans and/or fighting each other) tied down more Axis troops than anywhere else, it was a matter of scale rather than something different in character.

Turning to the USSR, one often sees maps in history books showing areas 'controlled by partisans', whose main efforts had to be on simple survival. I know there are lots of instances of the Germans doing clear-our operations with security troops and those going to or returning from leave, but this does not mean in terms of strategic gaming conventional type warfare versus partisan counters.

I agree that ay strategic WWII game on the scale of WP/SC/HoI etc that simply ignored partisans etc would be neither 'realistic' or free of heavy criticism. Also, there is no merit in arguing in favour of removing a bad system without proposing an improvement which is,at least, no more complicated or less fair, makes sense within the scale of the game, and which is less fiddly and annoying.

In my opinion the basic mechanism has to be garrisoning, which has the main solution to the problem throughout history. in historical terms, successful garrisoning was proactive rather than just sitting in forts/barracks. In terms of strategic gaming, static garrisoning represents that local activity, simple to design and I expect that every game of this sort already has that concept so players are used to it. Adequate garrisoning (which will be different for different countries/areas/cities and probably changing over time) means never having to care about partisan activity.

The real question is therefore 'what should be the penalty for inadequate garrisoning'? My answer is twofold:

1 It should only be economic, whether by loss of resources/production/transport capacity or some combination, proportionate to the shortfall in garrison numbers or strength.
2 It has to be fierce enough to ensure that lack of garrisoning is not a good option

I have also posted this on the War Plan forum in the hope of stimulating a debate which leads to a better system for modelling partisan warfare

[FOARP]

I basically agree that whack-a-mole partisan implementation in strategy games should be killed with fire.

At the same time there should be a cost to the occupier (and the supporters of the partisans!) and uprisings, like those which occurred in Warsaw in August 1944, France after D-Day, in Prague in May 1945, on various parts of the Eastern Front during the Soviet advance, and of course in Yugoslavia, should be modelled somehow. Just not by repeated requiring the occupier to destroy insurgents in a way that is totally ahistorical.

[PvtBenjamin]

In AI you can turn them off.

In PBEM I agree they are too strong and I only play Allies.

[Markiss]

For the actual partisan units, as things stand now, you pay mmp's to buy Garrisons so that you don't have to deal with them. You just plunk them down on the hexes where the partisans spawn, and that's the end of it. You simply pay the price to get rid of the problem. I've never seen partisans have much of an effect on a game, they are only a problem if you are lazy or cheap.

However, you do have to go through the process of buying the units and placing them on the map in the proper locations. And since the Axis player doing this is a given, and the partisans never showing up anyway is a given, I don't have a problem if this process was eliminated from the game.

Problem is, eliminating this process gives the Axis player an advantage. Now the Axis player does not have to buy all those garrisons. The mmp's that had been spent on garrisons can now be spent on aircraft, tanks, and such, and I don't think anyone really wants to see that. We already have in place a system where partisans cause economic damage without forming units, that could be expanded to avoid game imbalance.

Problem is, if all the cities in the German rear are constantly being taken below supply 5, they will no longer be able to operate troops or supply their forward units, and the Allied player would not even be doing anything. The German players biggest obstacle may turn out to be which cities are randomly selected to be razed by partisans, not the Allied player, and they couldn't do anything to prevent it. So I don't think that would work.

So, at this point I guess you would have to completely trash the existing system, and implement something that just applied a "partisan tax" to the Axis income every turn. Sounds artificial, and the Axis would not have anyway to mitigate it. That doesn't sound great either.

I don't have a problem eliminating the partisans, but they would have to be replaced by something, and I am not sure what.

[El_Condoro]

I am playing a game as the Allies and have not seen a single partisan unit and it is late 1943. There have been attacks on towns etc but not a single partisan unit in Yugoslavia or USSR, so there must be a way to prevent them spawning, it's just a matter of knowing how. My opponent obviously does! I'm sure it's garrisoning and using the 'P' key to work out where to place them.

[Markiss]

That's it. Use the "P" key, find the spawn hexes, and block them with garrisons. End of problem, but you do have to go through the motions, and you do have to buy the garrisons.

[El_Condoro]

I had a memory lapse: I have not seen any partisans in Yugoslavia but have seem minimal partisans in Russia. And I mean around 3 or 4 up until late 43.

[Elessar2]

Awhile back I had the crazy idea of putting in more partisan hexes than could possibly be covered (you thus in Russia/China only heavily garrison on the front you wish to launch an offensive on], but do sympathize with the tedium of the whack a mole syndrome,
along with the role that luck would play in such.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Markiss

For the actual partisan units, as things stand now, you pay mmp's to buy Garrisons so that you don't have to deal with them. You just plunk them down on the hexes where the partisans spawn, and that's the end of it. You simply pay the price to get rid of the problem. I've never seen partisans have much of an effect on a game, they are only a problem if you are lazy or cheap.

However, you do have to go through the process of buying the units and placing them on the map in the proper locations. And since the Axis player doing this is a given, and the partisans never showing up anyway is a given, I don't have a problem if this process was eliminated from the game.

Problem is, eliminating this process gives the Axis player an advantage. Now the Axis player does not have to buy all those garrisons. The mmp's that had been spent on garrisons can now be spent on aircraft, tanks, and such, and I don't think anyone really wants to see that. We already have in place a system where partisans cause economic damage without forming units, that could be expanded to avoid game imbalance.

Problem is, if all the cities in the German rear are constantly being taken below supply 5, they will no longer be able to operate troops or supply their forward units, and the Allied player would not even be doing anything. The German players biggest obstacle may turn out to be which cities are randomly selected to be razed by partisans, not the Allied player, and they couldn't do anything to prevent it. So I don't think that would work.

So, at this point I guess you would have to completely trash the existing system, and implement something that just applied a "partisan tax" to the Axis income every turn. Sounds artificial, and the Axis would not have anyway to mitigate it. That doesn't sound great either.

I don't have a problem eliminating the partisans, but they would have to be replaced by something, and I am not sure what.

I don't want to scrap the need to deal with the partisan threat, just to eliminate partisan counters. The SC system is better than WP on this issue IMHO because, as you write, there is a costly garrison system which works. My suggestion is that,instead of having partisan units popping up when a garrison is absent, then (but only then) there is some sort of direct economic penalty ('partisan tax' as you call it) instead.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: El_Condoro

I had a memory lapse: I have not seen any partisans in Yugoslavia but have seem minimal partisans in Russia. And I mean around 3 or 4 up until late 43.

When I played SC axis I rarely had partisan units popping up because my hatred of tedious whack a mole meant that I garrisoned properly

[El_Condoro]

I think the game allows you to remove the partisan counters yourself if you're willing to buy the garrisons and put them on the hexes that the 'P' key highlights. Then no more whack-a-mole tedium. One thing I like about the partisans as they stand is they have the same effect on a player as they had on the Germans - they are a PITA.

[Elessar2]

An argument [c.f. this current AAR] could be made that there should be a LOT more partisan hexes in China, at least. Japan simply didn't have the troop count to cover a theatre that huge, esp. as they expand; in reality there were tons of areas technically behind their own lines which were controlled by either Chiang or local warlords, or nobody at all.

[Aussiematto]

Reviewing the thread, I think that what is being proposed is not to abandon the IDEA of partisans, but in a future version to implement it differently. There's several ways (which I am sure the designers know), but I definitely like the idea of getting rid of the mechanics of plonking garrison units down. It ruins the flow of the gameplay, and woe betide you if you happen to make a mistake - it's hell just cos you misclicked or similar.

I wonder if the answer might be to have two different models, working at the same time. Model 1 is pure MMP economics - over time MMPS are damaged by partisans. You could add in systems whereby allies and axis could be asked to invest in formenting more partisans / investing in security to lower it (a bit like the very near Diplomacy mechanic). So, each turn, random percentage damage is done to an economy by partisans based on investments. That way, conquerers can gamble on how much they lose. If you also wanted to model damage to supply lines and, possibily, rear area units, you could have random -1 from strength against aircraft, supply centres etc.

Model 2 would kick in later in the war as it turns bad for Axis (pretty much Axis are only ones suffering partisans). There could be specific hexes which spawn actual units (as now) which have to be garrisoned. Or, for example, in different countries, different rules - units in Yugoslavia might start as 1, then grow to 2, 3, 4 over time or else partisans emerge. This could be linked to decisions by allies. Eg - the event which allows commando raids. I still think partisans should not be units which move around and attack - they should just sit there and ruin supply / economy.

By the way, one of the "gamey" aspects of partisan management is using things like low-value fighters in Russian rear area which you are not using at front line, or being careful with unit placement, eg HQs. In fact, this is another reason to get rid of it, since using these units is the opposite historically of what you should be doing! to fight partisans. And, as a tip, having one or two low value fighters as Axis in Russia is helpful cos they can range a lot to those P hexes you forget.

But, yes, while partisans need to be modelled into the system, I vote to get rid of the units

[Hubert Cater]

For those that wish to play without partisans, as mentioned in one of the posts above, they can be turned off at any time for Single Player games by disabling the applicable scripts which can be done in game via the OPTIONS->ADVANCED->SCRIPTS screen.

For Multiplayer games all you would need to do is create a custom version of the campaign via the Editor, remove the Partisan events as desired, save the campaign and then share it with your opponent so you would both be playing from the same partisans removed campaign.

Granted it won't take into account any costs for those countries that need to spend some MPP on anti-partisan duty, but it will remove them from the game as desired.

If you would like to include a Partisan tax of some sort into the customized campaign there are ways to edit that in as well. Perhaps some one time SUPPLY events that temporarily reduce income. These could be set to Mines or Oil so as to not potentially disrupt supply routes. A reduction in the effectiveness of the Industrial research advancements, lower initial Industrial Modifier etc. While the key is getting the numbers just right, there are options, and with the right creativity, I'm sure players can come up with something to their satisfaction.

There is of course also the option to simply continue with the default, but if not, essentially the options are all there to customize the game the way a player (or a group of players) sees fit for something like this.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[stormbringer3]

I always try to garrison the hexes but once in awhile I overlook one and a very strong partisan unit pops up right away. It can cause major disruption to my plans because it take so much to kill it. I don't want to disable the Partisans but I've got two ideas. One is the Partisans that spawn are not as powerful and the other is a warning turn. You get the boom and -MPPs notice then next turn you get the Partisian unit in the hex.

[PvtBenjamin]

I can't believe I'm saying this but Markiss has a good point [:D]. If you change the Partisan rules adjustments need to be made to maintain parity.

That being said I think Aussie & Storm have some good ideas.

[Markiss]

You lie, I don't have any good points! You're just saying that to make me feel better...

[David Hansen]

When playing the Axis in SP...I turn off all the partisan scripts as I don't like the "whack-a-mole" micromanagement aspect that it brings to a otherwise very enjoyable experience.
With this house rule in place... I boost the Allies by giving them a +20% MPP increase...this works for me.
I enjoy this customization ability to suit my tastes in SP...a real plus in my book for SC series.

[Gilber]

the Partisans are a historical reality of the WWII, this is only my opinion but I find the game captures this reality quite well. the temptation to save MPP by avoiding buying garrisons is not always judicious but everyone has a choice.