Why - was Paris a particularly fierce area of resistance to the Germans?
-
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.
Why - was Paris a particularly fierce area of resistance to the Germans?
No, but increasing the number of partisans in a provincetype where there is barely any population to begin with doesn't make sense.
If individual provinces get increases in potential partisans based on historical performance of partisans there is no issue, but that's generally a mechanic the game is moving away from.
All marsh provinces shouldn't automatically produce partisans, even if Pripyet historically did.
I don't agree. In easily controlled terrain, for example grasslands, plains, farmland, organised large-scale resistance never emerged. Those areas were to easy to keep suppressed by the occupier.
In swamps, mountains and large forests on the other hand, sizeable partisan units did operate (USSR, Yugoslavia), in-spite of those areas in most cases being very scarcely populated.
Another example could be cities, hard to fully control and with big populations, but the only real example in WWII would be the Warsaw-uprising.
Tough terrain is were large partisans units are most likely to be successful.
Yes, but this does not mean that activity was larger EVERYWHERE in this terrain type.
Unless you can show me that every mountain and every marsh had highly active partisans, there is little argument for having a specific terrain modifier for partisans.
(However, an argument could be made that garrisoning should be harder in these areas, thus giving partisans more room to operate in them, as a previous poster did.)
You have a good point.
However, the same goes for lowering partisan activity in rough, scarcely populated areas, as you argued for in your first post.
I guess it all comes down to game balancing in the end. Perhaps it will be covered by the intelligence system, allowing you to support partisans in certain areas.
Agreed, which is why I added the "if any" caveat.
Partisan activity should depend on the strength of the occupying garrison.
Their survivability should depend on the conditions they operate in.
Similarily, the efficiency of garrisons both in suppression and active combat should also depend on geographical conditions.
Nice little loop.
AFAIK, in HOI2 Partisan activity is inverse proportional to its infrastructure value i.e. low infrastructure = higher partisan activity.
I thinck that this is the effect that you are triing to achieve, am I right?
Would not simply lowering units' suppression value in rough terrain solve the issue? That way, if there is little or no partisan activity, then so be it, but if there is quite a bit, then it's harder to track down and eliminate.
Some amount of randomization in partisan levels might be useful and/or appropriate as well. The game has no intrinsic mechanic to represent why Paris had little resistance to occupation while, say, Belgrade did. A bit of randomization might abstractly represent this to the players' satisfaction.
Some amount of randomization in partisan levels might be useful and/or appropriate as well. The game has no intrinsic mechanic to represent why Paris had little resistance to occupation while, say, Belgrade did. A bit of randomization might abstractly represent this to the players' satisfaction.
In a sense, the marshes act as a holding area for partisans if they get the squeeze in a neighbouring region. Its like squishing puddy; it oozes out between the gaps in your hand and moves to the place where there is less pressure.
Since the Germans aren't likely to try and ship supplies through the marsh during the wet seasons, there won't be alot of targets for partisans there. If the Germans start fighting an effective anti-partisan campaign around the marshes, that would make a good refuge for partisans to move to.
The point is: if the partisans survive, their activities will continue, no matter how well anti-partisan campaigns are. Partisans strike out from the marshes, hit their targets, then flee back to the marshes.
If the German player wants to eliminate the partisans, he will have to conduct a campaign in the marshes. But only after the partisans have actually moved there!
Since the Germans aren't likely to try and ship supplies through the marsh during the wet seasons, there won't be alot of targets for partisans there. If the Germans start fighting an effective anti-partisan campaign around the marshes, that would make a good refuge for partisans to move to.
The point is: if the partisans survive, their activities will continue, no matter how well anti-partisan campaigns are. Partisans strike out from the marshes, hit their targets, then flee back to the marshes.
If the German player wants to eliminate the partisans, he will have to conduct a campaign in the marshes. But only after the partisans have actually moved there!
Another way to model this is that when units are destroyed or broken, a fraction of those troops that fled the battle stays near area as partisans (not necessarily the same province might I add). For example, a unit that is encircled a destroyed near the priypet marshes adds some partisan value to that nearby marshy area. I really like the idea of instead of actually destroying partisans, anitpartisan activity just pushes them.
The only problem with this is that in only happened in certain situations; its not like the Italians did this when the Allies landed on Sicily. Therefore, the factors in determining how strong partisan activity as a whole is should be how authoritarian the occuppier is and how strong and popular the ruling party of the conquered nation is; no one becomes a partisan against a liberating party if he doesn't support his government (mind you this model only works in 20th century Europe).
IIRC Johan said in a Development Diary that if a unit is encircled and has nowhere to go then it would be destroyed, as per usual. I think perhaps adding some of the suggestd features might require reworking the engine somewhat to accomodate them??
Not that I don't like the ideas being suggested!
Not that I don't like the ideas being suggested!
Perhaps not, but I can promise you the Germans had more anti partisan troops in Paris compared to the same area of marshlands.
This is not the case in HoI2 where paris can be left ungarrisioned without problem. Imagine the IRL partisan activity in Paris if Germany had withdrawn all their troops from the area. La Resistance would have been able set up regular forces from stashed weapons and march the streets in broad daylight to recruit support and more freedom fighters.
Thats why Partisan activity should be tied to population, not Terrain.
There are several factors that determine the amount of partisans, but if you look at it logically... Even though mountains and marshes did not have any population to start an uprising, those on the run or who wanted to organize a resistance would flee to those areas to organize out of.
What happened with the Marshes is that many encircled Russian units broke and fled into the swamps. The Germans didn't have the manpower or the interest to sweep them so the soldiers and locals eventually gathered in a sustainable force military force in which agents from the USSR came and begin directing operations behind the lines.
Yugoslavia on the other hand had similar issue in which the capital was taken and surrendered so fast that many of the military units went home and from there (after conflict with the German occupiers) began to form in the mountains simply because it was hard to get to them.
I'm sure if France had a mountain or swamp, resistance fighters would have gravitated towards that as well from the cities.
Now one could point out at Norway about the lack of resistance there but you have to remember that the Norwegians motivation for resistance was a bit different than other nations so that has to be taken into account. Like existing support for fascism.
Not to say there wasn't a Norwegian resistance hiding in the mountainous areas, its just it wasn't as big as the other units because they didn't have a standing military that was still in the field when they surrendered.
Thx for the answers. Yes my question is about partisan activities but not for all swamp,desert,or mountain areas.Specifically some places on the earth hard to control or conquer ,like Tora Bora (Afgan Mountains),or Tuareg desert.,places give extra bonuses like Hayber pass.
Think about Communist China in game conquering is easy.In WW2 Japan or Nationalist China couldnot conquer there. This isnot good .Dont miss understood me.Game is perfect and this mistake is acceptable.There arenot much places like them.Maybe best description will be like this ;places cannot be controlled by any regular army because of geographic conditions and nature of native people.(One example too ;Vietnam)
They are rare.What can be done in game.Units drain much faster ,need resources much more, or to control (but full) need special units like commandos with arctic equipment or desert equipment.Begining revolt will be easy,fast and cheap.Without units stationed there,they can produce guerrilla automaticly and attacking neighbour provinces and cut supply line or without enough units this locations spread partisans to other provinces (even units guard there)
This regions may have partisan pools.For example pripyat swamp has 10 units of guerrilla, they come randomly ;anytime ,any size .if u destroy 10 units ull gain full control over region.Something like that...
Thx for patience
Think about Communist China in game conquering is easy.In WW2 Japan or Nationalist China couldnot conquer there. This isnot good .Dont miss understood me.Game is perfect and this mistake is acceptable.There arenot much places like them.Maybe best description will be like this ;places cannot be controlled by any regular army because of geographic conditions and nature of native people.(One example too ;Vietnam)
They are rare.What can be done in game.Units drain much faster ,need resources much more, or to control (but full) need special units like commandos with arctic equipment or desert equipment.Begining revolt will be easy,fast and cheap.Without units stationed there,they can produce guerrilla automaticly and attacking neighbour provinces and cut supply line or without enough units this locations spread partisans to other provinces (even units guard there)
This regions may have partisan pools.For example pripyat swamp has 10 units of guerrilla, they come randomly ;anytime ,any size .if u destroy 10 units ull gain full control over region.Something like that...
Thx for patience
Last edited:
So, you're saying that the people there are by definition, uncivilized?
IIRC Johan said in a Development Diary that if a unit is encircled and has nowhere to go then it would be destroyed, as per usual. I think perhaps adding some of the suggestd features might require reworking the engine somewhat to accomodate them??
Not that I don't like the ideas being suggested!
Destroyed units might still have an effect on partisan activity.
The EU3 engine has what are called "on action" events, which as you might imagine have a chance to fire whenever a particular action takes place. So it could be set up that whenever the "unit is destroyed" action happens, there is a possibility of an event firing which will increase the partisan level in the province in question.
You might further randomize it by adding random_list effects to the event, so that, say, there's a 40% chance of an increase of 1, 30% for 2, 20% for 3, and perhaps 5% each of 4 & 5.
This would all depend on Paradox deciding to include "unit is destroyed" as an 'action' in this sense. I hope so, I'm already dreaming up a few ideas of what might have a chance to happen when units are annihilated.
Rasputitsa - bad road + rainy weather, which make it very difficult for troops to move.
I believe it is already implemenented as an infrastructure level + fighting\speed modifier depending on the weather.
Indeed, the Maquis took their very name from the highlands (well, they're not very high, but all is relative) of southern France.
NS membership before the war was tiny. It would make more sense to point to the small population and lack of military tradition.
You are mistaken in detail. The 6th Norwegian division was still fighting when the British/French expeditionary force was withdrawn to deal with the disasters on the French front. Further, Norway did not surrender, only the field army. However, you are probably correct overall: 6th Division was way up north, in an extremely thinly populated area; its soldiers were not about to form the nucleus of a resistance movement as happened in Yugoslavia. And further south, there wasn't much of an organised field army to start with. Another point is that the Norwegian mountains are not exactly hospitable; guerrillas would have a harder time surviving there than in more southerly parts of Europe, not that the Yugoslavians had it easy either. And finally, there was a military resistance movement in Norway, but it was clear that it was never going to kick the Germans out by itself, so it held itself in reserve for when the Allies invaded; then it would rise up behind the German lines, or so the thinking went. The Allies never did invade, it was much more useful to feed Hitler's paranoia by making the occasional demonstration against Norway's coast. He kept way more soldiers there than he needed; fighting them would have produced unnecessary casualties. But Milorg didn't know that.