Closed Resistance Wars

Day 2,077, 14:05 • Published in Serbia Canada • by New Faustian Man

To be honest I don’t know why I write these things, none of my suggestions are ever implemented, but w/e.





Anyway, this article isn’t going to go into depth on a complete rejig of the military module, I’m just suggesting a small change that would operate as a leveler between alliances of different strengths, and give advantage to the more mobile and better organized alliance as opposed to the pound-for-pound stronger.

The first part is simply switching Resistance Wars from open affairs that, over the course of the campaign may have combatants traveling in from all over the e-world join and contribute in, to closed campaigns that only involve the citizens resident in the region when the campaign starts.

The second part is allowing Military Units to register with either their own nation; or the alliance their nation belongs to, so that the respective national MoD or alliance military commander would have effective command over these MUs to direct them as he/she wished. This would give strategic charge of the MU and would allow them to

> Order some or all registered MUs to a certain region. Members of these MUs can then travel to the location free of charge, the alliance or national government footing the bill



How this would work in practice:

Say, for instance, the following MUs are registered with each alliance HQ and commanded by their military commander:


_TWO_

- Husaria (Polish)

- Kuka i motika eSrbije (Serbian)

- Union Militar Argentina (Argentine)

- Taiwan Armed Mobs (Taiwanese)


_Circle of Trust_

- Macedonian Army (MKD)

- SEAL Team 6 (US)

- MERCENARY OPS (Bulgarian)

- Bad Company (German)


Assume Aquitaine -- an important region with a Rubber resource -- is in Serbian possession and CoT HQ decide to attempt a RW of the region to cut Serbian bonuses. CoT HQ would pay the figure required to start the Resistance War in full (a feature that would become available to military commanders of alliances) and would then issue commands to the MU commanders of the Macedonian Army, MERC OPS, ST6 and Bad Company to move pronto to Aquitaine. Upon the alliance military commander paying the fee to start the RW, a timer will start, counting down from 1 hrs. This is the length of time before the war will start in the region and when the ability to travel to this region will be shut down.

The TWO military commander seeing the plans of his adversary, realises CoT plan on liberating Aquitaine. His job (getting a bit obvious here) is decide whether to deploy the MUs under his command to Aquitaine, or leave the suppression of the CoT mobile armies to the Serbian MoD.





Imagine the distribution is as follows:

In the beginning only Kuka i motika eSrbije are in the picture, stationed in Aquitaine against the eventuality of a resistance war. Once the CoT military commander shows his hand and begins moving the Macedonian Army, MERCENARY OPS, SEAL Team 6 and Bad Company into place, the writing would already be on the wall. Giving the respective MUs a 3 or 4 hour window within which to mobilize and deploy to Aquitaine + the one hour countdown between the CoT military commander hitting the switch to start the RW countdown.

TWO HQ decide it warrants defending so mobilize three more units to help Kuka i motika eSrbije defend the region: Husaria, Union Militar Argentina and Taiwan Armed Mobs.





Both sets of MUs are hand-picked to give the resistance war both power and decent 24hr coverage.

Once the countdown expires the ability to travel to Aquitaine is disabled. From hereon the Resistance War for Aquitaine is effectively a war between two armies, one composed of the Macedonian Army, MERCENARY OPS, Bad Company and SEAL Team 6, and one composed of Kuka i motika eSrbije, Husaria, Taiwan Armed Mobs and Union Militar Argentina. The performance of each of the MUs will determine the outcome of the conflict. There is sure to be other citizens in Aquitaine when hostilities kick off, indeed the Serbian and French MoDs may have moved to position some units there, but a huge chunk of damage will come from the combatants as listed above.



Why this would be an Improvement:


> Increased Relevance for non-European Countries

It makes the game “live” 24hrs a day, there will be no downtime outside of European daylight hours anymore, indeed Southern Hemisphere countries will become ever more important as it will be essential at least one major Southern Hemisphere MU be part of any European RW or suppression of a RW. The same ofcourse applies to any SH RW, one or more European/North American MUs would have to be included.


> Distribution and Strategy

The main improvement generated by closed RWs is the organisation it demands of alliance HQs. The figure of the alliance military commander becomes more important than ever, on par or even surpassing (depending on how many MUs commit to the alliance over the constituent states which comprise it) national MoDs in importance. The task of the alliance military commander would be distributing his pieces (individual MUs) amongst the many regions held by his alliance. Once stationed in a region the members of the MU can still fight elsewhere, that is until the region they’re resident in becomes involved in a RW.





This kind of setup would demand a military commander distribute his armies to all the resource-significant regions under control of his alliance, both as a deterrent and as a means to combat shock mobilisations by rival alliances. Although a course of events that sees only three or four RWs open at any one time would mean minimal impact against the operational capability of the defending alliance, the real meat would come when the offensive alliance (the one which wants to liberate its own regions) opens six, seven, eight, nine, ten RWs or upwards, forcing the defending alliance to tie up a massive chunk of it damage in the defense of economically-important regions.

This injection of strategy would also re-cast how MUs are graded. Simply assuming “the best” MU equates with the “strongest” would be replaced by both strength and the ability to effectively mobilise to anywhere in the world. In the past I was a member of a top eUS MU and our sister MU in the eUS, which also titled themselves a “mobile unit” were a running joke for us: yeah they had the damage, but their mobilisation percentages were atrocious, whereas we averaged in the high 90%. Can you imagine the value an MU would bring to their alliance that could match 95-99% mobilisation rate coupled with huge damage coupled with closed RWs!?





Closed RWs would totally reinvent how we thought of Military Units, power-for-power’s sake would be a thing of the past, or if they stuck around, they’d be consigned to fighting in MPP battles as they'd be not much use otherwise.

If closed RWs had already been implemented, a tactically acute military commander of CoT could easily have bested TWO. Even with TWO’s strength, the massive (and profitless) gains they make in places like continental North America would be impossible to hold. What with so many regions to hold down in Europe to maintain their 10/10s would ensure any MPP battles would be undermanned as the MUs would be stationed in places like Aquitaine in readiness for RWs...

That’s pretty much it people. I’d like to add though that this would be such a simple thing to implement. And that yeah the strongest alliance would still have the upperhand, but under this template the more aggressive/greedy an alliance = equates to them being ever fatter sitting ducks and not much else...


NFM