Some Thoughts on Partizans

For bug reports and fixes, installation issues, and new ideas for technical features.

Moderator: SEOW Developers

Post Reply
Kopfdorfer
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu 26 Apr 2012 2:13 pm
Location: Dartmouth , Nova Scotia , Canada

Some Thoughts on Partizans

Post by Kopfdorfer »

Some Thoughts on Partizans

Given that the next Campaign I am working up is Fall Schwarz , the Axis campaign against the Yugoslavian Partizans in June 1943 , I have been thinking about how Partizans can be represented within the SEOW System.

What are characteristics intrinsic to Partizan Units and Partizan and Anti-Partizan Operations ?

Well , IL2 breaks all units down into only 2 real capabilities (as do most conflict simulations) , movement and fire.
SEOW has the capability of adding the layers of Reconnaissance , Supply , Morale , Leadership , and Production.

Partizans operated almost exclusively in their own home territory , or at the most immediately adjacent to it. This ensured that they were both familiar with the terrain , and in close contact with the local civilian population.
In general , they were not the direct match of the forces that opposed them in numbers , equipment or training , though as time went on and Axis strength in Europe began to decline this imbalance shifted. While it was true , Partizans tended to avoid direct face to face battle whenever possible.
They were in general completely committed to their cause - the liberation of their home territory - and this ensured that the morale of their forces was usually extremely high with excellent motivation. This also created a particularly vicious type of campaign with a high rate of civilian casualties , and brutal reprisals on the civilian populations by the occupiers. In its own turn this fostered a steady stream of recruits to the Partizan cause.
Because the Axis militarily occupied the countries and infrastructure , Partizans did not generally have access to economic or industrial tools , except in areas far from the occupied territory.
This was also reflected in their equipment , which at first was leftovers from their vanquished native armies (what the Axis forces had not requisitioned) , and later what they were able to steal from their occupiers. Later , they were supplied by the Allies to varying degrees , but this was in relatively small amounts and limited to clandestinely transported equipment.

How can we reflect these characteristics in SEOW ?

What were the main Partizan abilities other than combat ?

In terms of firepower we cannot do much.
In terms of movement , we can have all Partizan movement reflected in the Simple model , and alter the technics file to give Partizan Infantry a slight speed advantage over their Axis opposites.

In order to reflect their connection to the local population and knowledge of the terrain , we can have them gain reconnaissance more efficiently than the Axis ; on the reverse side , the Axis reconnaissance can decay faster in the same time period.

While it would be unrealistic to have any significant production of equipment , we can have the partizans produce infantry and leaders (CC Objects) from the local populace in an amount related to Mission to Mission Victory conditions. Partizan Supply points can be realistically placed anywhere on the Map including within the territory occupied by the Axis.
Furthermore , 4Shades has already implemented the ability to have fully active Airbases and Supply Drops which can be hidden from the enemy until discovered by recon (thanks 4Shades!).

The main capabilites of the Partizan forces other than combat and recconnaissance fall into various subcategories of 2 abilities :
Sabotage and Assassination.
Firstly , I must state that I am a proponent of the "Class" abilities for units to be applied by Unit rather than by Object , in the Object Mission Data Table , like Signallers , rather than only by Object Type in the Object Specs Table. To me this allows for greater flexibility in use , and a higher potential to build Fog of War in the Campaign context. You do not inherently "know" what the characteristics of an Object are ; every Kubelwagen is not a General , every Bicycle is not a Spy etc , etc.
Sabotage could be reflected in a number of ways with the SEOW model.
The first way is for Partizan units to use and compile enemy Supply Resources. Partizan units could be enabled to draw from enemy Units , Supply Dumps , Airfields , Rail Stations , Fuel Installations , and Industrial Installations based on proximity ( Set in the DCS ?). The amount they could steal would be based on their own Supply needs (first) , and then the Partizan Unit's Portage Capacity (second). A means of determining the Rate of the Supply Acquisition would need to be determined.
Partizans replete with supply could then have the option of destroying enemy supply.
The second way is to damage and/or destroy enemy installations (personally I wouldn't give Partizans the ability to repair these facilities like engineers ; they would generally not be trained to do so). They should be able to destroy Bridges , Reduce Rates of Production at Factories , Increase rearm and repair time for Aircraft at airfields , destroy Radio Beacons and Radar Installations.
They could be enabled to attrite (wear down) the strength of enemy Units and Columns ( ie a platoon of 4 vehicles might be reduced to 3 , a CC4 units might be reduced to CC3 , etc).
They could be enabled to light fires as guide beacons for aircraft either attacking enemy units/installations , or as a guide to accurate supply drops by night.
Partizans could construct and place Road and/or Rail blockages.
For Road blockages , a simple "blockade" object could be constructed and added to the Stationary Objects Table.
I made such an object as a test out of existing objects that could conceivably be put together by a small Partizan unit , and tested it in FMB. While the Object Group I constructed would not stop moving objects indefinitely , it would certainly affect movement enough to throw off the ordering Commander's intended schedule.
Rail Blockages are more problematic , as IL2 trains roll right on through anything that is on the tracks. If there was a way , however , of having a Rail Blockage truncate any plotted movement over it to end at a normal coordinate (placed by a Partizan Unit in the MP) , it would serve the purpose as well as the Roadblock Object . The chosen coordinate would then breplace the intended end waypoint of the train in the .mis file.
All these activities could conceivably be done via ToolTip in the MP.

Assassination
Partizan Units could be enabled to assassinate (eliminate or wound ) enemy CC Objects within a certain proximity (based on Partizan Unit Skill/Experience and Morale). The Results of elimination are self evident ; a wounded/damaged/attacked CC Object might have its CC range , Morale , Movement affected.

I am excited about the potential that exists here.
I look forward to hearing other peoples' thoughts and ideas about how the nature of Partizans might be portrayed within the SEOW framework.

Kopfdorfer
Last edited by Kopfdorfer on Fri 08 Jan 2016 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
IV/JG7_4Shades
Posts: 2201
Joined: Mon 08 Jan 2007 11:10 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Some Thoughts on Partizans

Post by IV/JG7_4Shades »

In the interests of understanding more fully the options here are some other things to consider:

Photo Recon
Spies are currently immune from detection via aerial photo recon. Should partisans be immune, or have a reduced detectability? This would require extra coding.

Proximity Recon
Should partisan units gather proximity recon at a different rate to regular army units? This would require extra coding.

Front Markers
Should partisan units generate front markers under the "strategic and military" option? If not, this would require extra coding.

Command and Control
Should partisan units be autonomous?

In terms of resupplying themselves from enemy supply stores, all units already have this capability. Reducing production rates and aircraft rearm rates would require coding changes to the DCS and maybe the MP. Allowing partisan units to destroy infrastructure but not repair it would required DCS and MP code changes.

Perhaps the most important concept Kopfdorfer introduced was that of partisan units reducing enemy unit strength/morale without an associated eventlog event, i.e. just "being there" would be enough to attrit the enemy. This means that we would be resolving combat purely out of game. Currently the only thing we do like this is the spy liquidation code, and it only affects spy units. Extending this out-of-game resolution to mainstream combat units who may never even shoot at each other in game, is a significant step that may have unintended consequences. It is certainly technically possible, but it isn't something we should do lightly.

Cheers,
4S
IV/JG7_4Shades
SEOW Developer

Image
Kopfdorfer
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu 26 Apr 2012 2:13 pm
Location: Dartmouth , Nova Scotia , Canada

Re: Some Thoughts on Partizans

Post by Kopfdorfer »

Hey 4 Shades,
Thanks for very much for your reply.
I know that implementing these ideas would require work to achieve , and that the work would not be my own.
I hope these thoughts are not received as expectations , but rather as an exploration of what other designers might
consider using in their own future campaigns , if they could be implemented.
I am also fishing for other designers thoughts of what solutions/mechanisms they might come up with (perhaps more
immediately achievable than my own) to give some depth and unique flavour to the concepts of partizan capabilities
and characteristics that were unique within the context of WW2 .

The basis for my desire to see some of these unique characteristics reflected in SEOW has a solid historical basis ,
as the Germans used a large amount of precious military assets and resources in areas and at times when they
would have been extremely valuable to them elsewhere in other applications. Partizan activity was a thorn in the side
of the German High Kommand in the Soviet Union , in France , and in the Balkans , in Scandinavia and indisputably
influenced the outcome of the war.

In my mind , any steps towards representing this within the scheme of SEOW will have value for future campaigns.

Kopfdorfer
Kopfdorfer
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu 26 Apr 2012 2:13 pm
Location: Dartmouth , Nova Scotia , Canada

Partizans Revisited

Post by Kopfdorfer »

I am still interested in this aspect of WW2 that usually passes by the wayside in consideration of any type of WW2 simulation
- belying the import that partizan activity had on the conduct of the world war 2 (and many subsequent military actions) in many sectors.

To address 4Shades notes from the previous post specifically :
(again I fully realize that enabling these ideas within the SEOW context requires work done by someone other than myself -
my consideration is based upon my interest(s) which themselves are fostered by my own interpretation of the history
of the period as I understand it)

Photo Recon
I believe Partizans would be represented more accurately by reduced detectability based upon their experience level.
If they could be implemented by recon immunity more easily then that would still be useful.

Proximity Recon
I believe that Partizans should be able to gather proximity recon based upon their experience ;
some units would be inferior to regular army units (rookies and average) and some would be equal to regular army (veteran partizans)
and superior to regular army units (ace partizans).

Front Markers
I do not believe that partizan units should generally generate front markers,
though I can see instances where both settings would be useful to the designer.

Command and Control
I believe that partizan autonomy should be subject to campaign designer's choice.
I can see instances where both settings would be useful to the designer.

When you say that resupplying from enemy supply sources is already implemented , I am assuming that you mean from "captured" enemy supply
stores. I believe that partizan units should be able to supply themselves from any local supply stores (range based upon partizan unit experience?).

More thoughts to follow.

Kopfdorfer
Post Reply