irregular warfare

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Martok]

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.

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.

[Sheogorath]

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.

[Sabuti]

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.

[Nelson]

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.

[Oleander Ardens]

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.

[anders]

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.