Guerilla warfare stance for armies in Eu4 and Vic2.
From Skanderbegs campaigns against the Ottomans to the Spanish rebels against Napoleon, from the Anglo-Afghan War to the Russian Revolution, guerrilla warfare has always been David's slingshot against imperialistic Goliaths. The fact that this is never modeled despite its massive role across this time period leads to endless absurdity in regards to simulation, with the weaker nations rapidly folding having hardly put up a fight. I believe this can be rectified with a special guerrilla warfare stance.
Like the raiding stance in CK2, the guerrilla stance is activated on a per army basis. The whole point of this mechanic would be allow a smaller or weaker force to draw out a "battle" or conflict with a larger and more powerful nation from mere days to perhaps months or years on end. To do so, during a battle with a force in guerrilla stance will inflict more morale (Eu4) or organization (Vic2) damage while having lower actual casualty damage. This is to make the other army withdraw from the territory without being able to occupy it. The key here is, due to lower casualties, there would also be less warscore change from such battles, so the main change in warscore would be from the ticking warscore the defender has in maintaining control of the disputed territory. Since this wouldn't mean the traditional combat phases, combat width and such wouldn't matter as much and smaller units, stretched over a larger front, would still be able to effectively delay and damage an invader.
Now what determines the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare? Looking back across the game mechanics and history, the main component is effectively the speed and maneuverability of the guerrilla unit. Thus, the relative speed of the guerrilla and regular force directly determines its effectiveness, where faster soldiers(like cavalry or due to technology) with a commander with maneuverability or speed bonuses will perform better than an army with heavier units (like artillery) led by a slower commander. In fact, if the regular unit has high enough relative speed to the guerrilla unit, they would effectively negate any bonuses of guerrilla warfare and be able to beat the guerrilla back.
Naturally, there need to be limitations to prevent such a style of combat from simply being used everywhere and has some obvious historical downsides. First and foremost, I believe this stance should only be effective on provinces with the nation's cores. Kinda like with the shock bonus that steppe hordes get in Eu4 for fighting on their territory, this further emphasizes the use of this stance as a primarily defensive strategy meant to delay an attacker. This also represents how the people in the province effectively support the guerrilla forces, allowing them to properly conduct this kind of warfare. Invaders with little support from the locals nor understanding of the land itself will simply not have this be an option, so the stance even if activated, would not be used in a battle and would only be usable once the guerrilla army was back on a core province. Furthermore, if the "invading" army has cores on the region though, they can negate the usage of guerrilla warfare or even engage in it themselves. This will either force a more traditional battle in the case of the former or lead to a two-sided guerrilla battle, where both sides are inflicting more morale or organization damage on the other, in the case of the latter.
Lastly, the major downside of using this stance is that it destroys the province it's used in. Both guerrilla and invaders force the locals into the fight leading them to getting caught in the crossfire, savaging the region. In Eu4, this would mean automatically applying the "scorched earth" modifier and increasing attrition, lowering prosperity, and if the fighting goes on too long, even lowering development. In Vic2, there would be rougher implementation involving adding HPMs "no more war" modifier, lowering the supply limit, and even the life rating if the fighting is too prolonged as well. Here, through provincial attrition, is where the primary damage to the regular unit would be dealt, as the locals and provincial conditions take a turn south on them. This is is stance is the last, desperate option of a cornered peoples with little chance of victory otherwise. It should not be used lightly.
In Summary
Pros:
1. Combat width and numbers doesn't matter, smaller and weaker forces can take on larger and stronger ones
2. More guerrilla damage to regular organization, taking fewer losses.
3. Delays invaders, raises ticking warscore.
Cons:
1. Can only use on core provinces. Won't affect "invaders" who have cores.
2. Can be mitigated or negated if relative speed and maneuverability or regulars is good enough, due to good units or commander.
3. Devastates the province.
From Skanderbegs campaigns against the Ottomans to the Spanish rebels against Napoleon, from the Anglo-Afghan War to the Russian Revolution, guerrilla warfare has always been David's slingshot against imperialistic Goliaths. The fact that this is never modeled despite its massive role across this time period leads to endless absurdity in regards to simulation, with the weaker nations rapidly folding having hardly put up a fight. I believe this can be rectified with a special guerrilla warfare stance.
Like the raiding stance in CK2, the guerrilla stance is activated on a per army basis. The whole point of this mechanic would be allow a smaller or weaker force to draw out a "battle" or conflict with a larger and more powerful nation from mere days to perhaps months or years on end. To do so, during a battle with a force in guerrilla stance will inflict more morale (Eu4) or organization (Vic2) damage while having lower actual casualty damage. This is to make the other army withdraw from the territory without being able to occupy it. The key here is, due to lower casualties, there would also be less warscore change from such battles, so the main change in warscore would be from the ticking warscore the defender has in maintaining control of the disputed territory. Since this wouldn't mean the traditional combat phases, combat width and such wouldn't matter as much and smaller units, stretched over a larger front, would still be able to effectively delay and damage an invader.
Now what determines the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare? Looking back across the game mechanics and history, the main component is effectively the speed and maneuverability of the guerrilla unit. Thus, the relative speed of the guerrilla and regular force directly determines its effectiveness, where faster soldiers(like cavalry or due to technology) with a commander with maneuverability or speed bonuses will perform better than an army with heavier units (like artillery) led by a slower commander. In fact, if the regular unit has high enough relative speed to the guerrilla unit, they would effectively negate any bonuses of guerrilla warfare and be able to beat the guerrilla back.
Naturally, there need to be limitations to prevent such a style of combat from simply being used everywhere and has some obvious historical downsides. First and foremost, I believe this stance should only be effective on provinces with the nation's cores. Kinda like with the shock bonus that steppe hordes get in Eu4 for fighting on their territory, this further emphasizes the use of this stance as a primarily defensive strategy meant to delay an attacker. This also represents how the people in the province effectively support the guerrilla forces, allowing them to properly conduct this kind of warfare. Invaders with little support from the locals nor understanding of the land itself will simply not have this be an option, so the stance even if activated, would not be used in a battle and would only be usable once the guerrilla army was back on a core province. Furthermore, if the "invading" army has cores on the region though, they can negate the usage of guerrilla warfare or even engage in it themselves. This will either force a more traditional battle in the case of the former or lead to a two-sided guerrilla battle, where both sides are inflicting more morale or organization damage on the other, in the case of the latter.
Lastly, the major downside of using this stance is that it destroys the province it's used in. Both guerrilla and invaders force the locals into the fight leading them to getting caught in the crossfire, savaging the region. In Eu4, this would mean automatically applying the "scorched earth" modifier and increasing attrition, lowering prosperity, and if the fighting goes on too long, even lowering development. In Vic2, there would be rougher implementation involving adding HPMs "no more war" modifier, lowering the supply limit, and even the life rating if the fighting is too prolonged as well. Here, through provincial attrition, is where the primary damage to the regular unit would be dealt, as the locals and provincial conditions take a turn south on them. This is is stance is the last, desperate option of a cornered peoples with little chance of victory otherwise. It should not be used lightly.
In Summary
Pros:
1. Combat width and numbers doesn't matter, smaller and weaker forces can take on larger and stronger ones
2. More guerrilla damage to regular organization, taking fewer losses.
3. Delays invaders, raises ticking warscore.
Cons:
1. Can only use on core provinces. Won't affect "invaders" who have cores.
2. Can be mitigated or negated if relative speed and maneuverability or regulars is good enough, due to good units or commander.
3. Devastates the province.
