That's a different issue, I think, related to the culture/nationalism of the POP/country.Mellow said:
Militancy is supposed to correlate to revolt risk, but info about the above isn't provided anywhere easily visible.
Rafiki-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Militancy is supposed to correlate to revolt risk, but info about the above isn't provided anywhere easily visible.
Rafiki
Crazy_Ivan80 said:
the idea I posted is based on the fact that an army division can train different contingents of irregular garrison divisions. When they are split up, it's not that difficult to reinforce to 10.000 men, if needed. For larger population prov's it seems pretty logical.
They don't have the firepower of an army but are somewhere inbetween like the irregulars from Victoria. Look at Iraq nowadays,
however reinforcing them to 10.000 holds a great risk - loosing manpower that you better had used on the battle field and not an guard duty,
The concern I have with the partisan system is that it's a gameplay mechanism with no real historical analog. It exists purely to make conquest more difficult for the player.
Historically, partisans were virtually unheard of in Europe during this time period. The one case where you did see a very low level partisan war (the Franco-Prussian war), was so extraordinarily unusual that A) people are still writing about it today and B) it was considered a violation of the laws of war.
It's simply a case where the designers have chose a perceived gameplay advantage over historical veracity.
Historically, partisans were virtually unheard of in Europe during this time period. The one case where you did see a very low level partisan war (the Franco-Prussian war), was so extraordinarily unusual that A) people are still writing about it today and B) it was considered a violation of the laws of war.
It's simply a case where the designers have chose a perceived gameplay advantage over historical veracity.
From my experience the best thing to do is to destroy enemy divisions. This is easier in the later game with higher morale (you don't need to encircle).
I can pretty much dictate terms to the AI if I cause a loss of divisions rather than simply manpower losses.
As another helpful hint always ask for war reperations. Russian and Austrian money fueled the Ottoman industrial and rail buildup and made it difficult for them to replace lost divisions hehe
As for partisans there are too many currently IMHO however I like the use of partisans in the game cause it forces the player to place some occupation forces to guard the rear areas.
I can pretty much dictate terms to the AI if I cause a loss of divisions rather than simply manpower losses.
As another helpful hint always ask for war reperations. Russian and Austrian money fueled the Ottoman industrial and rail buildup and made it difficult for them to replace lost divisions hehe
As for partisans there are too many currently IMHO however I like the use of partisans in the game cause it forces the player to place some occupation forces to guard the rear areas.
It' all there boys...
I mean, once i have my standing army built, whenever i have to go to war i CHOOSE which divisions to reinforce as frontline units, usually the very best as per brigades and experience.
All other divisions i left with original "pre-moved slider" size, that is, near 2.300 troops (that is division size when slider is all to the left).
This way, you can use those little understrength divisions to acomplish guard duty, both as peacefull border guards and as anti-partisan guards following the advance of your full strength units in frontline.
Off course, that claims for a little "hard and impossible" pre-planning from us, strategic players, or does it????
The Rebel
I mean, once i have my standing army built, whenever i have to go to war i CHOOSE which divisions to reinforce as frontline units, usually the very best as per brigades and experience.
All other divisions i left with original "pre-moved slider" size, that is, near 2.300 troops (that is division size when slider is all to the left).
This way, you can use those little understrength divisions to acomplish guard duty, both as peacefull border guards and as anti-partisan guards following the advance of your full strength units in frontline.
Off course, that claims for a little "hard and impossible" pre-planning from us, strategic players, or does it????
The Rebel
Spruce said:
And of course at least in China those damn partisans are everywhere. With 5 provinces conquered, and with 3 of them having at 10k soldiers garrisoned, I get about 1.5 uprising per month and 90% of times there are 10k partisans. So I think so far China has received 20 irregular divisions and I am 99.99999% sure that all those divisions are reinforced back to max strength even I thought it was supposed to be impossible to reinforce partisans.
So way to conquer China (after they were first sofetened by biggest military strength, Russia) is to have at least 5k soldiers in each province and hope that don't get multiple uprisings at same time. And of course those damn partisans alwas get chance to flee to chinise controlled provinces and join their main army.
I think I now know where China has received all their irregular divisions...
That really turned me away from game, hopefully 1.03 changes that.
So way to conquer China (after they were first sofetened by biggest military strength, Russia) is to have at least 5k soldiers in each province and hope that don't get multiple uprisings at same time. And of course those damn partisans alwas get chance to flee to chinise controlled provinces and join their main army.
I think I now know where China has received all their irregular divisions...
That really turned me away from game, hopefully 1.03 changes that.
I'm not as familiar with partisans in European wars but in the ACW fully half of the North's soilders were tasked with garrisoning occupying territory. There was signifigant partisan action, especially if you count military operations designed to cut supplies (raiders, cavalry sweeps) - a feature which I think is abstracted in attrition. Moreover, in that conflict more deaths came from disease in camp than combat - again, supporting a model which includes attrition. It would be neat to be able to make smaller units for garrisoning purposes - its a pain as it is now, especially in early wars - but I think the model has the right idea.
jKMkIII said:
I think that conquering China should be near impossible and if it is modelled by huge amount of partisian divisions it's absolutely correct. Maybe only England was able to do it in XIX centuary (I mean of course conquest of the whole state not only winning war even with near no loses
).Dzoser said:I think that conquering China should be near impossible and if it is modelled by huge amount of partisian divisions it's absolutely correct. Maybe only England was able to do it in XIX centuary (I mean of course conquest of the whole state not only winning war even with near no loses
Why should it be impossible? They conquered India with somewhat less than 100,000 british troops and it's a similar sized landmass.
Likewise, 19th century China has a cultural abhorance for the military in general and soldiers in particular. It was not considered an acceptable profession for one's sons to enter into. The idea that you'd have large scale partisan uprisings across the hinterland is modern-era revisionist nonsense. Just because the China of 1945 had a guerilla war does *not* mean that the China of 1845 had the same issues.
I knew war with China wouldn't be easy, but didn't Japanese actually conquer parts of China in early 1900s?
And after China had been beaten and halfly conquered by Russia which was biggest military power, I tought it would be safe to send in my soldiers and capture Taiwan and Hong Kong.
Oh and of course China had one small million man fight with Korea between their wars against Russia. And of course from F6 I saw my military power was 3 times bigger than China's even they had much much more divisions (all those partisans).
But of course if my actions only strengtens their army, and in peace deals army sizes are major issue, then fighting war in China is pretty impossible task.
And after China had been beaten and halfly conquered by Russia which was biggest military power, I tought it would be safe to send in my soldiers and capture Taiwan and Hong Kong.
Oh and of course China had one small million man fight with Korea between their wars against Russia. And of course from F6 I saw my military power was 3 times bigger than China's even they had much much more divisions (all those partisans).
But of course if my actions only strengtens their army, and in peace deals army sizes are major issue, then fighting war in China is pretty impossible task.
every tactic fails when your lines are punched, for sure when there are some cav div's running rampage in your lines,
the ottoman and Italy AI are quite good examples of vicious snakes,
some of the AI nations are suspect to "shock and awe" tactic (sorry for the quote ). Russia can really get defensive when you've punched their lines, others aren't really impressed,
really if you are afraid of Russia, just get UK or Prussia into alliance to wage war on 2 fronts, many AI's wont hold the line and get scared,
however the Russian AI is pretty good for WWI, be carefull,
the ottoman and Italy AI are quite good examples of vicious snakes,
some of the AI nations are suspect to "shock and awe" tactic (sorry for the quote
). Russia can really get defensive when you've punched their lines, others aren't really impressed,really if you are afraid of Russia, just get UK or Prussia into alliance to wage war on 2 fronts, many AI's wont hold the line and get scared,
however the Russian AI is pretty good for WWI, be carefull,
pcasey said:
That and the fact armies are much larger then historical means rebels have to be scaled up too if they are to affect anything.
