Conquering a Province, and the fate of Broken divisions

[Shadow Master]

This thread is a divergence from another good thread:

True encirclement by Elecwaves

As the title says, just what does it mean to control a conquered province?
One problem with the HoI system is that it allows a conquering nation to control a province without any visible military presence there (wrong and unhistorical), and the impression that a conquered province can be controlled w/out a presence within the province to enforce the occupation.

This then leads to the thought that the province is "empty", and therefor should be able to be retaken by just entering it, even with just the remnants of a defeated, disorganized, out of supply division. What if a rule were to be put into effect that province can only be allowed to 'fall' to a minimum of 1 operational, in supply division? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Also, what other possibilities should be possible as the fate of a broken division that could only retreat to an unoccupied enemy province?

My thoughts are that given the size of even a small province, the least we should consider as the amount of force needed to make the province change hands is an operationally intact, in supply division. Broken remnants of one or more divisions, that are not in supply, disorganized, or scattered, shouldn't be given the opportunity to take a province, IMHO.

So what should be done to a broken division that couldn't retreat except for taking an unoccupied province? I would like to discuss the possibility of Partisan units rising up around cores comprised of some of the shattered remnants of destroyed divisions. Would anyone care to start the ball rolling?

Starting point should be with the understanding that a broken division has had some of its personnel 'go to ground' in a province (hiding in local population's basements and such). These remnants are not under the control of their national government, are out of supply and communication, and have little equipment. This option should be available in their own national core provinces, w/possibility in allied nations cores.

Any thoughts?

 

[Shadow Master]

As I have further expounded and clarified the purpose of this thread, I feel justified in *bumping* this one up where it may get noticed and responded to. I hope that this is not considered bad manners and ask the indulgence of the forum community if it is.

best regards.

 

[zeekater]

I can't think of any example where surrounded units would form partisans units when defeated. There might be individual cases where a soldier tries to hide out, but not on a scale which would justify the creation of a partisan unit of thousands of men.

They would surrender or try to get back to friendly lines or die trying to do either.

 

[Shadow Master]

I can't think of any example where surrounded units would form partisans units when defeated. There might be individual cases where a soldier tries to hide out, but not on a scale which would justify the creation of a partisan unit of thousands of men.

They would surrender or try to get back to friendly lines or die trying to do either.

:rofl:

You just reminded me of how bad a picture I paint when describing something, lol. I envisioned that the survivors that didn't do either of the above (perhaps because of wounds, fatigue, or family in the province) would become the center of some small bands of partisans if not rooted out. Even though I had that image clearly in my mind, I failed miserably to convey that thought here. o

I seem to recall a story (truth or fiction, I don't remember), that talked about a downed allied pilot hooking up with the french resistance and later (after D-Day) getting back into the war.

Are partisan bands supposed to be that large? I always envisioned them as far fewer, maybe around 20 or so.

Can I get your thoughts on the other part of this thread?

Thanks.

 

[zeekater]

The HoI2 partisans are militia units, which ingame cost 5 MP, 5000 men.

They represent large units, which were only used in Russia where they could easily hide in the immense country. They weren't men from divisions which had been surrounded, but were purposedly dropped behind enemy lines to disrupt things (and strictly controlled from moscow, Staling was to much of a paranoid to allow anything he couldn't control).

As I said in the other thread, IMO, divisions should only be able to retreat through enemy held provinces, not retreat into them and capture it.

 

[unmerged(42324)]

dindt something like this happen in northern italy in the last phases of the war? when the germans tried to disarms italian units and they just deserted en masse and went up into the mountains and fought as partisans?

 

[Elecwaves]

I think broken divisions would in msot cases desert and leave their unit. This is covered in my thread, as the difference between broken and retreating units, as to retreat doesn't necessarily imply you're disorganized. The Germans retreated in Italy after all.

I think this thread would be better dedicated to exploring how it should be that territories are captured. Should it be like in vicky, where you need time to actually assert control over an area? Or like HoI2, where you enter Calais, and calais is yours?

A vicky style system could work, but the HoI2 model works so much better right now,

 

[unmerged(44926)]

I seem to recall a story (truth or fiction, I don't remember), that talked about a downed allied pilot hooking up with the french resistance and later (after D-Day) getting back into the war.

That happened to Chuck Yeager, according to his autobiography. Downed pilots hooking up with the French resistance was not uncommon - in fact it was what they were instructed to do, though "hooking up" might better be described as "being protected by" - but getting back into the war was the exception rather than the rule.

Once pilots were smuggled over the border into Spain and collected by their government, they were sent home, so as not to endanger the resistance members who helped them should they end up shot down again. Yeager was a rare case in that not only did he not want to go home, but his return to England happened during or shortly after the D-day invasions, and he could argue that the resistance no longer needed to worry about him. He still had to take his case all the way up the ladder to Eisenhower in order to get approved to fly in combat again.

Just thought I'd mention that, as I happen to have finished that book only a couple weeks ago.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I'm not sure how you'd represent understrength divisions disintegrating but continuing to fight. Not allowing a broken division to retreat into an "empty" enemy province seems fair, but how often does it happen that you arrive in an enemy province with only one broken division anyway? I do think there should be a difference between organized and disorganized retreats though. An organized retreat should allow a unit to regain org slowly while retreating (as the AI does already) while a total rout means that the unit has no choice in the direction in which it flees, and some small extra MP loss is taken during the retreat to represent casualties left behind, and stragglers captured or killed. If you choose to fight to the last, you should pay for it if your gamble doesn't work.

 

[unmerged(78438)]

You probably should have the option of executing them, releasing them, or whatever. Likewise, the units that participated in the destruction of the enemy should recieve a temporary supply bonus as they have basically seized vehicles, fuel, ammunition, and foodstuffs.

That really would help on the Russian front while playing as Germany, and is historical as Germans would use Russian SMGs during the battles in the East.

Actually, now that I think about it, releasing them wouldnt be an option. So you would have the option to either execute them, or just keep them as prisoners. Execution could give a morale penalty to nearby units, or maybe reduce (or increase!) rebel activity in a territory.