Guella Mechanics and Conter-Insergentcy ?

[degen83]

Just want to add that although the guerillas beating the giants are remembered more (Vietnam and Afghanistan), there were plenty of other cases where guerillas were smashed by the government forces, mostly in Africa and Latin America, including Cuba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_the_Bandits
So both outcomes have to be made somehow possible, better if a result of internal political situation X foreign support for both sides.

Yes, I remember those. In some cases military should be able to just go in and smash rebels. In other cases (Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc) there should be additional things the player could do in addition to sending his military in since a military solution on its own didn't solve either of those wars.

I agree the player has to be able to "win" the fight, but also shouldn't be able to just play wack a mole with the rebels. I'm not sure how to accomplish this though as I am pretty tired. I'll be thinking of it though because it is an element of the game that could be outstanding if done right.

[TankHunter]

Well successful COIN efforts would have to be expensive, take a long time (decades) and rarely end in success for a foreign power (and then under very specific conditions). I would say that a POP system would be useful in simulating this. Of course there is an issue, Paradox may not be willing to simulate all of the possible ways of dealing with insurgencies (such as the Hama option).

[Klausewitz]

Under the light of current political events i offically doubt that the 'Hama'-Option is successful.
(For everybody not in the Coin community or reading a certain author, the 'Hama'-Option was coined by MArtin van Creveld who claims that 'it is better to kill too many than not enough' and cites the attack on Hama by the Syrian state to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood as a political force. Van Creveld is a proponent of the 'putting heads on stakes'-school of COIN. While it is true that the silence of the grave lasted something like 30 years (for all we know) Hama is today once again on the side of the opposition in the Syrian civil war (?) being fought at the moment.)

[TankHunter]

Without going too far off topic the conflict may well have re-erupted no matter what, just as long as an Alawi was in power. However it did generally calm things down much quicker than traditional COIN efforts. The uprising lasted for some 3 years IIRC.

[Don_Quigleone]

Peaceful seperation should also be an option. For instance, Jamaica attained independence during this period and maintained Elizabeth II as their monarch, and generall peaceful relations with Britain. Around the same time, Ireland decisively chose to sever all links to Britain and aim for total independence. Both cases are the results of the different policies with regards to both countries. The player should be able to promote devolution and trying to satisfy the requests of the colonies. Of course, acting in this way may upset certain factions at home...

[Minuteman1000]

Peaceful seperation should also be an option. For instance, Jamaica attained independence during this period and maintained Elizabeth II as their monarch, and generall peaceful relations with Britain. Around the same time, Ireland decisively chose to sever all links to Britain and aim for total independence. Both cases are the results of the different policies with regards to both countries. The player should be able to promote devolution and trying to satisfy the requests of the colonies. Of course, acting in this way may upset certain factions at home...

There should be a separate menu under diplomacy that says release as : puppet,satellite,vassal,free state (puppet and satellite may be darkened out because you are a democracy) and sometime down the road release the vassal due to external pressure or make it a fully represented territory in your country.
As well as additional options like "remains in the commonwealth or NATO."

[Klausewitz]

There should be a separate menu under diplomacy that says release as : puppet,satellite,vassal,free state (puppet and satellite may be darkened out because you are a democracy) and sometime down the road release the vassal due to external pressure or make it a fully represented territory in your country.

If we take the US as a yardstick for democracies, there is no reason to black out the puppet/satellite button. Neither is there in case of France.
I am not sure about Britain.
France had a policy of routinely 'lending infrastrucutre support' for the first election in their erstwhile colonies (if their was anything valuable) and then get the guy who just stumbled into office to sign a military assitance treaty. Then just station a company of paras in his palace and voila nothing much changes, but you are out of the cost of administrating that mess.
As for the US their treatment of Puerto Rico ('free associated state' indeed) is probably a textbook example of retaining the illusion of an independent state while keeping absolute control and, on top, making independence extremly unlikely by even abolishing the own citizenship of the client state.
You could argue of course, that the US is not a viable example since they never ever allowed anyone to seceed from them, but then...

[Don_Quigleone]

I think the granting of independence should be a more involved process, and there should be varying levels of control that you can maintain over such satellites.

[awesomesauce47]

they also need to allow guerrillas to go in to foreign territory like in Vietnam Vietcong would sneak in to Cambodia for safety. also the player cant follow the guerrillas into that country.

[Klausewitz]

they also need to allow guerrillas to go in to foreign territory like in Vietnam Vietcong would sneak in to Cambodia for safety. also the player cant follow the guerrillas into that country.

Well, the US managed to do just that.
Darn those unreliable maps.
And those overtly cooperative mountain tribes.

[Xenophon13]

Here are a few things that I think we could add to the suggestions mentioned previously:

1) Guerrillas should be able to do ORG and Morale damage to armies, as well as disrupting supply lines.

2) Guerrillas should have a specific region where they can operate, and should gain reinforcements and bounses if the local population is friendly to their cause.

3) Highly trained infantry (special forces, commandos, etc.) should be more effective at fighting guerrillas (I'd assume)

4) There should be mechanics determining when and how different guerilla groups work together, and when they are opposed to eachother.

[Jaded Samurai]

Here are a few things that I think we could add to the suggestions mentioned previously:

1) Guerrillas should be able to do ORG and Morale damage to armies, as well as disrupting supply lines.

2) Guerrillas should have a specific region where they can operate, and should gain reinforcements and bounses if the local population is friendly to their cause.

3) Highly trained infantry (special forces, commandos, etc.) should be more effective at fighting guerrillas (I'd assume)

4) There should be mechanics determining when and how different guerilla groups work together, and when they are opposed to eachother.

1) Guerrillas/ partisans should also be able to disrupt the economic productivity in the provinces where they operate.
2) I concur
3) MP and militia units should also be effective in security, and would be nice for succesful commanders of such units to receive attributes like "counter-insurgent," for example (as they gain experience).
4) It would be great if the game will have a Victoria 2 type of ideological identifier for guerrillas (anarcho-liberal, communist, Jacobin, etc).

[Xenophon13]

Another thing I thought of: by using guerrillas, there should be serious risk involved of long term damage. I.e. Vietnam, which had massive amounts of napalm and agent orange dumped on it, or anywhere where the foreign imported weapons made it into the hands of various splinter groups which used them to fight civil wars. Also, things like landmines can have serious long term impact. This I think would be a way to keep the game balanced as well as realistic.

[Klausewitz]

Another thing I thought of: by using guerrillas, there should be serious risk involved of long term damage. I.e. Vietnam, which had massive amounts of napalm and agent orange dumped on it, or anywhere where the foreign imported weapons made it into the hands of various splinter groups which used them to fight civil wars. Also, things like landmines can have serious long term impact. This I think would be a way to keep the game balanced as well as realistic.

What you describe are not consequences of guerilla war but of war. Look at Germany post WWI or II and at the battlefields of Verdun and Flanders were Poison Gas was used.
Also such assholery as the Americans did in Vietnam (Agent Orange) is not necessarily part of a Guerilla War. There might be, for example, nothing to defoliate.

[Xenophon13]

What you describe are not consequences of guerilla war but of war. Look at Germany post WWI or II and at the battlefields of Verdun and Flanders were Poison Gas was used.
Also such assholery as the Americans did in Vietnam (Agent Orange) is not necessarily part of a Guerilla War. There might be, for example, nothing to defoliate.

You're right. I did not articulate myself well. What I mean is that with the generally long term nature of a guerrilla war, and the fact that it generally takes place in the country the guerrillas are trying to free, even a small scale conflict can wreak massive destruction on your country, should the attacker choose to use tactics as described above.

[Klausewitz]

I agree.
And since HoI was so far not very good with modeling long term consequences of war (though neither was EU3) this is an important point.

[fenwayb]

Well, the US managed to do just that.
Darn those unreliable maps.
And those overtly cooperative mountain tribes.

I assume you're not talking about Vietnam, right? Cause we didn't "just march over the borders", we declared war on Cambodia (as much as we declared war on Vietnam...).

[Klausewitz]

I assume you're not talking about Vietnam, right? Cause we didn't "just march over the borders", we declared war on Cambodia (as much as we declared war on Vietnam...).

Emphasis mine.

[fenwayb]

Emphasis mine.

Which is still more than what you're saying. We had congressional support for Vietnam, it just wasn't a declared war. Your statement made it sound like we just pretended to not know the border between Cambodia and Vietnam, which isn't true. We knew we were going into Cambodian territory, but felt it appropriate because they were supporting the enemy.

[Klausewitz]

You are right.
In the Stupid versus Evil value this does not go to the stupid column.
First illegal, secret bombings, then 'incursions' while issuing talking points about 'respecting the neutrality and territorial integrity of Cambodia'.