how do you think CA will portray the spanish guerillos and such troops, and how important will they be to the games outcome?
Printable View
how do you think CA will portray the spanish guerillos and such troops, and how important will they be to the games outcome?
I imagine in roughly the same fashion they were portrayed in NTW, that is, basically a militia-skirmisher unit with 'hide anywhere'.
Given its relative rarity (in reality), and tediousness (in the TW engine), I imagine they'll give it a rough nod in the form of the above mentioned unit. I mean, SOME people might enjoy skirmishing across the map twice, but I personally find it dreadfully dull when I have to chase a single unit of archers around for thirty minutes because the AI refuses to engage.
On another note, I believe it was mentioned that piracy could be portrayed as an effect on income, rather than as actual units. I think that might work for guerrilla units, since chasing down hundreds of two-unit stacks on the campaign map isn't much fun either.
Of course, from what I know, most Europeans seem to prefer outright rebellion to guerrilla tactics.
The Marathas made exstensive use of guerrilla warfare, the hills and platues which cover a lot of that area were ideal for this.
The way CA has been portraying this uptil now, is not at all satisfactory. What they should do is, that a general who is good at guerilla warfare, should be able to, sort of ambush the enemy, a lot more easily than usual, and the troops should get a bonus during this, and should be able to retreat quicker than regular troops.
Having troops being able to hide anywhere doesn't count, because for one, guerilla warfare never took place on flat terrain, and secondly, these people used to hit and run fast.
Hidden troops can hit, do damage, but take a lot more damage than it is proper, and more often then not I've simply lost my unit.
Hopefully as this is a new engine and all, they'll have something better this time around. Specially with the great range of area and terrain available, the effect should be more 'visible' than before.
I agree that lots of small-scale fights with irregulars and having to hunt down M2TW/RTW style rebels and brigands isnt much fun( and these guys wouldnt be willing to stay in the field and be hunted down anyway), still guerilla, freikorps and cossacks performin ambushes, raiding supply trains and such were a part of the eras warfare, and these things should have an impact one way or another.
having them represented by losses of resources and men in the areas where they are active sounds good to me, and maybe one could counter them by assigning troops to counter-insurgency duty for a period.
The game could also simply fail to generate Irregulars as long as Regular forces occupy a region. This would require an occupier to actually maintain large forces to suppress any potential rebel activity. If the occupier failed to actually maintain large forces on the conquered areas, then he should be forced to deal with loss of revenue and troublesome Irregulars.
I think we should be careful not to underestimate how important guerilla warfare actually was to the middle and latter part of this time period.
I understand that the American Colonies are going to be a playable faction (or if not playable, an emerging faction).
If this is the case, guerilla warfare simply cannot be a side note or you'll have an entire faction that is totally misrepresented.
Well, maybe not ENTIRELY. The Americans DID have regulars...they just sucked :PQuote:
Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare
They didn't "suck", they were simply not as professional or well equipped as the British. Let's remember, many of the same soldiers who were "regulars" became "irregulars" eventually. It was many of the same men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
The fact was that guerilla warfare was so effective because strategically, it was what was called for in that warfare situation.
The colonists were against a numerically superior enemy, with better weaponry, more experience and training, highly motivated, etc. To engage the Brits using the same tactics the Brits used was simply trying to beat 10 with 2. It's not going to happen. Specifically in that time period's style of conventional warfare.
In all reality, the American irregulars were outstanding soldiers. They adapted and developed an irregular style that began to actually allow that 2 to beat 10. Once this occurred, the British failed to adapt to THIS...and started losing the war...and eventually did.
Where experience, training, weapons, tactics etc were major strengths for the British - knowledge of the land, hit and run tactics, communications, and sheer long term will power were even greater strengths for the Americans.
An irregular army that sucked would never have been able to orchestrate this kind of a guerilla war against the world's super power at that time.
Without getting into a political debate over Vietnam: This is like saying that the NVC and VC irregulars sucked. Now, even though the US DID win virtually every single clash of arms in that conflict - there is not a US veteran who served in that war who would say that the Cong sucked. They were a highly motivated enemy capable of adapting on the fly and experts in the most basic of guerilla warfare - to turn the enemy's strengths into weakness and turn your own weaknesses into strengths.
Guerilla warfare gets a bad rap as "unskilled" or "undisciplined". In reality, for it to work effectively your soldiers need to be quite the opposite. As an individual soldier, they need to be even more effective than the regular's they're facing.
Well, George Washington's strategy that would eventually win the war was to keep the war going until another major power gets into a war with Great Britain. It's a very good example of guerilla warfare. I'm hoping there's an entertaining way to model that into the game. So far, most of the suggestions seem to be bad for gameplay. And I'm 100% against more bandit/rebel battles. I hope they would actually remove that from the game. It's too annoying.
So, they sucked at being regulars. That was what I said. I believe I was specific to the American REGULARS. Denying that the US had fine irregulars is like denying that the British had a navy.
However, operating in a capacity as regular soldiers, much like the Vietnamese you mentioned, they were rather poor. Perhaps 'sucked' is an over exaggeration, but this is a board about a game, not a semantics class.
So, to be perfectly clear:
American regulars were poor quality.
Once they ceased to be regulars, and began operating in the capacity of IRREGULAR soldiers, their quality improved greatly.
They didn't take on an alternate life form when they adapted their fighting style to win the war...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
They were the same soldiers. They wound up annihilating the British. They never sucked - they're initial strategy sucked.
Same with the Vietnamese. If you gave them our tanks, our weapons, our bombs, our air fleet - they would have waged conventional warfare quite well. They "sucked" (as you put it) at conventional because they lacked the appropriate tools to wage it effectively in the face of overwhelming firepower.
They never sucked.
They didn't become some alternate life form, but they did change roles. You can be a poor regular and an excellent irregular.
Irregulars could have, on the campaign map, the ability to hide in ambush everywhere. Of course, this could end up transforming itself into a lot of little rebel stacks, so not cool. But it would still be amusing.
:beam:
If the terrain is more detailed in ETW, then ordinary units should have a big movement penalty in rough terrain. But guerillas should be able to skip across it. Also they should have a (noticable) combat bonus in rough terrain since they are used to melees but standard soldiers would not be used to fighting in a broken formation.
the american regulars durinfg the world of independence were trained and help by the french army of the time that was one of the most efficient of the time. At the begging the usa started using guerrila but at some point they realised they were getting nowhere same as the spanish war of independency until a proffesional fully army came they didnt have any chances of winning the war until mr wellington came and kick napoleo ash same happend with the usa....
That might be quite good, at the moment I can quite happily go a whole campaign without ever seeing an ambush so it might be fun to have them be a bit more frequent, albeit only possible with troops who would otherwise have no chance in an outright confrontation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
I don't know that I completely agree with everything you said -- I think irregulars should receive at least some movement penalty in rough terrain (although definitely not as much as regular troops) -- but I concur it would be cool to see *something* like this implemented. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
I don't know that your average guerilla would get a significant bonus from fighting in rough terrain in melee when compared to a regular linesmen, unless they had some specific advantage in terms of their armament. Axes or hatchets, for example. A guerrilla with a musket against a linesman with a musket, even in broken ground, would probably see the linesman win, unless the guerrilla also had training in how to fight in close quarters with a musket.
I think an easy way to impliment guerilla effect would be to use the 200% providence loyalty system. 1-100 would determine the chance of rebellion, 100-200 could determine the chance of guerilla activity events that damage buildinga and/or kill some of the garrison.
American Continental Regulars, after being properly trained, could stand toe to toe with some of the finest troops in the world. Witness the battle of Monmouth where Continentals slugged it out with Guards battalions.
Someone beat Burgoyne at Saratoga and it wasn’t militia. Continental Light Infantry carried Stony Point at night with the bayonet only, muskets sans flints. Later the same Light Infantry stormed a redoubt at Yorktown.
Irregular warfare did not win the War for Independence. A professional army of regulars got the job done. With the able assistance of the French Navy and to a lesser extent and rather lately, the French Army.
Regarding irregular warfare in Empires, my concern is the AI. It has been all the AI can do to wage semi-competent conventional warfare in the TW series thus far. Unless some very clever programming has been done an extra wrinkle could widen the gap between a decent player and his AI opponent.
Let us not forget that American regulars had in the later part of the war been trained after Prussian fashion, given it the discipline necessary to hold their own against British linetroops and their commanders one of the tools they needed to defeat the British.
Irregular warfare surly played a great role in many theaters of war: America, Spain, Tyrol, Russia, the German States. A strong irregular force in your region should curtail earnings, deplete your stationed troops, destroy (military) infrastructur and so on.
what is best then, portraying irregulars and insurgents as units on the map, which you have to hunt down and fight in COIN operations, or portraying them in an abstract way, as a stady trickle of lost resources as and manpower in areas where they operate, and let the number and type of troops +leve of happiness you have in that area decide the volume of irregulars.
The European powers that were competing for control of the New World, especially Britain & France, employed the best guerrilla fighters in that era against each other, the Native American tribes. It should be restricted to the American continents of course, but shouldn't be ignored. The Brits also used units such as Roger's Rangers *Major Robert Rogers* to great effect during the French and Indian War. Members of this group of frontiersmen later became important leaders in the American Revolutionary War and many ex-rangers fought as patriot minutemen.
How about if at the end of a turn on the province info screen the guerilla activities was listed with a loss in money attached that would be rectified by increasing troops or happiness? Maybe have some units lose a few men, similar to how an uprising caused this previously?
The other option is an ambush where the rebels attack but then disappear quickly, rather than running round and round till you pin them down. Would follow the info we have where AI decides wether to weaken you or fight to the finish and would have a morale penalty on your men. Would accurately portray how annoying the guerillas were to regular troops.
On the topic of how effective they were, in the Penninsula war I think it was documented that the guerillas accounted for more deaths than regular troops and didn't they make a French army surrender at Bayers?
Bailén you mean? That was not guerillas. Throughout the Peninsular War there were several Spanish armies figthing the French. They were just not very coordinated nor high quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoyle007
Angry peasants killing stragglers, patrols and foraging parties were hardly a new thing for this era. The American regulars, helped by local militia, worked as an ordinary army. AFAIK the main guerilla activity happened in the South, but it was still regular armies with Continentals and militia that was the main focus of the actual campaigns there.
Having to actually fight battles against guerillas would be a waste of time in ETW when it can be handled by revolts with loss of income, damaged buildings and lost soldiers etc. If it gets bad enough or too few troops to control a province then an actual enemy army could pop up.
CBR
Well said. Not too many fights against rebels, but still heavy disadvantages...Quote:
Having to actually fight battles against guerillas would be a waste of time in ETW when it can be handled by revolts with loss of income, damaged buildings and lost soldiers etc. If it gets bad enough or too few troops to control a province then an actual enemy army could pop up.
OA
Speculation on what should be, aside, we know that irregular units will be included at least in the SF edition.
I don’t see how a single regiment of irregular infantry will have a great impact on a given battle but it could be very disruptive in the hinterlands of a region and tough to catch. It would demand a much stronger force to catch and defeat it so they would be expensive to counter also.
The reason I say it wouldn’t make much difference on the battle map is that the AI sees all so it is tough to surprise someone who knows there is a unit there.
Against other humans in multiplayer it could be a different matter though.
Irregular units are represented in the game in some form so I guess we will be fighting them in some form.
well assuming you had a general who could do that, I'd almost prefer similar to the ambushes of Rome Total War.
Very rushed, very little time to assemble, and flanking has a impact.
Obviously you could ambush in MTW but it just never seemed quite as effective.
Plus, and this may be off topic, but I really did enjoy the nightfighting in games, made for colorful units and backrounds and would like to see this in game.
With how big a role formations play, I could very easily see Gurellias ambushing you as a viable tactic if you don't have time to "Assemble"
I'd love it if they could cut off supply lines, but I just don't think we are that far along.
Indeed!
Can you say Braddock expedition! While this may or may not be a part of the game we do know the outcome.