Partisants

[sbielas]

I've just read on twitter that partisants will be a real pain in the neck of supply lines.

I don't know if this was already discussed but one question comes to my mind - what is (or if it is at all) the time lag between the province being taken by my troops and effective resistance emerging in it?

IMHO it would be really illogic if partisants level in province will be high since very first day after seizing it. I would say people need time to organize themselves, get guns etc. Resistance level should rather increase over a time with speed depending on internal policies of aggressor (and maybe national unity of invaded country) and number of garrison units present in the region or something like this, than being high immediately my divisions will leave the land. It should take some reasonable time.

any comments or ideas about this ?

 

[unmerged(131221)]

I think partisant level depends on troops in the area so after taking province the partisant actions are small and when units move out it should steadily grow.

 

[zeekater]

A quick way to simulate this could be to give each and every unit at least some very low partisan suppression.

That way when you conquer a new province some units will be in and around it, suppressing the partisans.
Once the front moves and those troops leave, the partisan levels go up.

 

[juv95hrn]

I just hope you can mark multiple units and give them simultaneous anti-partisan orders unlike HOI2. Or a permanent anti-partisan order that remains even after strategic relocation.

Decrease the click feast as much as it is possible please!

 

[unmerged(123225)]

I'm guessing the partisan level will affect the supply efficiency passing through the province in question. I just hope the partisan level is related to the manpower in the province. I didn't like how some arctic area had same partisan level as populated areas.

 

[unmerged(128095)]

I'm guessing the partisan level will affect the supply efficiency passing through the province in question. I just hope the partisan level is related to the manpower in the province. I didn't like how some arctic area had same partisan level as populated areas.

I'm hoping the same thing. There has not been any discussion, other than something on twitter regarding partisans and IIRC a mention in the diplomacy DD that you could actively support partisans. I hope that Paradox makes it a more intergral part of the game for HoI3. Secondly, I hope they also make the need for building and deploying garrison divisions more of a necessity. In HoI3, you could pretty much handle the entirety of Poland and Western USSR with a couple of calvary or motorized divisions to fend off the 'division' sized partisan units that sprung up. In reality, the Germans had several dozen divisions tied up behind the lines to suppress partisan activity in just the Soviet Union.

My suggestions for making partisan activity a more realistic part of the game:

1. for the most part, partisan activity would be a variable level in any given provence. As the level rises, loss to supplies and any IC or resource benefit the occupying country would be lowered.

2. In order to prevent the need for putting a two or three brigade division of garrison troops in every provence, partisan suppression effect for garrison divisions would spread over adjacent provences or maybe even a ring of two provinces. Generally, a division may be quartered in a metropolitan area, and if needed would send a battalion or regiment out to handle any activity, or base individual smaller units over a large area.

3. Actual division sized groups of partisans were rare. (The pripyet marsh area and maybe Paris just before it's fall might be exceptions). If division sized partisan groups do form, An I think they should be able too, they shouldn't be able to move at all, (They are defending their homes after all) and they should be given a very high defense value and/or entrenchment value. This way, it would take several divisions to effectivly deal with them.

4. Division sized partisan units could only form up in areas that have the population base to draw from. For example, a provence or region would have to have several tens of thousands of people in it and in close proximity to each other before an underground unit could orginize enough to put an actual funcioning division sized unit together.

 

[Porkman]

I'm hoping the same thing. There has not been any discussion, other than something on twitter regarding partisans and IIRC a mention in the diplomacy DD that you could actively support partisans. I hope that Paradox makes it a more integral part of the game for HoI3. Secondly, I hope they also make the need for building and deploying garrison divisions more of a necessity. In HoI3, you could pretty much handle the entirety of Poland and Western USSR with a couple of calvary or motorized divisions to fend off the 'division' sized partisan units that sprung up. In reality, the Germans had several dozen divisions tied up behind the lines to suppress partisan activity in just the Soviet Union.

My suggestions for making partisan activity a more realistic part of the game:

1. for the most part, partisan activity would be a variable level in any given provence. As the level rises, loss to supplies and any IC or resource benefit the occupying country would be lowered.

2. In order to prevent the need for putting a two or three brigade division of garrison troops in every provence, partisan suppression effect for garrison divisions would spread over adjacent provences or maybe even a ring of two provinces. Generally, a division may be quartered in a metropolitan area, and if needed would send a battalion or regiment out to handle any activity, or base individual smaller units over a large area.

3. Actual division sized groups of partisans were rare. (The pripyet marsh area and maybe Paris just before it's fall might be exceptions). If division sized partisan groups do form, An I think they should be able too, they shouldn't be able to move at all, (They are defending their homes after all) and they should be given a very high defense value and/or entrenchment value. This way, it would take several divisions to effectivly deal with them.

4. Division sized partisan units could only form up in areas that have the population base to draw from. For example, a provence or region would have to have several tens of thousands of people in it and in close proximity to each other before an underground unit could orginize enough to put an actual funcioning division sized unit together.

You make excellent points but remember that division size partisan units were not rare. There were millions of Chinese troops, (communist, nationalist, puppet and warlord) operating behind Japanese lines at any given time.

This goes to point #4 where a province has to have tens of thousands living in close quarters in order to produce Partisans. If every HOI3 province is a circle with about 30 miles of diameter, then the average province in Henan province would contain 500,000 people at this point in time. (To give you an idea, the same sized area in Wisconsin would have 35,000 people.) This was why so many Chinese troops were able to operate in the occupied territories.

It's not realistic for the Japanese to need anything less than at least brigade sized divisions to suppress partisans in an area that has 750 people per square mile. (290 per square kilometer.)

The Japanese only had enough troops to hold the rails and the cities and could only strike back at the partisans when they went into the open.

This is why I would object to #2 on your list. Yes, partisan suppression should spread out, but it has to be based on the amount of manpower in a territory. When you start getting Chinese and Western European population densities, you are going to need division sized suppression in every province.

 

[unmerged(61331)]

I'm guessing the partisan level will affect the supply efficiency passing through the province in question. I just hope the partisan level is related to the manpower in the province. I didn't like how some arctic area had same partisan level as populated areas.

I disagree. Many times it's those depopulated regions that are the worst. It was in the endless hills and mountains that the Greek resistance thrived, not Athens. Likewise it was in places like the marshes and forests of Belarussia, not Minsk or Kiev that resistance was the strongest. Same in China for the Japanese, or to use another war, Arabia for the Turks.
Heck, even back as far as the Revolutionary war, it was the backwoods of the Carolinas that saw the most irregular resistance, not the streets of New York City.

 

[unmerged(123225)]

I disagree. Many times it's those depopulated regions that are the worst. It was in the endless hills and mountains that the Greek resistance thrived, not Athens. Likewise it was in places like the marshes and forests of Belarussia, not Minsk or Kiev that resistance was the strongest. Same in China for the Japanese, or to use another war, Arabia for the Turks.
Heck, even back as far as the Revolutionary war, it was the backwoods of the Carolinas that saw the most irregular resistance, not the streets of New York City.

You have a point, but there were other examples like Warsaw uprising and French Resistance. I think the partisan level actually have a lot of different factors that are perhaps a bit too much to include all. Things like:
-nationalism/ideology
-Occupying country's treatment of the population (may be a bit touchy issue for the game)
-geography
-demography (how many people and what kind of people)
-foreign influence

 

[unmerged(61331)]

You have a point, but there were other examples like Warsaw uprising and French Resistance. I think the partisan level actually have a lot of different factors that are perhaps a bit too much to include all. Things like:
-nationalism/ideology
-Occupying country's treatment of the population (may be a bit touchy issue for the game)
-geography
-demography (how many people and what kind of people)
-foreign influence

Certainly existed yes. Just pointing out that population is rarely a good indicator. I think what you pointed out has a much greater role on the resistance, and manpower production should play essentially no role in it.

 

[Porkman]

I disagree. Many times it's those depopulated regions that are the worst. It was in the endless hills and mountains that the Greek resistance thrived, not Athens. Likewise it was in places like the marshes and forests of Belarussia, not Minsk or Kiev that resistance was the strongest. Same in China for the Japanese, or to use another war, Arabia for the Turks.
Heck, even back as far as the Revolutionary war, it was the backwoods of the Carolinas that saw the most irregular resistance, not the streets of New York City.

Your mistaking "populated" for "urbanized with ease of movement."

You can't have a partisan uprising in Minsk because they can send troops to anywhere within 20 kilometers miles in less than 2 hours.

The reason partisans operated off the beaten track was not because there weren't any people there, but because the terrain made it impossible for the attackers to find them.

Sparsely populated, high infrastructure areas are the easiest areas for an occupying power to find partisans. As population density increases and infrastructure decreases, partisan suppression gets more difficult.

Your forces have more people to watch, more targets to protect, less ability to react to threats promptly, and become much more visible to the local population.