partisan vs territorial
Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
- michaelbaldur
- Posts: 4800
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:28 pm
- Location: denmark
partisan vs territorial
I know this is not a bug.
but using 2d10 a partisan is attacking a territorial. so it correctly gets a +2.
but that can´t be right, how can a free partisan, be a better units then a build territorial
- Attachments
-
- partisanterr.jpg (680.22 KiB) Viewed 61 times
the wif rulebook is my bible
I work hard, not smart.
beta tester and Mwif expert
if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
I work hard, not smart.
beta tester and Mwif expert
if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
RE: partisan vs territorial
better morale does wonders.
- michaelbaldur
- Posts: 4800
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:28 pm
- Location: denmark
RE: partisan vs territorial
basicly it is the same troops, the partisan is local people, so is the territorial.
the territorial have 2 BP worth of training and weapons, the partisan have morale.
so from my point of view, they should be equal.
I really don´t see how a 1 factor partisan is better then a 4 factor territorial.
a 1 factor partisan is more or less a riot, a angry mob.
the territorial have 2 BP worth of training and weapons, the partisan have morale.
so from my point of view, they should be equal.
I really don´t see how a 1 factor partisan is better then a 4 factor territorial.
a 1 factor partisan is more or less a riot, a angry mob.
the wif rulebook is my bible
I work hard, not smart.
beta tester and Mwif expert
if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
I work hard, not smart.
beta tester and Mwif expert
if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
RE: partisan vs territorial
ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur
I know this is not a bug.
but using 2d10 a partisan is attacking a territorial. so it correctly gets a +2.
but that can´t be right, how can a free partisan, be a better units then a build territorial
It isn't. The partisan attacking the territorial, in neutral terrain, would get a plus zero (-2 + 2 = 0). The territorial, in neutral terrain, would get a plus four (+6 - 2 = 4). If the territorial attacks the partisan in the jungle, things more or less fall apart, because the partisan gets plus one to its defense and there is a minus four to the attack because of jungle, but that simply means that attacking into jungle is a bad idea.
Remember, a plus zero attack is not an even attack, it is a 1-2 attack. If the partisan were to attack the territorial in the city, it would be killed 92% of the time, while it would kill the territorial only 21% of the time. In neutral terrain, those numbers change to 82% and 28%. If the territorial were to attack the partisan in neutral terrain (not jungle!), it would die 68% of the time, and kill the partisan 55% of the time. The territorial is clearly a better combat unit. (And making low odds attacks is a good way to get your own units killed.)
I thought I knew how to play this game....
-
- Posts: 967
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
- Contact:
RE: partisan vs territorial
Keep in mind that both units represent local population. The territorial unit has better training, but that doesn't mean they want to fire into a mob of their neighbors and family members.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
RE: partisan vs territorial
especially if their heart and minds are not into it. It is a much more important factor than equipment, unless of course you don't have any....
-
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am
RE: partisan vs territorial
Partisan
1.A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
2.A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.
Hardly an angry mob of peasants armed with farm implaments. Don't discount the fact that if Partiasns have appeared there are probably people in the government that are supplying information to the Partiasns. Someone has to have supplied the Partiasns with arms and training.
Training of Territorials would range from "being able to walk in a group" to "having some military combat training". Their leadershp would be sub-par as good leadership would not be normaly be leading Territorials.
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
-
- Posts: 967
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
- Contact:
RE: partisan vs territorial
Partisan warfare is also an example of what's sometimes called asymmetrical warfare. Having subpar weapons and training isn't all that important if they aren't fighting actual battles. Improvised explosives, destruction of bridges, harassing unguarded supply convoys, acting as spotters for air raids, passing on information (or disinformation), psychological warfare, etc... are all ways that poorly armed but highly motivated partisans can do very real damage to territorial units.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
-
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:10 pm
RE: partisan vs territorial
Doubly so if you're specifically talking about Indo-China, where locally raised levies might have mixed loyalties about fighting the partisans in the first place.
"When beset by danger,
When in deadly doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout."
When in deadly doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout."
RE: partisan vs territorial
ORIGINAL: Courtenay
ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur
I know this is not a bug.
but using 2d10 a partisan is attacking a territorial. so it correctly gets a +2.
but that can´t be right, how can a free partisan, be a better units then a build territorial
It isn't. The partisan attacking the territorial, in neutral terrain, would get a plus zero (-2 + 2 = 0). The territorial, in neutral terrain, would get a plus four (+6 - 2 = 4). If the territorial attacks the partisan in the jungle, things more or less fall apart, because the partisan gets plus one to its defense and there is a minus four to the attack because of jungle, but that simply means that attacking into jungle is a bad idea.
Remember, a plus zero attack is not an even attack, it is a 1-2 attack. If the partisan were to attack the territorial in the city, it would be killed 92% of the time, while it would kill the territorial only 21% of the time. In neutral terrain, those numbers change to 82% and 28%. If the territorial were to attack the partisan in neutral terrain (not jungle!), it would die 68% of the time, and kill the partisan 55% of the time. The territorial is clearly a better combat unit. (And making low odds attacks is a good way to get your own units killed.)
Partisans have more weaknesses than Territorials. That's reflected OK on the bases of the statistics you've put here.
Peter
- michaelbaldur
- Posts: 4800
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:28 pm
- Location: denmark
RE: partisan vs territorial
ORIGINAL: Courtenay
ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur
I know this is not a bug.
but using 2d10 a partisan is attacking a territorial. so it correctly gets a +2.
but that can´t be right, how can a free partisan, be a better units then a build territorial
It isn't. The partisan attacking the territorial, in neutral terrain, would get a plus zero (-2 + 2 = 0). The territorial, in neutral terrain, would get a plus four (+6 - 2 = 4). If the territorial attacks the partisan in the jungle, things more or less fall apart, because the partisan gets plus one to its defense and there is a minus four to the attack because of jungle, but that simply means that attacking into jungle is a bad idea.
Remember, a plus zero attack is not an even attack, it is a 1-2 attack. If the partisan were to attack the territorial in the city, it would be killed 92% of the time, while it would kill the territorial only 21% of the time. In neutral terrain, those numbers change to 82% and 28%. If the territorial were to attack the partisan in neutral terrain (not jungle!), it would die 68% of the time, and kill the partisan 55% of the time. The territorial is clearly a better combat unit. (And making low odds attacks is a good way to get your own units killed.)
I not taking about this specific partisan/territorial situation.
my point is.
the territorial movement in terrain, and the partisans combat defend in terrain. balance each-other out.
but the +2 bonus in combat is just making the territorial to weak.
if the units have the same combat factor the power scale is.
1: partisans (have defence bonus in terrain, always in supply, free)
2: regular units
3: territorial (combat penalty, terrain movement bonus)
my point is that territorial units should have combat penalty against partisans
right now partisans are better or equal to regular units if the have the same factors.
the wif rulebook is my bible
I work hard, not smart.
beta tester and Mwif expert
if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
I work hard, not smart.
beta tester and Mwif expert
if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
RE: partisan vs territorial
Well, than you need to petition for a rule change in RAW8 (which won't be included in MWIF).
I don't agree at all. Partisans which were considered to be "outlaws" by the other side. This meant that fighting against and by Partisans was a very cruel affair. Partisans didn't take prisoners. They kill the enemy to get rid of them. So I believe any unit fighting Partisans will have a higher morale once the fighting starts, since it is a fight to the death and not a normal fight.
So no penalty should be included for TERR attacking or defending against partisans.
I don't agree at all. Partisans which were considered to be "outlaws" by the other side. This meant that fighting against and by Partisans was a very cruel affair. Partisans didn't take prisoners. They kill the enemy to get rid of them. So I believe any unit fighting Partisans will have a higher morale once the fighting starts, since it is a fight to the death and not a normal fight.
So no penalty should be included for TERR attacking or defending against partisans.
Peter
RE: partisan vs territorial
I would broadly echo the majority of sentiments expressed here. Obviously there would always be exceptions to the rule, but WIF is a strategic game and concepts are often abstract.
Territorials were likely to be conscripts and/or second rate quality troops - otherwise they would be more likely to be in the proper army.
Partisans are by definition likely to be prepared to fight to the death. I can only admire those who took up arms against the occupier of their country - knowing what capture would mean....
Territorials were likely to be conscripts and/or second rate quality troops - otherwise they would be more likely to be in the proper army.
Partisans are by definition likely to be prepared to fight to the death. I can only admire those who took up arms against the occupier of their country - knowing what capture would mean....
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
-
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:10 pm
RE: partisan vs territorial
Yeah, but how often is it that partisans have the "same" factors as a real unit? Partisans have an average strength of 1.3, and that's only if you include the late game ones. Honestly, the number of times partisans have been an active hindrance is pretty small, usually I just clean them up, and the worst thing they do is sit on a resource during a production phase and cost me a PP.
Sure, per point, they're awfully tough, but isn't that the breaks in counterinsurgency? Those guys up in Afghanistan have been managing to hold out against a conventionally overwhelming US force for over a decade, and don't seem to be going away anytime soon. It's tough to pry these guys out, and I for one think partisans are actually too weak in WiF, not too strong.
Sure, per point, they're awfully tough, but isn't that the breaks in counterinsurgency? Those guys up in Afghanistan have been managing to hold out against a conventionally overwhelming US force for over a decade, and don't seem to be going away anytime soon. It's tough to pry these guys out, and I for one think partisans are actually too weak in WiF, not too strong.
"When beset by danger,
When in deadly doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout."
When in deadly doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout."
-
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm
RE: partisan vs territorial
I have always thought that Territorials should receive the in-country movement bonus that Partisans do.
I agree that Partisans are too weak in WiF. But that is on a country-by-country basis perhaps. Definitely so in China and the USSR. I also think it is a bit absurd that Partisans is an optional rule. Let's just play a nice game of war with those nice Axis powers vs. those nice Allies and not clutter it up with actual history and make the Axis deal with the side effects of their ideology of racial Evil. Nope.
I would disagree that Territorials would have any compunction about fighting partisans in their own territory. A lot of places that have Territorial units weren't organic countries … they were areas with artificial boundaries created by occupying Colonial powers. These borders were frequently deliberately drawn to encompass multiple tribal/ethnic/religious groups with historic enmities, so they would continue to squabble with each other while the Colonial power walked away with all the natural resources. The Colonial power might put one group in charge and give them military training = the TERR unit. The tribe in charge would use their power to discriminate against the other tribes/groups in the "country", perhaps with armed violence, and this other tribe or group would then become the Partisan unit. Burma would be an example in WiF.
Even Yugoslavia is an example of this, though it doesn't have any TERR units it does have City-Based Volunteers. The Partisans there weren't a bunch of patriots fighting for the United Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes against the German conquerors; they were frequently Serbs fighting for their very lives against other "Yugoslavians" allied with the Germans and bent on exterminating them. It was as ugly as war can get.
Other times this could happen in an ethnically homogenous country based purely on politics. The idea of Communism was frequently suppressed with military force and again you could see armed conflict between citizens of the same country, with the Axis and the Allies supplying the weapons.
Or, the Territorial unit might actually be partially composed of Colonists. Millions of Japanese moved to Korea and Manchuria, for example. I don't think any of the Japanese colonists joined the partisans.
Or, life was hard in WWII. To eat food and survive, you might take a job in the army of the country that just conquered your country. And then you might have to shoot a gun at citizens of your own country. But you might have to really shoot that gun at another human being and not miss, because those Partisans weren't going to be taking any prisoners…..
I agree that Partisans are too weak in WiF. But that is on a country-by-country basis perhaps. Definitely so in China and the USSR. I also think it is a bit absurd that Partisans is an optional rule. Let's just play a nice game of war with those nice Axis powers vs. those nice Allies and not clutter it up with actual history and make the Axis deal with the side effects of their ideology of racial Evil. Nope.
I would disagree that Territorials would have any compunction about fighting partisans in their own territory. A lot of places that have Territorial units weren't organic countries … they were areas with artificial boundaries created by occupying Colonial powers. These borders were frequently deliberately drawn to encompass multiple tribal/ethnic/religious groups with historic enmities, so they would continue to squabble with each other while the Colonial power walked away with all the natural resources. The Colonial power might put one group in charge and give them military training = the TERR unit. The tribe in charge would use their power to discriminate against the other tribes/groups in the "country", perhaps with armed violence, and this other tribe or group would then become the Partisan unit. Burma would be an example in WiF.
Even Yugoslavia is an example of this, though it doesn't have any TERR units it does have City-Based Volunteers. The Partisans there weren't a bunch of patriots fighting for the United Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes against the German conquerors; they were frequently Serbs fighting for their very lives against other "Yugoslavians" allied with the Germans and bent on exterminating them. It was as ugly as war can get.
Other times this could happen in an ethnically homogenous country based purely on politics. The idea of Communism was frequently suppressed with military force and again you could see armed conflict between citizens of the same country, with the Axis and the Allies supplying the weapons.
Or, the Territorial unit might actually be partially composed of Colonists. Millions of Japanese moved to Korea and Manchuria, for example. I don't think any of the Japanese colonists joined the partisans.
Or, life was hard in WWII. To eat food and survive, you might take a job in the army of the country that just conquered your country. And then you might have to shoot a gun at citizens of your own country. But you might have to really shoot that gun at another human being and not miss, because those Partisans weren't going to be taking any prisoners…..
- paulderynck
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: partisan vs territorial
Valid points in many of the posts above, but the rule isn't changing anytime soon in WiF and thus is unlikely to change in MWiF.
Paul
RE: partisan vs territorial
The territorial unit does have a chance to suppress the appearance of the partisan in the first place.
“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great