Insurgencies and rebels too weak

[Zuikaku]

I have noticed that insurgencies and rebel forces are just too weak.
While rebels do indeed appear , they all the time just seems too weak to withstand more than a week. Even in the case of all out world war raging all arround they are just too easily crushed even by an overstretched AI forces.

so, my suggestion is to:
1. make rebelions more stronger (quantity of units). Historically, rebels vere often coordinated and tended to simultaneously appear in significant numbers.

2. Give rebel forces (guerillas, militias) some bonuses to simulate hit and run tactics and avoiding direct conflict with superior forces (more stealth, more difficult to sucessfully "hit" them or damage them even if they are engaged).

3. Rebel forces more prone to form if occupying nation is busy waging wars or it's army is depleted by war.

4. When rebellion starts it includes area much larger than 1 hex.

[Balthagor]

Do you have sources/examples to back up this proposal?

[Zuikaku]

Do you have sources/examples to back up this proposal?

Historical sources or save game?

1. Viet cong rebels were numerous and vell coordinated (tet offensive). Yugoslav partisans were numerous and well organised. Belarus partisans were also numerous and tied up considerable German forces (which never managed to wipe them out completely).

2. Taliban/al-qaeda rebels are difficult to engage. All partisans tried to storm isolated garrisons with superior numbers.

3. Yugoslav Partiusans emerged when Germany launched operation Barbarossa. Polish guerilla activated in greater numbers after operation Bagration and D-day...

4. I think this one is notorious. And giving greater area to the rebels means:
- occupation force needs to pinpoint exact location of rebels first.
- more troops have to be deployed to fight the rebels
- rebels deny more resources/teritorry/population from the occupying region. They disrupt production more. This gives greater impact to the rebels.

And ... it woul'd just be more fun if dead nations have a better chance to resurrect and make harder to just annex the region (which is still too easy IMO)....

[Fistalis]

Do you have sources/examples to back up this proposal?

Generally speaking the engine does a horrible job of simulating Guerrilla type insurgencies.. but TBH i'm not sure how it could be improved from an AI controled standpoint. The engine has the same issues as the U.S. Military had.. it was designed for full on state vs state engagements not counter insurgency

[Zuikaku]

Generally speaking the engine does a horrible job of simulating Guerrilla type insurgencies.. but TBH i'm not sure how it could be improved from an AI controled standpoint.

Adding more guerilla units over wider area. Adding more "rebel" territory and not only one hex. Adding more "stealthy" guerilla units that do not capture the hexes but harras weaker units.

Don't know if the AI is capable of handling the last one

[Fistalis]

Generally speaking the engine does a horrible job of simulating Guerrilla type insurgencies.. but TBH i'm not sure how it could be improved from an AI controled standpoint.

Adding more guerilla units over wider area. Adding more "rebel" territory and not only one hex. Adding more "stealthy" guerilla units that do not capture the hexes but harras weaker units.

Don't know if the AI is capable of handling the last one

I actually tried that in an OLD version of the modern world.. making guerilla units Always stealthed. It worked well but then the AI never captured any territory. It would need a mix.. IE partisans to cap territory and Guerrillas to harrass. The big issue is the AI would need to learn to treat them differently. I might actually try to reinvestigate the idea in the next version of the modern world. Just to see how well it will work even without the AI knowing the difference.

But TBH alls you need to do to see how horrible the engine handles guerrilla type insurgencies is to load up the Modern world and watch as FARC, Al-shabaab, M-23 , FSA etc etc fall with in a few weeks. Open combat = engine good, Insurgent warfare = engine bad.

Although it was a common tactic/practice during the cold war.. the effectiveness of partisans etc in WW2 makes it important in my mind for it to work better. Although if I said I expected a major fix/overhaul to the system I would be lying.

I could suggest a multitude of improvements but I'm not sure BG either wants to improve it.. or its high enough on their priority list to waste my time suggesting them. Since As george recently wrote on the steam forums.. the politics/domestic issues etc isn't the main focus.. but major warfare. (something that I always disliked about the game is its ignoring of internal issues but since SR is really the only game with the combat I crave I don't complain too much about it)

[Zuikaku]

I actually tried that in an OLD version of the modern world.. making guerilla units Always stealthed. It worked well but then the AI never captured any territory. It would need a mix.. IE partisans to cap territory and Guerrillas to harrass. The big issue is the AI would need to learn to treat them differently. I might actually try to reinvestigate the idea in the next version of the modern world. Just to see how well it will work even without the AI knowing the difference.

But TBH alls you need to do to see how horrible the engine handles guerrilla type insurgencies is to load up the Modern world and watch as FARC, Al-shabaab, M-23 , FSA etc etc fall with in a few weeks. Open combat = engine good, Insurgent warfare = engine bad.

Although it was a common tactic/practice during the cold war.. the effectiveness of partisans etc in WW2 makes it important in my mind for it to work better. Although if I said I expected a major fix/overhaul to the system I would be lying.

The easiest solution seems spawning more guerilla units. In the way that they can not be crushed so easily. Especially if they hold some major city...

**** or to give guerilla units 10X higher defense value ratings. That woul'd make them extremely difficult to eliminate, yet they still could not do excessive damage. They would last much longer, tie much more forces...
That would emulate their tactics of avoiding combat, using terrain and asimetric warfare....

I could suggest a multitude of improvements but I'm not sure BG either wants to improve it.. or its high enough on their priority list to waste my time suggesting them. Since As george recently wrote on the steam forums.. the politics/domestic issues etc isn't the main focus.. but major warfare. (something that I always disliked about the game is its ignoring of internal issues but since SR is really the only game with the combat I crave I don't complain too much about it)

It is too bad, since SR is one of the rare games that ofers diplomacy and domestic policies. Every other game in the world has combat, but very few of them have real diplomacy and domestic policies. It is really a sad decision, since one other game (Crusader Kings 2) that put focus on diplomacy and domestic policies is now a major success. And has proven that diplomacy and internal affairs can be very fun to play.

But, we can still hope there will be some improvements

[Fistalis]

It is too bad, since SR is one of the rare games that ofers diplomacy and domestic policies. Every other game in the world has combat, but very few of them have real diplomacy and domestic policies. It is really a sad decision, since one other game (Crusader Kings 2) that put focus on diplomacy and domestic policies is now a major success. And has proven that diplomacy and internal affairs can be very fun to play.

But, we can still hope there will be some improvements

Yes I love CK2.. but the combat sucks.. I liked SP2 as well.. but again the combat sucked. Unfortunately no one has yet to offer the full package.. we get to pick combat or domestic/politics etc.. never get both.

[Ruges]

Current Insurgencies have come along way since 2020. And I like where its going. In my last game I actual had to keep a few units in captured territories to respond to these units. And while very annoying, I don't think they where annoying enough. So they could use a buff to numbers. Instead of a single unit spawning all the time. Maybe 3 or 5 units at the same timer (although this should be a rarer event).

I do like the stealth unit idea. They are just going around fighting the occupiers. However one thing I do think needs to happen with all of these units. is they need to use no supply to operate. Since these type of units don't make there own bullets, they steal them from the enemy, or stashes they had, or allied care packages. But since there is no way to simulate that ingame. Having them use no supply would be the best result.

[Zuikaku]

Current Insurgencies have come along way since 2020. And I like where its going. In my last game I actual had to keep a few units in captured territories to respond to these units. And while very annoying, I don't think they where annoying enough. So they could use a buff to numbers. Instead of a single unit spawning all the time. Maybe 3 or 5 units at the same timer (although this should be a rarer event).

I do like the stealth unit idea. They are just going around fighting the occupiers. However one thing I do think needs to happen with all of these units. is they need to use no supply to operate. Since these type of units don't make there own bullets, they steal them from the enemy, or stashes they had, or allied care packages. But since there is no way to simulate that ingame. Having them use no supply would be the best result.

-Insurgencies should spawn guerilla units.

- Guerilla units should have some serious defensive and stealth advantages.

- Guerilla units should not need supplies (to simulate capturing eq from the enemy, living from local population, or foreign sponsors - which the game allows us to do).

-If some region finances weapons (we have this option), then more guerilla units should be spawn (there are many historical examples for this - from UK financing resistance movements in occupied Europe until latest foreign backed insurgencies in Libya and Syria).

- Neither player or AI regions should be able to recruit/build guerilla units (to avoid abuse of them and gamey behaviour cause of their special stealth/defensive capabilities). These units are only to be spawned by "insurgencies events".

[Sawedoff]

I have had two situations so far where insurgencies kept me very occupied and busy. The first was German occupied Poland. Very annoying insurgency, kept me occupied for a while. The worst though was US occupied Japan. Every other day there were Partisan units popping up. One day, three units popped up simultaneously. It kept going on until I finally took the Northern island and colonized them before I could get it to stop. I think it is honestly a luck of the draw for them.

[number47]

However one thing I do think needs to happen with all of these units. is they need to use no supply to operate. Since these type of units don't make there own bullets, they steal them from the enemy, or stashes they had, or allied care packages. But since there is no way to simulate that ingame. Having them use no supply would be the best result.

Maybe mod it with a simple, crude, just "bump up the units supply number stats or time in combat to...xy" technique? make that unit be able to fight for 1000h instead of normal 25h?

[Ruges]

However one thing I do think needs to happen with all of these units. is they need to use no supply to operate. Since these type of units don't make there own bullets, they steal them from the enemy, or stashes they had, or allied care packages. But since there is no way to simulate that ingame. Having them use no supply would be the best result.

Maybe mod it with a simple, crude, just "bump up the units supply number stats or time in combat to...xy" technique? make that unit be able to fight for 1000h instead of normal 25h?

yea its a simple change, and defiantly something that is modable. But I was more or less putting up there for discussing for including such a change in a non moded game.