Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

partisan vs territorial

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> partisan vs territorial Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 6:48:51 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4736
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: online

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






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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
Post #: 1
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 7:17:19 AM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2383
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline
better morale does wonders.

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 2
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 9:20:26 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4736
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: online
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.

< Message edited by michaelbaldur -- 5/21/2014 10:21:30 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to AxelNL)
Post #: 3
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 10:51:08 AM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3957
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

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....

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 4
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 1:10:08 PM   
joshuamnave

 

Posts: 967
Joined: 1/8/2014
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 5
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 2:01:11 PM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2383
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline
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....

(in reply to joshuamnave)
Post #: 6
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 2:14:58 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1810
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

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)

(in reply to joshuamnave)
Post #: 7
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 3:49:47 PM   
joshuamnave

 

Posts: 967
Joined: 1/8/2014
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 8
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 4:07:58 PM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to joshuamnave)
Post #: 9
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 4:22:17 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8728
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay


quote:

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

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 10
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/21/2014 9:44:31 PM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4736
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay


quote:

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.


< Message edited by michaelbaldur -- 5/21/2014 10:48:23 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 11
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/22/2014 7:06:19 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8728
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 12
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/22/2014 8:29:41 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 45022
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
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....

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 13
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/22/2014 8:30:30 PM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 14
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/23/2014 4:27:49 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
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…..

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 15
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/23/2014 7:47:46 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8167
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
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

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 16
RE: partisan vs territorial - 5/25/2014 7:50:05 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


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

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> partisan vs territorial Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.282