These men were the cream of the army, selected from thousands of volunteers, experienced combat veterans mostly, men who could do the hard jobs. If there are guerillas, why there can't be also collaborators? Maybe one should be able to produce in every conquered city a small amount (10-20 percent of the city original production capability) of infantry and MGs?ĭon't think of these guerrillas as partisans, they are more like Merrills Marauders. A amount of regular infantry should be able to defeat a equal amount of guerillas.Īlso, if the guerillas start turn on territory which was not your's at the beginning of the game, they should have readiness penalty. In my opinion the guerillas may as well have endless supply, even slightly better movement than regular infantry, but their combat capabilities should be lower. But by some reason in ATG the guerillas and infantry are pretty equal in combat terms. Guerillas were often facing supply difficulties. There might not be the necessary number of officers available. Guerillas as a mass movement consist different people, many with no military experience. Now, rifle infantry should be something which is organised by military specialists, trained to a certain degree, led by necessary number of officers. However why then the supplies can't last longer? Ok, let's not nitpick, we can after all pretend that the large supply actually simulates how the guerillas recieve supply from different source: locals giving it to them, grabbing the locals, supplies coming via air. But how then the guerillas can have the same mobility as regular infantry? In this case they should be actually less mobile. However the guerillas have these huge bags of food and ammo with them which allow them to remain in supply longer. Both are supposed to be more or less equal in 'weight', both have only light weapons. Now that a lot of guys have seen them used properly, I expect they will become a topic of much griping, like cavalry. The exigincies of war made it imperative that I push these things to the limit. In a situation like mine, surrounded on 3 sides by enemies (approximately 75-80 % of my borders) and in mounatanous jungle terrain, Guerrilla warfare was an obvious choice. I was discussing the possibility of having them removed completely with CarlVon and pointed out that I would be hurting much worse in our 3v3 game had I tried to fight conventional industrial warfare. It took me a while to figure them out, but since I have, they are indeed a very powerful weapon.

This lets me fight back on an almost equal footing against two great players at the same time. I have forced both of them to keep massive amounts of troops 5,10 even 15 tiles back from the front lines. In our 3v3 game, they are beating the hell out of me, but with two of them doing it, they should have been able to beat me down without mercy, and instead, I am still fighting strong.

Jreid, and All5n could proabably be considered to be experienced and very skilled players. Actually, they are just as powerful as they need to be, but I think everyone should have access to them. I think paras are better for cutting supply lines (roads usually). Did the players have equal skills? Any screens? They need research and they are just weak infantry, so no offensive power, and they need supply anyway. Guerrilla overpowered? I just don't belive this.

World in conflict game guerrillas