el cid again
This is a good idea. A Japanese occupation of Hawaii was impractical
unless the population was deported or allowed to die by starvation - there
was not enough shipping to feed the place. Other cases apply on a lesser
scale to both sides.
Local populations also are a problem in terms of conquest of large cities
and controlling them thereafter. This may make it impractical to attack
a major urban area at all.
I call this concept the "supply sink." Supply sinks are mainly non-productive
civilians in numbers. For this I created a device called "slum community".
It is paired with a support squad (to make it neutral in terms of support)
in a unit that is static. In Japan, Depot Divisions are an example. In an
Allied city, a CD unit is already static. A 'civilian' device needs to have
no combat attributes at all - it is only a logistical creature. But it WILL
increase the squad count for the unit (and location) and it will spread casualties
between 'military and civilian units' compared to a location only with military
Such units are MORE effective than expected. It is not necessary to have gigantic
numbers of them. It also nice simulates problems such as the British had feeding
India. These units demand supplies ALL the time - and become a problem when the
source of supply is cut off. They STILL demand supplies - complicating the military
The biggest problem with the concept is they do not change sides well. Limit them
to places likely not to be conquered. Indeed, a location with them on any scale
isn't likely to be conquered. See Manila for an example of combat in a dense urban
area (even though only a few thousand hostiles were present - it became the most
damaged city in Asia - and one of the worst in WW2 anywhere - second only to Warsaw
probably). The decision to abandon Manila (by Mac) only "saved the city from destruction"
for a while - it ended up destroyed anyway. So be careful where you put a major supply
sink. Tokyo, Bombay, Chunking etc are good examples - none is likely to fall - all are
major places demanding non military supplies writ large.
The concept that "supplies are meant to be military" is IMHO a mistake. You cannot distinguish
between supplies for the military and civilians. Food is food. Gravel and timber are equally
useful for construction for both. You permit building of factories (for Japan anyway) and of
airfields, roads, railroads and ports - how can you say material useful for such isn't useful
for the civil economy? Instead of trying to separate them per se, create an economic model in
which you ASSUME that LI (and to some degree HI) generate supply for civilians. Make the resources
consumed to generate supplies be appropriate to support both; consider the (invisible) civilian
supply as a sort of "tax" on production. That way you only need to worry about civil consumption in
MAJOR cases - as in gigantic urban centers that indeed were a real wartime problem in terms of feeding
the population. An owning or occupying power cannot easily ignore these needs. When the British did,
in India, they lost legitimacy as rulers, and there was no longer any chance of retaining power. India
never forgave the strategic decision that there was not enough shipping to feed India. Afraid of
similar effects in Ceylon, the British decided to feed them better! These are grand strategic military
considerations - not merely political ones.
< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/27/2016 9:12:36 PM >