irregular warfare

[anders]

how do you think CA will portray the spanish guerillos and such troops, and how important will they be to the games outcome?

[Sheogorath]

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.

[rajpoot]

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.

[anders]

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.

[Sol Invictus]

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.

[ArtistofWarfare]

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.

[errrrrrrrrframbo]

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....