On The Concept Of Guerillas

[Traveler]

I wanted to start a thread about guerillas specifically after reading the post about the Boer War started by Ronk, and all the interesting ideas presented there.

Based on the fact that guerillas by nature are irregular and have low numbers and fight unconventionally, we can determine that they should not be represented in the same manner as regular troop formations.

Historical Note: Napoleon sent 30,000 troops to Hattie after the slaves there revolted. The Haitian rebels couldn’t fight Napoleons troops in the manner Europeans were accustomed to. The Haitians attacked at night, poisoned food, attacked from wooded areas and when confronted ran. Also they waited, not engaging the French forces until the rainy season and Napoleons forces got yellow fever, which the Haitians were immune to. Finally all that was left was 4000 of Napoleons forces, that were fit for battle and a relief force was trapped by ice and couldn’t sail to Hattie. Napoleon gave up as other concerns, a coming war with England, were imminent and the effort in Hattie was not worth it.

quote by Besuchov
a province that has a guerilla activity will suffer decreased income (like a province with pirates outside it in EU2)

I agree with Besuchov, guerillas should effect a province similar to what pirates did in EU2, reduced income or production, maybe have a graphic on the map of smoke rising and in the province view a guerilla waving a flag, with a gun strapped to their back.

quote by Besuchov
If this value is higher than the value of the troops there(or if there are no troops) the province will be taken over by a rebel army

Also, similar to rebels in EU2 and again like Besuchov stated, if there are no military units present, the province would be controlled by the guerillas at an even greater reduction of income or production, maybe show a graphic on the map of a crouching guerilla figure and in the province the guerilla waving the flag to indicate the occupation.

quote by Besuchov
increased cost for troops maintanance (costs a lot of money to fight guerilla war) and increased attrition.

When Troops are moved into a guerilla-controlled province, again along the logic detailed by Besuchov, there would be increased attrition due to guerilla unconventional attacks. To represent this there could be a graphic on the map with smoke and fire similar to a looted province in EU, and in the province view a guerilla prone taking shots from time to time at the troops.

To eliminate the guerillas I have two options.

• Option one: The troops could perform a siege like operation, where the length of the siege would be determined by the strength of the guerilla influence. The siege like process would get the job done but take longer with attrition eating away at the troops. Again to represent this there could be a graphic on the map with smoke and fire similar to a looted province in EU, and in the province view a guerilla prone taking shots from time to time at the troops .
• Option two: The troops could perform an assault like operation, where the troops conduct maneuvers to actively engage the guerillas and destroy them. The assault operation would result in crushing the guerillas faster but at a higher cost. There could be a graphic on the map of troops occasionally coming in contact with the guerillas: firing at them; bayoneting them; or capturing them. In the province view the graphic would be similar to the map view.

Now another twist to the idea, similar to pirates again, a Nation could support a guerilla uprising in a country, ala create pirates, that would effect a selected province possibly spreading to others.

If the guerillas become successful and influence amongst the people for their cause is high enough then a rebellion could start. Now there would be a tangible force that could engage government forces and move out to spread the guerilla sentiment faster.

Ok there are my ideas, comments or concerns are welcome

 

[Owl]

Some good thoughts there.

The first "guerillas" were Spaniards, in the Peninsular War (1806?) so the concept was well-established by the "Victoria" era.

 

[CMOTHodad]

This is an excellent idea. You could model all the native uprisings in the same way and get rid of the pesky 'rebel scum' armies which aren't realistic.

I think revolts could also be modelled like this, and it's particularly interesting that they can spread just as easily without the 'rebel scum' armies.

 

[Traveler]

Additional Thoughts

I also read in another post where they were discussing the subtleties of the Indian conflict in the US. The point was there were very few military confrontations typical of European type magnitude. Most were small engagements, with US forts set up in territories to protect settlers and other interests from Indian war parties.

Now as for the guerilla concept, they could be applied to the Indians. Where in US territories certain Events could trigger Indian (guerilla) type activity. This would cause income/productivity slow down in the effected territory and US troops would have to be moved in to bring back order. Also, other events could produce famous Indian war leaders with an actual army. These armies would have a great ability to escape when confronted by US/Mexican military (Geronimo springs to mind). Along the way where they go, they could start the seeds for further Indian war parties (guerilla activates).

Just another thought. Figured I would share it.

 

[saskganesh]

these are good thoughts. since fighting guerrillas is often just turns into a war against people , a population drop due to conflict should be higher.

 

[Traveler]

Good point. I agree the effects on the locals would be pretty harsh, as well as the local infrastructure.

I figure the economy and infrastructure will be similar to HOI so maybe damage to industry would be an effect also.

Guerrillas are notorious for sabotaging rail and industrial targets; this would give any ruler incentive to quickly stop them before things get out of hand.

 

[unmerged(11129)]

Traveler,

Very good ideas. The one point you make that I am not to sure about is the one about foreign governments supporting guerilla forces.

Now another twist to the idea, similar to pirates again, a Nation could support a guerilla uprising in a country, ala create pirates, that would effect a selected province possibly spreading to others.

If they were to make this a feature, I would think that it would need to be VERY expensive, both in resources and political cost. This should be viewed by other countries as the most dishonorable thing another ruler could do. Otherwise, it might become an option that is much too attractive. Besides, while I know that countries have helped fuel dissent in their enemies lands since the beginning of time, this sort of political tactic seems to be used much more often in the modern era. When I think of countries supporting rebel forces in a foreign land, I think more of the Cold War than the Franco-Prussian War.

 

[Traveler]

sachmo

I see your point. I suppose if a country were to try it, since this wasn't common, it should cost allot.

First sending in an agent to foment the idea of the cause for the guerillas would be expensive and would have a chance to fail. So this could be similar to sending settlers or missionaries in EUII.

Second as you said this was a dastardly deed and should cause a serious BB hit. Or since this is a secret attempt to undermine another countries rule, it could be an economic drain on the supporting country. It could be modeled similar to taking a bank loan, in that when you send the agent, you start paying support (the same as paying interest on a loan). If the agent is successful then you pay double to aid the guerillas (the same as defaulting on a loan).

 

[Tim O]

Hmmm. I hope a lot of guerillas aren't popping up after the South loses the civil war. If Lee survives the war this shouldn't happen.

 

[Traveler]

Timothy Ortiz

There could be guerillas during the war (a greater percent chance). Partisans trying to sabotage rail to inhibit the North's ability to wage war.

After the war you could have out of work confederates carrying on the fight, which would require the North to subdue these hold outs.

 

[unmerged(10598)]

So are you also envisaging that a country which has been invaded being able to encourage it's population in occupied provinces to "carry on the fight". There is precident for this during WW1 the Germans certainly perceived that they were under attack from civilians on the Western Front. This would be an interesting concept but potentially very annoying (without a good Ai) and difficult to employ...

 

[Traveler]

Johno

Well they wouldn't be guerillas they would be partisans. The way they would work would be increased attrition in provinces with partisans (which would represent attacks on supplies and such). This wouldn't necessarily stop an advancing army but would slow down an advance and require resources being diverted from the front to manage the situation with regard to the partisans

Obviously the chance for partisans activity would be determined by the amount of nationalism, similar to revolt risk in EU but more attuned to modern times (Civilians didn't march against rifle toting soldiers).

The concept would have to be taken into account when considering a campaign against another country. If The US attacks Canada in order to control all of North America, militarily it’s possible, but the Canadian populace as a whole wouldn’t just roll over, there would be large amounts of partisans disrupting the logistics of the military campaign.

Actually this could be a nice feature put in to prevent or at least inhibit a nations ability to take over the world. It’s not impossible with guerillas/partisans but it wouldn’t be easy either.

 

[King of Men]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
Hmmm. I hope a lot of guerillas aren't popping up after the South loses the civil war. If Lee survives the war this shouldn't happen.

Well, but it could have happened, couldn't it? I don't think you should get it automatically, but there could be a CSA event triggered by US control of, say, Richmond : Surrender? Option A is the historical one where Lee says, "OK we've lost, let's not make it worse than it is" and you get no guerrillas. Option B is "Let the damnyankees suffer!" and you have a low-scale rebellion all over the place. (In either case the CSA gets annexed, I just want the effects on the US afterwards).

 

[Buke]

Lee once said if he could get his army into the Blue Ridge he could hold out for 20 years. Guerilla war was a great possibility that both Lee, Johnson, and Forest thought of taking up in the last days but the results could have been more disastrous than the war had been and end the end none of them took up that option.

 

[Buke]

When I think of countries supporting rebel forces in a foreign land, I think more of the Cold War than the Franco-Prussian War.

Yes but it did happen, Russia supported the Afghanis in uprisings on the north west frontier, Britain heavily supported the South American Rebels against the Spanish in their wars of independence, and the US gave many guns and supplies as well as volunteers to the Mexicans fighting the French after the Civil war.

 

[Traveler]

With the end of major engagements in the Civil War, and the CSA falling under the Union once again, it would be plausible for guerilla activity to spring up in provinces with high nationalism requiring extra Union presence to ensure no further outbreaks of hostilities.

If guerillas/partisans/Indians were modeled in the game it could add some character to the game as well as another level of detail to consider when running your country.

So to recap, guerillas dont take actual form like rebel armies but are an area effect on a province. Where the province beomces hostile to a nations troops, and causes attrition, less income or production, and a higher chance of a rebel force forming to spread the unrest and create a searious hazard.

 

[unmerged(2238)]

It seems like most of these threads tend to get bogged down into the american civil war. Well, all I'm saying is that regardless of the civil war or not, guerillas will be useful all over the place, especially places like the balkans and unruly colonies.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

I think if it is -% income, then it needs to be all income. I can have -100% Province taxes due to revolt risk but I'll still get production revenues and trade taxes.

 

[unmerged(11129)]

Originally posted by Buke
Yes but it did happen, Russia supported the Afghanis in uprisings on the north west frontier, Britain heavily supported the South American Rebels against the Spanish in their wars of independence, and the US gave many guns and supplies as well as volunteers to the Mexicans fighting the French after the Civil war.

You are right, and I guess I need to make my point clear. I never meant to imply that it never happened, but did it happen often enough to be added to the game as a feature? A feature that can allow you to destabilize an enemy country whenever you wish? Seems a bit too powerful of a diplomatic weapon to me.

 

[Traveler]

John_Keats
I agree, the concept of guerillas can be applied to any region to reflect unrest. Whether it’s Indians in the American West, or Boers in South Africa to Boxers in China. It would be nice to model the problems faced with colonialism in this time, and the growing power of the people to take up arms against governments they didn’t support. But, make it different than the current rebels model in EUII.

KwangTiger
The economy model for Victoria probably wont be the same as EUII. It will probably be more like HOI, with the emphasis on industry and infrastructure. So if a province were affected by guerillas it would damage or degrade the income/production from the province as a whole due to sabotage of industry and interference with transportation of goods. It shouldn’t completely shut down a province but will definitely get the attention of a ruler, who might need that source of production as well as want to prevent a full rebellion from springing up.

sachmo
I agree, I would suspect that for guerillas to take root in a province of a country there should be some serious consequences as well as checks and balances. Guerillas didn’t pop up all the time in a country they had to have a cause to fight for and some support. Usually, they disagreed with the current government on a particular policy and there usually was a certain level of unrest present in the populace in regards to this policy.

So If Country A wanted to send an agent to Country B in order to foment a guerilla uprising, (think sending a missionary or settler to a province) there should be indicators of the chances of success. Obviously, if the province had some grievances towards their government then the chance of success would be greater. Also there could be a chance that Country B would find out that Country A is supporting or trying to support guerillas in their country.

I suggested earlier another way to discourage countries from sending agents would be the cost. Tie the cost into the length of the operation where when a country first sends an agent, your treasury is hit with a one-time cost and cost for the operation(similar to taking a loan in EU with loan interest). Then if guerillas become active in the target province you are hit with even more cost to support them (same as a default loan in EU with double loan interest). This way a country would have to weigh the cost as well as the international scandal against their desire to cause problems in the target country.

Victoria will be set in a different time period than EU, where people rising up in open rebellion with pitch forks and hunting rifles didn’t happen as it once did. Therefore guerillas that wanted to show their dislike for the current government would attack in un-conventional ways. Victoria should model the change and this topic being discussed here could present some valid ideas for the developers. So do your part and voice your opinion.