Partisans

[etsadler]

The last physical WiF I played was 5th Edition before all the Xxxxx in Flames expansions. As a result I don't recall playing with partisans.

I have been playing through some solitaire games and, naturally, some partisans have appeared. So far I am not sure that I think they are appropriate to a game of the scale of MWif. While there certainly were partisans in WWII, and lots of them, it seems overkill to me to have to have Corps of Front Line Troops go around stomping them out. Yes, Front Line Troops were used against partisans, and plenty of special anti-partisan formations were created, but I question if the level of historical commitment adds up to Corp sized units diverted to this purpose.

Additionally, due to the supply rules, it is often necessary to detach not just front line troops handle the partisan, but also an HQ to keep them in supply so they can attack.

I know many of the partisan counters have a zero combat factor, but that doesn't seem to be the actual case in all instances. In my current game a zero strength partisan in India is sure acting like it has a combat factor of 1, as I have had to gather 3 Corps of Indian troops to successfully destroy it.

I know I can play without partisans, and I may well do that in the future, but I wanted to ask the community what it thought about the idea of partisans in a game of this scale, and what is necessary to counter them.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RickInVA

The last physical WiF I played was 5th Edition before all the Xxxxx in Flames expansions. As a result I don't recall playing with partisans.

I have been playing through some solitaire games and, naturally, some partisans have appeared. So far I am not sure that I think they are appropriate to a game of the scale of MWif. While there certainly were partisans in WWII, and lots of them, it seems overkill to me to have to have Corps of Front Line Troops go around stomping them out. Yes, Front Line Troops were used against partisans, and plenty of special anti-partisan formations were created, but I question if the level of historical commitment adds up to Corp sized units diverted to this purpose.

Additionally, due to the supply rules, it is often necessary to detach not just front line troops handle the partisan, but also an HQ to keep them in supply so they can attack.

I know many of the partisan counters have a zero combat factor, but that doesn't seem to be the actual case in all instances. In my current game a zero strength partisan in India is sure acting like it has a combat factor of 1, as I have had to gather 3 Corps of Indian troops to successfully destroy it.

I know I can play without partisans, and I may well do that in the future, but I wanted to ask the community what it thought about the idea of partisans in a game of this scale, and what is necessary to counter them.

warspite1

RickInVa I am in the same position as you. Wasn't the Partisan rule more abstract in 5th Edition?

I included Partisans for my second AAR, but am wondering if that was the right decision - I think out of scale is right.

Still I've done it now so just have to get on with it!

[Zorachus99]

Resistance fighters often fought, with guns and organizational and operational elements. They have an advantage in that they know the area far better than your own troops. Anti-insurgency forces played a big part in WWII.

It's important for you to know that not only can you have partisans, but with two partisan units in the same hex, both the USSR and Yugoslavia can make a free partisan HQ!

The partisan HQ can leave it's home country, which makes it quite dangerous.

[Centuur]

Conquered countries needs garrisons. If you don't put a large enough garrison into a country, the people living there will revolt. It's that simple. Also: are the units all "first line" in MWIF? I don't think so. Those lousy low factor MIL or GAR are very good for garrison duty. Now, you would like to use them as loss takers? That's your decision... [:D]

By the way: I hate partisans. They always pop up in places you don't want them to arrive. Especially in China...

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: RickInVA

The last physical WiF I played was 5th Edition before all the Xxxxx in Flames expansions. As a result I don't recall playing with partisans.

I have been playing through some solitaire games and, naturally, some partisans have appeared. So far I am not sure that I think they are appropriate to a game of the scale of MWif. While there certainly were partisans in WWII, and lots of them, it seems overkill to me to have to have Corps of Front Line Troops go around stomping them out. Yes, Front Line Troops were used against partisans, and plenty of special anti-partisan formations were created, but I question if the level of historical commitment adds up to Corp sized units diverted to this purpose.

Additionally, due to the supply rules, it is often necessary to detach not just front line troops handle the partisan, but also an HQ to keep them in supply so they can attack.

I know many of the partisan counters have a zero combat factor, but that doesn't seem to be the actual case in all instances. In my current game a zero strength partisan in India is sure acting like it has a combat factor of 1, as I have had to gather 3 Corps of Indian troops to successfully destroy it.

I know I can play without partisans, and I may well do that in the future, but I wanted to ask the community what it thought about the idea of partisans in a game of this scale, and what is necessary to counter them.

if you have any rule question.

then maybe you could read the rules

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: RickInVA

The last physical WiF I played was 5th Edition before all the Xxxxx in Flames expansions. As a result I don't recall playing with partisans.

I have been playing through some solitaire games and, naturally, some partisans have appeared. So far I am not sure that I think they are appropriate to a game of the scale of MWif. While there certainly were partisans in WWII, and lots of them, it seems overkill to me to have to have Corps of Front Line Troops go around stomping them out. Yes, Front Line Troops were used against partisans, and plenty of special anti-partisan formations were created, but I question if the level of historical commitment adds up to Corp sized units diverted to this purpose.

Additionally, due to the supply rules, it is often necessary to detach not just front line troops handle the partisan, but also an HQ to keep them in supply so they can attack.

I know many of the partisan counters have a zero combat factor, but that doesn't seem to be the actual case in all instances. In my current game a zero strength partisan in India is sure acting like it has a combat factor of 1, as I have had to gather 3 Corps of Indian troops to successfully destroy it.

I know I can play without partisans, and I may well do that in the future, but I wanted to ask the community what it thought about the idea of partisans in a game of this scale, and what is necessary to counter them.

if you have any rule question.

then maybe you could read the rules

warspite1

Was there really any need for that? The OP was politely canvassing opinion on a feature of the game. What the hell's wrong with you?

[Courtenay]

Why your zero point partisan is acting as if it has a combat strength: it probably does. From the rules:

Add 1 to each partisan unit’s combat factors if it is defending in a forest or jungle hex.

As to how to deal with partisans, the question is: "How annoying are they?" Getting rid of a partisan can be relatively major operation. If all the partisan is doing is denying a resource, the best thing to do might be to ignore it. If it threatens your whole supply chain, then it has to be killed, but then it will probably be in an easier position to killed.

I like the partisan rule, particularly in Russia and China.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Why your zero point partisan is acting as if it has a combat strength: it probably does. From the rules:

Add 1 to each partisan unit’s combat factors if it is defending in a forest or jungle hex.

As to how to deal with partisans, the question is: "How annoying are they?" Getting rid of a partisan can be relatively major operation. If all the partisan is doing is denying a resource, the best thing to do might be to ignore it. If it threatens your whole supply chain, then it has to be killed, but then it will probably be in an easier position to killed.

I like the partisan rule, particularly in Russia and China.

I will always play with that rule. But I hate the bastards (especially when playing the Axis...). [:D]

[etsadler]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Why your zero point partisan is acting as if it has a combat strength: it probably does. From the rules:

Add 1 to each partisan unit’s combat factors if it is defending in a forest or jungle hex.

As to how to deal with partisans, the question is: "How annoying are they?" Getting rid of a partisan can be relatively major operation. If all the partisan is doing is denying a resource, the best thing to do might be to ignore it. If it threatens your whole supply chain, then it has to be killed, but then it will probably be in an easier position to killed.

I like the partisan rule, particularly in Russia and China.

I must have missed that tidbit.

But that only serves to illustrate my question. If a partisan has a combat factor then you certainly need one or more corps sized units to destroy it, as you say a "major operation". My thoughts are that the level of impact that the partisan is having is excessive for the scale of the game.

So perhaps to further expand the discussion; do you feel that partisans serve a game balance function or only a flavor function?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

At some point Patrice several years ago did a long explanation of how to garrison conquered countries (and those with 'red' partisans) to avoid having them appear at all.

Patrice's point was that put strong garrison forces in place to avoid having partisans ever appear. If you chintz on setting aside units for garrison duty, then you are taking a risk - a risk with unpleasant consequences.

[etsadler]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

At some point Patrice several years ago did a long explanation of how to garrison conquered countries (and those with 'red' partisans) to avoid having them appear at all.

Patrice's point was that put strong garrison forces in place to avoid having partisans ever appear. If you chintz on setting aside units for garrison duty, then you are taking a risk - a risk with unpleasant consequences.

My counter-thrust would be that typical "garrison" forces would not be the kind of formations that would be represented by a Corps marker. I know there are units that are called Garrison. Not wanting to get into a deep discussion of what those represent my feeling was that they represent more static defensive positions, such as you would find manning the Maginot line or the Atlantic Wall, than anti-partisan forces. Or to put it another way, I can imagine having 100,000 or more individuals deployed on anti-partisan duty and not have that be a force that would be worth a 3-1 garrison unit. German infantry divisions stationed in the Normandy area to repulse invasion wouldn't have any impact on partisan activity around Paris, but a few thousand military police, Gestapo, SS, etc. developing collaborators, doing basic police work, patrolling, etc. would. The first gets a unit counter, the second does not.

Additionally I would question the ability of partisans to disrupt production from a factory or output from a resource or supply along a route for a whole 2 month period. Maybe I'm just not expert enough on partisan activity in WWII, but I know I have not heard about partisans taking over mines or oil wells and controlling them for months at a time.

Since the game has partisans as an optional rule I'm certainly not suggesting that they be dispensed with. My bias is clearly against them as being inappropriate for the scope of the game. My purpose in posting is to generate some discussion. I enjoy the back and forth of a good discussion, it often exposes me to knowledge I didn't have before. I think I would not, by choice, play with them as an option in the future, but desire to hear opposing views on their utility.

[Orm]

Yugoslavian partisans had close to 800,000 men towards the end of the war. They even made naval operations and had a small air force.

During the war Axis made corps strength offensives versus the partisans in Yugoslavia but still did not manage to knock them out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Partisans

----

Then there is the Polish Uprising where the resistance occupied Warsaw for two months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

----

And below is a picture from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_resistance_movement showing the activity of the Soviet Resistance during the war.

----

So with that said I think the Partisan option has a place in a corps size game and it is a rule that I prefer to play.

[Dabrion]

CBV help with garrison against partisans a lot (esp. for GE with the SS counting double).

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: RickInVA
My counter-thrust would be that typical "garrison" forces would not be the kind of formations that would be represented by a Corps marker. I know there are units that are called Garrison. Not wanting to get into a deep discussion of what those represent my feeling was that they represent more static defensive positions, such as you would find manning the Maginot line or the Atlantic Wall, than anti-partisan forces. Or to put it another way, I can imagine having 100,000 or more individuals deployed on anti-partisan duty and not have that be a force that would be worth a 3-1 garrison unit. German infantry divisions stationed in the Normandy area to repulse invasion wouldn't have any impact on partisan activity around Paris, but a few thousand military police, Gestapo, SS, etc. developing collaborators, doing basic police work, patrolling, etc. would. The first gets a unit counter, the second does not.

Additionally I would question the ability of partisans to disrupt production from a factory or output from a resource or supply along a route for a whole 2 month period. Maybe I'm just not expert enough on partisan activity in WWII, but I know I have not heard about partisans taking over mines or oil wells and controlling them for months at a time.

Since the game has partisans as an optional rule I'm certainly not suggesting that they be dispensed with. My bias is clearly against them as being inappropriate for the scope of the game. My purpose in posting is to generate some discussion. I enjoy the back and forth of a good discussion, it often exposes me to knowledge I didn't have before. I think I would not, by choice, play with them as an option in the future, but desire to hear opposing views on their utility.

I look at the physical partisan counter as an abstract.

It represents a nation wide level of disruption. The unit appeared because of the lack of adequate manpower to police a nations conquests and continue fighting at the borders. The counter is where the players focus. If there were no garrison or a weak one to begin with. Its not the partisans fault.

I like to think partisans represent more than just a unit in the cold wilderness. Camping in a forest or occupying a mine or factory. The loss of production, resources or supply is a result of 2months activity. And you just got served notice.

They are a population fed up with an occupation. The counter becomes a known personality that must be pacified. If they are not dealt with, a modifier is added next time around. (Consider putting early partisans in hard to get spots, They breed like rabbits if given a chance.)

Units say for example in France serve 2 purposes. Defending Fortress Europa and keeping partisans from appearing. Its easy to validate good corps rubbing elbows with militia. Such easy duty. If a partisan does appear it is quickly dealt with.

When they appear in China and the USSR, its another story altogether. But who cries for the axis? They started this war. Long distances, supply problems, weather and what units are available to send. Make them a spoiler for unseen reverses.

Its the little known partisans that we hate dealing with, that makes them so memorable. Indian, Korean, Indo-China. Ok not so little or unknown.

Considering the size and number as they appear. And because partisans appear at the weakest moment in time for all players, the emotional impact is greater. The QQ factor is so sweet. Go ahead admit it, it is.

I don't think you can have a game of this scope and size, and just ignore them.
Its nice to have the option to use it or not. It may not be perfect but it does do one thing really well.

It forces the player to allocate power of various sizes to garrison spots around the world.
At that my friends is why we play World in Flames.

Anyone for a "Partisan in Flames", module?

[etsadler]

A number of good replies. I appreciate the time taken by the participants.

While I agree with a lot that is said, one factor still bothers me, which is that in many cases you don't just have to send units to deal with the partisans, but also one of your handful of HQ units needs to go along to provide supply. While I'm OK with the supply rules, and I think they well sum up the difficulty of providing supply for on going military operations, I don't feel that such a high level of supply and organization was allocated to counter partisan activity. Maybe I'm just being set in my opinion, but it just seem to me that at the scale oft he game that this sort of function should be abstracted in some way. That the actual counter on the map is too much. If a unit didn't need to be in supply to attack (suppress) a partisan, that might go a long way to relieve my personal dislike.

I guess I'm still not convinced. [:-]

[michaelbaldur]

the partisan option have a game play balance effect

I you could conquer a country, and empty it of defensive units. then the front lines would become to strong and you would end up with trench warfare.

and when you are attacking a country you can´t put all units into the front-line. you need to free up troops for partisans duty

all of this is very realistic

Germany used 50+ divisions to keep the locals in line. all over Europa
(with many big battles against partisan armies. in Poland, Russia, Yugoslavia, France, Greece, Italy)


and the CW used a big part of the Indian army to keep the locals in line.
(with many full scale rebellions)

[Neilster]

From memory, Germany employed (at least at one stage) 11 divisions for rear security in the Soviet Union. This represents at least 4 corps, although obviously they wouldn't have been of the first quality. Large swathes of Belorussia, especially in forested and swampy areas, were essentially "Injun country". Yugoslavia was in large part liberated by partisans.

Obviously, partisans basically live off the land, but the conventional forces that opposed them required typical logistical support...hence HQs being required.

I also agree that the partisan unit is a necessary abstraction of much more widespread resistance and as part of the gaming system, works quite well.

Cheers, Neilster

[brian brian]

If anything, the Partisans in WiF always seem too weak to me, particularly in China but also in Russia.

But they were a definite, significant part of the war, and if you have never read up on the subject, it would be an eye-opener. That is something I appreciate about World in Flames - it leads the players to investigating gaps in their knowledge on the war.

Any German combat memoir you find will include mention of them ... German soldiers on leave back to the Reich, even wounded soldiers going either way for treatment, would be pulled off trains and put on partisan detail for up to days at a time.

The partisan struggles are a fascinating look at history, in that the Axis powers attempted to expand the areas under their control as empires have done throughout history, using their militaries to physically take control of areas and remove resources from those areas for their own benefit, and to the detriment of the local inhabitants. Perhaps the development of firearms forever changed the process ... large populations can no longer be controlled except by very large armies. Perhaps larger armies than can even be created any more, compared to previous millenia of human history.

[LiquidSky]

Partisans are kind of a Wif-Zen thing. Without them, you end up with every unit fighting on the front. If you take the crappier units (and not scrap them), you can guard what you hold dear in the country you are occupying. Partisans cannot defeat even a crappy corp, and they cannot set up in a ZoC.

Which means you don't have to fully suppress partisans in a country...quite often only a couple units on garrison are needed to protect the resource/red factory...and capital.

In Russia/China units not in a ZoC count as garrison. Which means your aircraft sitting behind the lines will count. HQ's sitting behind the units will count. One or two crappy units on the rail line can hold the supply line open. (since the partisan cant set up adjacent to them.)

SO with partisans...you only lose a few of your crappier garrison type units. Which are used for garrisoning. Partisans will only become a problem if you ignore the possibility of them.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

At some point Patrice several years ago did a long explanation of how to garrison conquered countries (and those with 'red' partisans) to avoid having them appear at all.

Patrice's point was that put strong garrison forces in place to avoid having partisans ever appear. If you chintz on setting aside units for garrison duty, then you are taking a risk - a risk with unpleasant consequences.

Here is a chart that shows the amount of garrison you need in a country to prevent partisans. Note that units in EZOC don't count toward garrison. This is the same chart as the boardgame uses. Similar to US Entry, MWiF does handle partisan generation a bit differently than the boardgame where you make one roll per turn on this table and then check all the countries that come up. For MWiF see Volume 1 of the Players Manual, pages 208 to 211.



Edit: Having less than these totals in the boardgame increase the chance of a partisan occurring by 10% per garrison point less. Mind you the chance of the country being "tested" for partisans depends on the die roll and varies (as you can see) from as high as 50% for Yugoslavia to as low as 10% for many other countries.