I'd figure that Wehrwolf would be similar to the French Maquis if it'd become fully operational and had a government in exile etc. to prop it up later.
-
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.
I'd figure that Wehrwolf would be similar to the French Maquis if it'd become fully operational and had a government in exile etc. to prop it up later.
I agree. To me it has to be closely linked to dissent, basically your own people have had enough and demand a new government. I can even see the Warsaw ghetto riots as examples of this. Although I suppose thats debatable as they were instigated somewhat by the Allies IIRC.
I wouldn't classify Volksturm as militia actually. They are almost identical in organization, recruitment and purpose as the British Home Guard. Units made up of men inelligable for military serivice usually due to age. Volksturm and Home Guards were made up almost entirely of men either too old or too young for service, or who suffered disabling injuries yet were still willing and somewhat able for service. They were used exclusively in territory considered "the homeland". The Germans used them in the occupied territories because they annexed them and considered that "home territory" from then on.
Militia is more localized IMHO, in that its less organized, has poor training and equipment, and less influence militarily. Think US Colonial Militia from the American Revolution. Really, I can't think of any other good examples since.
My guess:
rabble is caused by generic unrest (high dissent)
partisans are caused by opposing political parties.
patriots are caused by occupied territory while still in a standard war or government in exile.
Nationalists are caused by there being no nation at all.
All are automatically AI controlled apart from patriots, which are controlled by the GIE player or AI.
rabble is caused by generic unrest (high dissent)
partisans are caused by opposing political parties.
patriots are caused by occupied territory while still in a standard war or government in exile.
Nationalists are caused by there being no nation at all.
All are automatically AI controlled apart from patriots, which are controlled by the GIE player or AI.
I'd probably call the units in Warsaw militias in this case since they were somewhat organized, and thus in-game would have organizational values enabling them to actually put up a fight.
Disorganized rabble on the other hand aught to be dispersed somewhat rapidly. Perhaps you'd even combat them with "Suppression" rather than your "Soft Attack" value?
This way I would actually call the Home Guard militias. Even present day "State Defense Forces" in the US, or Home Guard in Sweden can be regarded as militias, much due to their low training, light equipment and so on.
(The present day Home Guard in Sweden might have equipment superior to many units of WW2, but they'd probably get their asses kicked by regular forces of the same size from the WW2 era - I'm not joking on this one)
Disorganized rabble on the other hand aught to be dispersed somewhat rapidly. Perhaps you'd even combat them with "Suppression" rather than your "Soft Attack" value?
This way I would actually call the Home Guard militias. Even present day "State Defense Forces" in the US, or Home Guard in Sweden can be regarded as militias, much due to their low training, light equipment and so on.
(The present day Home Guard in Sweden might have equipment superior to many units of WW2, but they'd probably get their asses kicked by regular forces of the same size from the WW2 era - I'm not joking on this one)
According to the infallible Wikipedia, the Warsaw Uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_uprising) was really just supposed to drive out the Nazis from the city before the Soviets arrived. But, in typical Soviet fashion, they held up their advance so the Nazis could destroy the rebellion before they got there so they wouldn't have to deal with the Nationalists (read: non-socialists) and hence put in their own government.
This does raise an interesting suggestion, though; suppose there could be, in the game code itself, an event that fires that makes occupied territories fill with insurgents (or whatever term is used) as an enemy army comes closer (say, one province away)? That would be cool.
This does raise an interesting suggestion, though; suppose there could be, in the game code itself, an event that fires that makes occupied territories fill with insurgents (or whatever term is used) as an enemy army comes closer (say, one province away)? That would be cool.
I would be extremely dissapointed if there was no corelation between partisan activity and coming frontline.
One of the most silly elements of HoI2 partisan system was randomness of partisan pop-ups. There was logic behind general partisan levels (depending on terrain, historical reasons, number of occupation troops and such), but otherwise, partisans were just dumb rebels of EU - they were just randomly taking over the provinces, being silly annoyance instead of interesting feature.
What was made good in HoI2 (at least early on, later it was too much nerfed to serve the purpose), was TC penalty from partisans, which actually made sense and represented what resistance was most of the time all about - leeching out enemy supplies.
In HoI3 there won't be TC, but I sincirely hope rebel pop-ups won't be the only thing that partisans can do. Partial effects, like sabotaging industry/resource gathering, supporting intel of allied foreign countries, imparing supply lines or simply focusing on reinforcing themselves before launching something bigger is what is needed for such system to work, not more random pop-ups with fancy partisan-types attached to the unit.
While EU3:IN system of "rebels with a cause" is a good starter here, it's nowhere close to the good representation of WWII resistance, where taking over vast territories was rather rare (it happened, but was rare nonetheless), while other forms of rebelling were very, very common.
Well, I think the developrs agree with you in that they don't want more pop-up, semi-flavor "events," so I would assume this covers partisan formation. It's not hard to tell if a partisan is running around your rear echelon so we don't need a fanfare when it happens.
I suspect that what others have said here will likely be correct: partisans will form based on (1) dissent and (2) whatever government-in-exile options there are for funding them.
What about irregulars? Remnants of overrun divisions that continue fighting in the forest and swamps and whatnot?
Ohh it will be so funny to start a 1936 Scenario as USA and set consumer goods to zero. Wait and Watch as Communits and Facists start an outright civil war 
What's about them? How much their fighting in the swamp affects occupier IC in the province? How does it affect their supply routes? Does the fighting in the swamp includes controlling the roads and cities/villages on the roads/railroads passing through the province?
That's why implementing partisans in strategic games is so tricky - because, in the end, occupier forces could afford some marauders hiding the bushes and making hit and runs on some outposts, as long as key points of the province were firmly held. Yes, in time they will clear up the swamp - but by the time when they have forces for that, control over roads and key locations will be good enough.
That's why I'm not a big fan of rebel pop-ups. In EU3, there was still a siege to finish for rebels to allow them to control the province - In HoI, so far, pop-up means taking over whole province right-off, the end.
Have to agree with Cidal's version here, except for the disorganized rabble. Sounds more like generic rebels. Mutinies or small-scale revolutions which don't aim to overthrow anything only draw attention.
perhaps 'disorganised rabble' could be termed 'dissadents' or 'revolutionaries'
But revolutionaries doesn't cover all of the different possibilities. If you are just rioting because of massive bread lines and what have you, you're not really operating with a goal in mind. Hence the disorganized bit.
Plus it sounds suitable disparaging. Kinda like 'Rebel Scum'.
Couldn't agree more. What do you represent bread rioters as? What if race riots had been a serious military threat to the United States? Minor warlords in China seeking only loot? How many uprisings were based not so much as the support of one idea or regime, but the rejection of another? I can think of countless uprisings that did not so much say "We want this!" as "We want to get rid of that!"
That was me who said about the disorganized rabbles.
We're talking about a rebel size of a division and armed like a milita capable of taking over an entire province or a city, not bunch of rioters (we already have dissent penalties for that). If rioters are able to take over a city what are the police doing? Like I said before, I want to know one example of an armed rebellion that was at least a size of a division within a country that was not motivated by nationalism or patriotism during WW2. I'd much rather see rebels motivated by political ideology trying to overthrow the government in power.
Any one of the minor warlords in China who rebelled against the central government. Though they were hardly disorganized rabble, more like feudal lords with personal armies equipped to a WW1 standard.
Think about all the nations which had revolutions where people took to the streets. The split between India and Pakistan could easily see the rampaging Hindu and Muslim mobs represented by rebels that pop up and take Hyderabad. (Though they might fall under the category of patriots and nationalists, respectively.)
Nationals - EU3:IN
Patriots - EU3:IN, including colonial pariots
Partisans - as groups like pretender, nobles, heretics in EU3
Rabble - anti-tax revolters in EU3:IN
Patriots - EU3:IN, including colonial pariots
Partisans - as groups like pretender, nobles, heretics in EU3
Rabble - anti-tax revolters in EU3:IN
But the warlords already exist as their own faction in the game, bot to mention that although they were autonomous and supportive of the KMT government (in fighting the japanese and later the Communists).
And like I said, mobs are mobs and rioters are rioters, they're not military units.
That was me who said about the disorganized rabbles.
We're talking about a rebel size of a division and armed like a milita capable of taking over an entire province or a city, not bunch of rioters (we already have dissent penalties for that). If rioters are able to take over a city what are the police doing? Like I said before, I want to know one example of an armed rebellion that was at least a size of a division within a country that was not motivated by nationalism or patriotism during WW2. I'd much rather see rebels motivated by political ideology trying to overthrow the government in power.
Telangana Rebellion or Dersim Rebellion?