"Home field advantage"

[Yashed To]

Sid already introduced a comparable concept with "Colonization".

After calling for a Revolution, the Revolutionary Army got a defense bonus when encountering the Royal Army outside the villages - but only there! In settlements, there wasn't any "home turf" bonus.
Thus the usual strategy for the game was to defend in fortified cities and encounter the Brits on open ground. But never (!) attack out of cities.

On the other hand, colonists got a special defense bonus in settlement tiles when they had to defend themselves against native American raids.

And this game is 10+ years old, so it shouldn't be that difficult to include this into the combat system.

 

[sir_schwick]

Not to niggle at bits, but the Vietnam War was lost at home, not in the jungle. The United States won every battle they fought over there, but lost the war primarily because of war weariness.

As for the American Revolution.. while the tactics employed by colonial soldiers were unusual and successful, they were not the deciding factor that caused King George to call the troops home. He had bigger worries than rebellious colonials, namely France, and could not afford to continue trying to project British power overseas while fighting his closest neighbor.

Guerillas can never win a war or even end a war. What they Can do is tie up numerous military assets and resources, creating a logistical nightmare for their foe.

-Elgalad

Good point. Wars are usually conducted to make a gain, or prevent another from making a gain(defensive). Whenever that enterprise becomes more costly then profitable, a nation will try to seek a way out.

On Vietnam, even if the American public never questioned the purpose of the US in Vietnam, US forces did not have the cooperation of the South Vietnamese civlians. Occupation is primarily won in the public's eye, not the militaries. To be frank, the US abandoned Vietnam rather than was defeated. In my opinion, it is much like the Romans told the Britons to 'Look to their own defenses.'

 

[Elgalad]

I stand corrected, though I was just trying to simplify. To date the reasons why the United States entered the Vietnam Conflict are ambiguous. We were not the only nation involved, nor were we the first to do so. We were the last to pull out, however, and it was indeed a combination of lack of popular support from South Vietnam and an unwillingness to go the distance and finish the job (*as well as war weariness ) that led to our withdrawal.

I'll stand by my other point though. While guerillas and irregular military units can have a profound effect on a military campaign, they cannot truly dictate the outcome of it. I found the values assigned to guerillas in CIV 3 to be mostly balanced when compared to professional infantry. I remember the Partisans in CIV 2 as well which served a similar purpose (after losing a city). I would place a restriction on their creation, however. Only nations who are 'losing' the global race should be able to build them. It's true that powerful nations have used such troops in the past (the Marine Raiders in WW2 were an example, as were the British Commandos, French Resistance, etc.). But in order to provide balance, major powers should have to rely on a professional army.

-Elgalad

 

[Volstag]

While guerillas and irregular military units can have a profound effect on a military campaign, they cannot truly dictate the outcome of it.

When it comes to military history, there's usually an exception to everything. I would suggest that guerillas did dictate the outcome of the Boer War and the Algerian War of Independence. And, more recently, in Afghanistan (vs. the Soviets).

-V

 

[sir_schwick]

Even in those conflicts, they forced the oppponent to reconsider their efforts. Geurilla warfare affects morale more then anything. Actually, I am not familiar with the Boer war. Afghanistan has a terrain well suited to hit-and-run attacks, at least the mountains are. While bad spirits alone can't kill a man, it makes it much much easier.

 

[Chieftess]

You also have to consider captured cities.

Here's an exmaple - I capture 10 AI cities, and the resistance has subsided. If the AI tried to get their cities back, it would be harder for them, since my troops are inside my territory.