Point of order: the resistance isn't dead

[*Templar*]

I've seen a couple of posts now in which people make blithe offhand comments to the effect of "So much for the Azure City resistance" or "the resistance is down to Haley and Belkar now."

Actually, there's no reason to write off the resistance.

First of all, we have no good reason to think that the group which showed up to liberate the slaves at the granary is the sum total of the resistance's strength. In fact, I consider it unlikely that's the case. Even if the whole granary raid party had been wiped out, we would have no basis for thinking the resistance would cease to exist, at least from a manpower standpoint (the loss of Haley's leadership would probably be a fatal blow, but that's a different issue).

Second, addressing the second comment I mentioned above, even assuming the granary raid group was all the resistance had, Niu escaped unmolested with the freed slaves, as far as we know, and they may yet be able to get Thanh back, though the odds are against it. Therefore, the assertion that the resistance was down to Haley and Belkar is still technically incorrect.

OK, I'm done now. I just felt the need to respond to these ill-considered statements people were making.

[NikkTheTrick]

Resistances on average lose 10 men for everyone they take down. So, chances are resistance indeed got a lot more cannon fodder members.

[archon_huskie]

I think you wrote that backwards, the resistance take down 10 for every one they lose.

[Rogue 7]

Not to mention Tsukiko's comments about "your friends the resistance can't help you now!" in 520. That would imply that they're still around.

[NikkTheTrick]

I think you wrote that backwards, the resistance take down 10 for every one they lose.
Only in movies.

Guriella forces suffer about 10 times higher losses. Which is why, whenever possible, regular armies are used instead of guriellas.

[FoE]

They may be 'the resistance,' but I doubt they're more than an irritance to Xykon and Redcloak's regime. Since the humans wouldn't be able to walk the streets openly (the city is teeming with hobgoblins and undead, after all), they would have to stay constantly hidden, and it would be extremely difficult to do so with very large numbers. I doubt there's more than two or three dozen humans in the resistance, and thanks to Tsukiko, two of their highest-level characters are now dead.

[Ulrichomega]

Only in movies.

Guriella forces suffer about 10 times higher losses. Which is why, whenever possible, regular armies are used instead of guriellas.

Since when has this been like real life?

[Rogue 7]

Only in movies.

Guriella forces suffer about 10 times higher losses. Which is why, whenever possible, regular armies are used instead of guriellas.

Logically, that doesn't make sense. The North Vietnamese didn't outnumber us, nor did the communist chinese outnumber the nationalists. If you lose 10 men for every 1 you kill, you're completely screwed. Guerilla warfare is all about hitting the enemy where they're weak- they do this by being able to move wherever they want to, and a small army can move much easier than a big one can. Maybe you can't match the enemy one-on-one, but with your mastery of terrain, it's easier to hit a small chunk of the enemy with a large chunk of your own. If you can match the enemy's numbers, you can attack.

[BisectedBrioche]

Only in movies.

Guriella forces suffer about 10 times higher losses. Which is why, whenever possible, regular armies are used instead of guriellas.

Erm...isn't the whole point of guriella warfare that its based around ambush and attack and retreat tactics which minimise casualties on the guriellas' side when opponents have superior firepower and/or numbers?

[GenLee]

Logically, that doesn't make sense. The North Vietnamese didn't outnumber us, nor did the communist chinese outnumber the nationalists. If you lose 10 men for every 1 you kill, you're completely screwed. Guerilla warfare is all about hitting the enemy where they're weak- they do this by being able to move wherever they want to, and a small army can move much easier than a big one can. Maybe you can't match the enemy one-on-one, but with your mastery of terrain, it's easier to hit a small chunk of the enemy with a large chunk of your own. If you can match the enemy's numbers, you can attack.

In straight-up fights against conventional forces, guerrillas tend to lose at least 5:1. You're right, guerrillas try to fight ambushes and raids, never facing the conventional enemy head-to head. Usually, this is because they do not have the arms and other gear of the forces they are fighting. I would argue Haley, Belkar and some of the others have lots more levels and magic than the goblins. Unfortunately for them, the enemy gets to act, too, and if they are any good, they are sending out patrols and sweeps to try to catch the guerrillas where they hide. This is when the 8:1 and 10:1 body counts appear.
I'd started to write a long response about the Vietnam War, but I'll cut it short. The combined Vietnamese Communist forces did outnumber the US forces *that could be committed to that war at that time.* They did take tremendous losses, primarily when they fought on American or South Vietnamese terms; and they also inflicted more losses than either the American or South Vietnamese public felt like absorbing in the defense of the SVN government.

[TheElfLord]

Vietnam War casualties are aproximatly 1.1 Million North Vietnamise and 314,000 Southern Vietnamese and Americans. Not quite 10 to 1 but still very unbalanced.

I think there are more members of the resistance, but I think they are so low level that it doesn't really matter compared to Team Evil.

[memnarch]

They may be 'the resistance,' but I doubt they're more than an irritance to Xykon and Redcloak's regime. Since the humans wouldn't be able to walk the streets openly (the city is teeming with hobgoblins and undead, after all), they would have to stay constantly hidden, and it would be extremely difficult to do so with very large numbers. I doubt there's more than two or three dozen humans in the resistance, and thanks to Tsukiko, two of their highest-level characters are now dead.

And who is to say that the resistance isn't spread out throughout the city? Designate say 25 sq ft for 1-2 people in the resistance. That is still quite a lot of members (even if one assumes that you can see the whole city here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0484.html) and that each hobgob occupies 1.5 sq ft); definitely more than the small group that went raiding with Haley.

[NikkTheTrick]

Logically, that doesn't make sense. The North Vietnamese didn't outnumber us, nor did the communist chinese outnumber the nationalists. If you lose 10 men for every 1 you kill, you're completely screwed. Guerilla warfare is all about hitting the enemy where they're weak- they do this by being able to move wherever they want to, and a small army can move much easier than a big one can. Maybe you can't match the enemy one-on-one, but with your mastery of terrain, it's easier to hit a small chunk of the enemy with a large chunk of your own. If you can match the enemy's numbers, you can attack.
Vietnamese lost ~ 800,000 KIA (Vietnamese claim). USA lost 58,209 KIA. That is worse than 10-to-1 for them. Being a guriella is tough...

North Vietnam would never win the war through trying to annihilate US army. And they never did. They just outlasted the US forces in Vietnam and then moved in with regular forces against poorly organized South Vietnam. If guriella forces were more effective than regular army, all armies in the world would be guriellas! Do not confuse guriellas with special ops who, as opposed to guriellas, are well trained, armed and supplied.

If goal is to destroy enemy army, guriella only task should be weakening enemy supply so that allied army has better odds. If there is no allied army, destruction of enemy force through guriella warfare is indeed illogical.

That is why Haley chose liberating slaves as a target instead of ambushing a patrol: the goal is to help those in need and potentially get more members fo rthe resistance.

Erm...isn't the whole point of guriella warfare that its based around ambush and attack and retreat tactics which minimise casualties on the guriellas' side when opponents have superior firepower and/or numbers?
Not really. Guriella tactics are about straining the occupying forces to the point where they are weak, not through manpower loss but due to supply disruption, demoralization etc., and either withdraw themselves (Vietnam) or making them vunerable to allied regular forces (Soviet partizans' "railroad war" on occupied territories in WWII).
While a given ambush is likely to inflict losses, following counter-partisan actions will inflict much greater losses. This is what we have here: Haley's group (only 4 men, but given that this is D&D, Haley alone is worth thousands of hobgoblins. Thanh is worth many, so is likely that guy who got turned into wight). What we see now it a group of characters good enough to hide and get to the granry almost destroyed when actual evil forces (Tsushiko's undead) came.
A succesful action by guriellas is a mosquito sting for an enemy force. An action gone wrong is a disaster for guriellas.
Now, assuming that Belkar did not come and the whole thing ended in Haley's death or capture, the resistance would end up without leadership, Thanh would be interrogated, give out resistance base location and then an overwhelmingly superior force would move in and annihilate them all at little causalties to that force...

[FoE]

And who is to say that the resistance isn't spread out throughout the city? Designate say 25 sq ft for 1-2 people in the resistance. That is still quite a lot of members (even if one assumes that you can see the whole city here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0484.html) and that each hobgob occupies 1.5 sq ft); definitely more than the small group that went raiding with Haley.

How would they be spread throughout the entire city? There are no doubt patrols of hobgoblins and undead constantly marching through the streets; any humans they found would be killed on sight unless they were slaves.

In any case, remember there were no more than 9,000 defenders of Azure City. Even with those numbers, it's doubtful that there would be a human for every 25 square feet, and the humans took substantial losses during the battle. (If half of them weren't slain, I would be surprised.) The hobgoblins and undead would hunt down those who abandoned their posts, as well.

Here's something else to consider: if Haley and the Resistance were gathering food for hundreds of people, why are there only five of them involved in the attack? Even with the help of the freed slaves, they wouldn't bring that much food back.

[*Templar*]

I don't imagine the resistance numbers in the hundreds. All I'm saying is that I consider the idea that the five people who participated in the granary raid are the sum total of the manpower the resistance has is ridiculous.

If I had to guess how many combat troops the resistance has (not including any freed civilians they may be baby-sitting), I'd say two hundred is the extreme upper limit, and the likely number is probably below one hundred and quite possibly no more than about fifty.

But certainly not five.

[FoE]

Oh, I'll grant you that there are probably a few dozen survivors that are part of the Resistance — certainly they consist of more than five people. But I don't think they're capable of anything more than a few raids on the hobgoblin's food supply.

[memnarch]

So where did Haley pull those fire arrows from? Because if she had them before the Cloister spell, why didn't she use them in the fights with Tsukiko before? Just saying that there are other places that the resistance can hit besides the food stores.

Also, for moving around unseen in the city, however they do that, it probably involves lots of tunnels.

[pasko77]

Since when has this been like real life?

For instance in WW2, Italian guerrilla suffered from German army retaliation, and the numbers where like these.

[pendell]

Logically, that doesn't make sense. The North Vietnamese didn't outnumber us, nor did the communist chinese outnumber the nationalists. If you lose 10 men for every 1 you kill, you're completely screwed. .

Not so. Let's talk about a real-life successful guerrilla campaign ... the Battle of Mogadishu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29)

As you can see, the US forces suffered 18 killed and 73 wounded. The opposition suffered 500 killed at minimum, with possibly as high as 1000 or 1500. That's about 66 or so Somalis killed for every 1 American .. not quite 100:1 but still very high.

And what happened? The Americans left in a hurry. The Somali warlords are still fighting each other and the Ethiopians there, and the country is a hellhole. Our stated objective .. to make it possible to feed people caught in a war -- was a dismal failure.

Or another example ... the Easter Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Offensive) of 1973. The North Vietnamese army that invaded South Vietnam in that year was utterly destroyed by the South + American assistance. The North Vietnamese rebuilt their army and tried again 2 years later. We weren't around, so they rolled over the South with ease.

The lesson here, is that attrition isn't the only part of the battle. It's also a question of just how much blood you're willing to pay. If the enemy is willing to pay 100,000 casualties for a win, and you're only willing to pay 100, then if you inflict casualties at a 100:1 ratio, you'll fold your tents and quit while the enemy will have sustained 10,000 casualties to your 100.

And that's why guerrillas can win wars against governments despite never winning a battle and despite being slaughtered. Because your foreign power is often far less willing to pay casualties for whatever-it-is they're in West Bumfoul for than the locals are to see the back of 'em.

Does it always work? Nope. See Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency). You can defeat this kind of guerrilla insurgency by

A) finding locals willing to carry on the fight themselves and who are every bit as committed to winning as the bad guys are.

B) Evacuate the population that spawns the guerrillas. In humanitarian countries, this means grabbing the population and putting them in 'strategic hamlets' or 'concentration camps' where the government can keep an eye on 'em (worked in Malaysia and in South Africa). In lest scrupulous places like the Balkans, it means indiscriminate slaughter and forced ethnic cleansing until either the population is cowed or their isn't any population left. A guerrilla can be a lot less motivated when he knows that anything he does will mean the deaths of his wife, sisters, brothers, uncles, sons, daughters in his home village.

Of course, that last strategy can spawn guerrillas too, if the number of new recruits hungry for revenge because you killed his father/mother/sister is greater than the number scared to death because their family is still alive but might die if something goes wrong. And there are other problems as well. Not to mention that it's mass murder of innocent people. IF someone does this, they'd better hope there's not a Hell.

In any case ... the point is that a lopsided casualty ratio doesn't mean much in guerrilla war. That's the mistake we made in Vietnam, and we all know how well that worked.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Juron Pilo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

What you are talking about is a battle of attrition using human lives as resources. NOT guerrila warfare.

[VetMichael]

Only in movies.

Guriella forces suffer about 10 times higher losses. Which is why, whenever possible, regular armies are used instead of guriellas.

Actually, the casualty ratio for guerilla forces-to-regular/occupying forces is difficult to determine, at best. A well-planned and executed ambush (the favored tactic of guerillas) can, indeed take out far, far more adversaries than they lose. Raids, also, tend to take advantage of times of lax vigilance and thus result in quick victories for the guerillas (if they hit don't stay to fight) while the regular forces are trying to react. This is often explained away as "the insurgents carried the bodies of their fallen comrades away." Being an historian and specializing in North African history, I can tell you this sentiment was carried throughout the French newspapers during the Algerian revolution.

That being said, however, in a toe-to-toe fight between guerillas and regular forces, regular forces almost always win, hands-down. Particularly if evidence from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (both in the 1980's and today), and Algeria is examined. In this case, the Hobboes have a system, and an appropriate strike team, ready to handle such an event - which is why the Resistance mostly faded into the woodwork, leaving no casualties behind (well, except for the Paladin who was Dominated through his own folly/pride, Hayley who is "sacrificing herself," and Belkar...for whatever reason he has for sticking around.)

So, in a way, you're both right (and, paradoxically, both wrong)

[Juron Pilo]

But in principle guerrilla warfare is about using lesser numbers to defeat a larger foe. In PRACTICE often this is not how it goes but as a strategy guerrilla warfare is about sting operations and interupting supplies.

So really all your arguments are moot.

[VetMichael]

Oh, I would also like to point out that conventional militaries also recognize the importance, and threat, of guerilla warfare. Hence the Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets, Russian Spetsnaz, etc. as well as counter-insurgent tactics and training in all standing militaries (and even though guerillas can start out as "mosquito bites," their cumilative effect is deadly).

[Juron Pilo]

Yes, but as that was not relevant to the discussion, I left that information for people to read in the wiki article I linked, if they were so inclined. Allthough I havn't read it myself, I bet that information is there.:smalltongue:

[NikkTheTrick]

Oh, I would also like to point out that conventional militaries also recognize the importance, and threat, of guerilla warfare. Hence the Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets, Russian Spetsnaz, etc. as well as counter-insurgent tactics and training in all standing militaries (and even though guerillas can start out as "mosquito bites," their cumilative effect is deadly).
SEALs and Spetsnaz are not really guriella forces. They are well equipped, supplied and act in tight coordination with army, navy and airforce (and, in case of US, Marine Corps). Guriella warfeare is what is decribed by Mao, where the source of supply and armaments is the enemy. Who can be a very unreliable supplier.

Good ambushes are hard to execute against a disciplined force. The enemy can and will force guriellas into pitched battles where the only choices are to fight or surrender. Causalties in those battles far, far outnumber causalties in ambushes. Such battles are very one-sided since guriellas lack heavy equipment. To say nothing about artillery and airforce. Often, guriellas die before their training is complete: training site is found by the army and that is all she wrote.

As for numbers involved in guriella wars, that is trickier. Guriellas and people are like fish and water. Guriellas are extremely dependent on popular support. If they do not have it, they will be destroyed fast. While numbers "under arms" can be small, guriellas are always recruiting. Recruitment is often limited by armaments available - which need to be smuggled in or obtained from the enemy.

That said, Haley's actions are perhaps not an example of guriella warfare. mainly due to the fact that it looks like she has little support from people (who are either slaves or dead). Her group is more like "remnant of an army resorting to hit-and-run tactics". D&D rules do not encourage guriella warfare...

[Juron Pilo]

Meh. I'm of the opinion D&D doesn't offer much in the way of strategy in the first place.

At least with the standard classes.

But maybe I'm just jaded against the cliche of tanks, blasters, and dps.

[Animefunkmaster]

They aren't dead, but it seems they are quickly becoming undead.

[Cifer]

Meh. I'm of the opinion D&D doesn't offer much in the way of strategy in the first place.
Only if you're using real-life strategy, which often isn't applicable because of differing systems. On the other hand side, D&D is one of the most tactical/strategical RPGs ever.


D&D rules do not encourage guriella warfare...
Yep. There are too many important things missing - wound recovery times, easy ways to cause morale conditions, wounds hindering combat ability,...

[Juron Pilo]

A game where save or die spells rule combat isn't very strategic at ALL.
-_-'

Not to mention such nonsense as "magic resistance"

And frankly most magic rediculously outperforms movement rates for range.

And there doesn't appear to be much in the way of class balance when the fighter class is one of the weakest classes, physically speaking.

And the prestige classes...

[Voyager_I]

I'll let better-informed people than me tackle the rest of these, but I find your chagrin at Spell Resistance to be somewhat laughable. Why, exactly? Everybody has a chance to resist physical attacks, why not magic ones as well? Do you have any rational basis for this, or did a Dark Elf steal your Wizard's lunch money?

Edit: Also, where do you think the cliches came from? It weren't no World of Warcraft idea.

Finally, is anyone else slightly frightened that the spell-checker picks up cliches as a spelling error (MS Word says it's fine), but acknowledges weren't as a word (Word says that's okay too, which only disturbs me further)?

[Juron Pilo]

Yes. Remember Varsuuvius's quote on spell resistance?*too lazy to even bother to link*.

More to the point, the D&D system looks like a joke in these terms, compared to say Pokemon.

Really, even FF has alot more strategy to it because you get to select your equipment and alot spells/skills prior to every battle, meaning that any class can be a "batman" class.

But if your asking if I'm bitter, I am, but mostly because it doesn't really inspire creative problem solving as much as I'd like. Such is a problem I have with alot of games though.

[Gilthans]

a) Guerrilas' main objective is to demoralize the enemy to the point of forfiet. This worked in Vietnam, and generally works on a 'locals vs foreign army' battle, since, like some mentioned, the foreigns are less inclined to continue fighting after having any casualities and increase in war costs (example: US vs Vietnam, or Israel vs Hezbolla). Guerilla doesn't work when its 'locals vs locals', and usually what it does is lead to un-humanitarian situations where too many civilians get hurt, which only increase strength to the guerilla which is an endless cycle (example: Israel vs Palestanians).
HOWEVER, what Haley is doing is not guerilla warfare, for a simple reason: she IS well trained and well equipped. What she is doing is more of a special ops insurgency operation, where a few (two in our case) special, well trained agents invade an enemy city, and use their considerable resources to train civilians to join the resistance and to hurt the regime as much as possible (example: US vs Iraq, where the Iraqis are funded by Iran). In this way, Haley's resistance is much like a terrorist organization, that doesn't hope to conquer the country with their actions, but only to demoralize it and damage its infrastructure, to slow down its progress and to help any possible future invading army.

So I guess Rich got us rooting for a terrorist organization now. Someone call the FBI on him :smalltongue:

b) Spell resistance is made in order to balance wizards and sorcerors, who are notoriously more powerful than fighters and barbarians. While fighters/barbarians need to 'work' in order to do small, but consistent damage, wizards do massive amounts of damage, but can only keep it up for a short while. When you put spell resistance in the equation, you give a chance that the wizards massive damage doesn't apply, and thus he is forced to use the lower level spells, which are weaker, but more consistent. This way fighters and wizards are somewhat balanced.
And V's comment was about the pure balance-ism of spell resistance, which doesn't seem like a very logical reality mechanism.
Also, V's biased, as whoever read Origins of PCs may know.

c) A good DM would give guerillas a sporting chance. The rules of D&D are guidelines, if my players were caught in a guerilla(/terrorist) type situation, I'd enforce some sort of morale and recovery rules to make the situation more real-like.


:smalleek:
That was longer than I intended it to be.

EDIT: hmm. My grammar ain't what it used to be.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

You see the distant flames,
they bellow in the night.
You fight in all our names
for what we know is right.
And when you all get shot
and cannot carry on,
though you die,
La Resistance lives on.

Sorry, I just had to post that song.

[Juron Pilo]

Yes, and deciding that magic abitrarily works or does not work soley on the basis of whether the target has spell resistance was not exactly a stroke of tactical genius.

One could look at it as an issue of resources or morale. Either is fine.

[Daimbert]

If guriella forces were more effective than regular army, all armies in the world would be guriellas! .

Guerilla forces can't really hold or take territory or protect strategic resources. Having to do that is one of the reasons that they can be quite effective against regular armies.

[VetMichael]

Good ambushes are hard to execute against a disciplined force. The enemy can and will force guriellas into pitched battles where the only choices are to fight or surrender. Causalties in those battles far, far outnumber causalties in ambushes. Such battles are very one-sided since guriellas lack heavy equipment. To say nothing about artillery and airforce. Often, guriellas die before their training is complete: training site is found by the army and that is all she wrote.

With all due respect, I beg to differ. Guerilla warfare is extremely devastating to regular army morale, and always has been. For example, General Edward Braddock was in command of two divisions (the 44th and 48th, respectively) of British regular infantry sent to Pennsylvania during the Seven Years' War. His mission was to expel the French and their Ohio Valley Indian (Native American) allies and secure the frontier. In the 18th century, British military discipline was, shall we say, rather draconian in nature with beatings or lashes given out for the slightest infraction, giving the soldier an incredible motivation to remain "disciplined."
The columns of well-drilled soldiers used to fighting in European campaigns marched toward the frontiers but were engaged by Delaware, Ottawa, and Shawnee raiders along the entire march. This constant harassment lead to several incidences where soldiers discharged their firearms at the slightest provocation, even killing their own scouts at one point. Stories of "scalping" and "tomahawking" were so rampant that when the French and Ohio Valley Indians finally engaged the larger more "disciplined" British troops at Monongahela, their war cries and tactics panicked the British who immediately fled for their lives. British Lieutenant Matthew Leslie said "the yell of the Indians is fresh on my ear, and the terrific sound will haunt me until the hour of my dissolution." (Braddock's Defeat edited by Charles Hamilton, 1959)

Another, more recent example could include the My Lai massacre. Or the French offensive in Algeria called the "Battle of Algiers" where they resorted to torture.

Discipline only goes so far. That being said, however, your point about D&D rules being completely inadequate to render an effective guerilla campaign is absolutely on target.

[Juron Pilo]

This is like arguing over horror vs comedy. Potentially, they're both equally good, and neither is better than the other. Standard tactics appear to be more POPULAR at least, anyways.

Better to argue over coke vs cola vs pop vs soda.

[NikkTheTrick]

With all due respect, I beg to differ. Guerilla warfare is extremely devastating to regular army morale, and always has been. For example, General Edward Braddock was in command of two divisions (the 44th and 48th, respectively) of British regular infantry sent to Pennsylvania during the Seven Years' War. His mission was to expel the French and their Ohio Valley Indian (Native American) allies and secure the frontier. In the 18th century, British military discipline was, shall we say, rather draconian in nature with beatings or lashes given out for the slightest infraction, giving the soldier an incredible motivation to remain "disciplined."
The columns of well-drilled soldiers used to fighting in European campaigns marched toward the frontiers but were engaged by Delaware, Ottawa, and Shawnee raiders along the entire march. This constant harassment lead to several incidences where soldiers discharged their firearms at the slightest provocation, even killing their own scouts at one point. Stories of "scalping" and "tomahawking" were so rampant that when the French and Ohio Valley Indians finally engaged the larger more "disciplined" British troops at Monongahela, their war cries and tactics panicked the British who immediately fled for their lives. British Lieutenant Matthew Leslie said "the yell of the Indians is fresh on my ear, and the terrific sound will haunt me until the hour of my dissolution." (Braddock's Defeat edited by Charles Hamilton, 1959)

Another, more recent example could include the My Lai massacre. Or the French offensive in Algeria called the "Battle of Algiers" where they resorted to torture.

Discipline only goes so far.
Actually, that is my point exactly. In your example, the damage from Guriellas was not killing off British forces. Instead, they damaged British morale and discipline. Destroying discipline is one of main goals of guriellas - just compare quality US forces at the beginning of the Vietnam war to that at the end.

At the time, British had little experience fighting counter-guriella campaigns. So, they suffered a defeat. But how many Native Americans died to defeat those 2 divisions?

And look at what happened afterwards: British got their act together. Despite having their European ally, Prussia, beaten the hell out of by combined forces of Russia, Austria and France to the point where only titanic effort and luck, Russia withdrawing from the war, due to a mentally disabled emperor ascending to the throne, saved Prussia. Despite being left alone to fight France, British still won and France lost all their their territories in Canada and most, if not all, in India.

Once again, Guriella warfare does not kill off soldiers. Regular armies do that much better. It weakens morale, discipline and logistics. That done, you either have the enemy defeated by your allies (resistances in WWII) or suffer 10-1 losses untill the enemy leaves to avoid further degradation of his army (Vietnam).

[VetMichael]

Actually, that is my point exactly. In your example, the damage from Guriellas was not killing off British forces. Instead, they damaged British morale and discipline. Destroying discipline is one of main goals of guriellas - just compare quality US forces at the beginning of the Vietnam war to that at the end.

At the time, British had little experience fighting counter-guriella campaigns. So, they suffered a defeat. But how many Native Americans died to defeat those 2 divisions?

And look at what happened afterwards: British got their act together. Despite having their European ally, Prussia, beaten the hell out of by combined forces of Russia, Austria and France to the point where only titanic effort and luck, Russia withdrawing from the war, due to a mentally disabled emperor ascending to the throne, saved Prussia. Despite being left alone to fight France, British still won and France lost all their their territories in Canada and most, if not all, in India.

Once again, Guriella warfare does not kill off soldiers. Regular armies do that much better. It weakens morale, discipline and logistics. That done, you either have the enemy defeated by your allies (resistances in WWII) or suffer 10-1 losses untill the enemy leaves to avoid further degradation of his army (Vietnam).


True, and I absolutely agree. Regular armies are wonderful for destroying regular armies. Guerillas, however, are more flexible.


In answer to your question about losses, though:

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_Expedition) the combined French and Indian forces numbered about 900 (650-ish of that were Ottawa, Shawnee, and Delaware) and the British regulars (with some 500 or so Colonials thrown in) were over 1800. Casualties: British Regulars had almost 500 killed and as many wounded, Officers were almost completely wiped out (including Braddock, but not George Washington) while the French lost 8 killed, 4 wounded, and their Ottawa, Shawnee, and Delaware allies lost 15 with 12 wounded.


You know, the cynical part of me has this to say about why the whole world doesn't use Guerilla/Irregular forces instead of conventional armies:

There's no money in equipping small, flexible forces whereas defense contractors LOVE to suckle at the teat of governments who want to have the largest fleet/air force/army/cyborg legion/etc. Dwight D. Eisenhower did warn us about them in his farewell address, afterall.

[Juron Pilo]

Meh, humanity has merely become accustom to using the metaphorical hammer versus the wrench, or any other tool.

edit: how about subsidizing small strikeforces to account for the social cost of large armies?

*sighs* seems like a big waste of money though.

Armies are just, y'know not NEEDED or really that IMPORTANT.

*sighs*

[North]

Yeah Id be agreeing that there are more people in the resistance then 5. Probably not a heck of a lot, and a lot of low levels but definitely more then whats been shown.

[David Argall]

While the 10-1 figure seems to come from the Tet offensive in Vietnam, where the guerillas abandoned guerilla tactics and switched to conventional tactics and thus is not a measure of normal guerilla losses, it does tell us what happens when the guerilla tries to go toe to toe with conventional forces.

However, the proper guerilla tactics are to shoot a cop and run, shoot the mayor and run, shoot ... and run. As a look at the number of unsolved killings in any society tells us, it can be extremely expensive to catch these guerillas and the government loses more troops than it kills. [The difference between that and official figures largely consists of gross exaggeration and innocent bystanders.]
The problem for the guerilla is that the larger his forces, the harder it is to hide. Just by accident if nothing else, the government finds more and more of the rebels and eliminates them. So the guerilla is often doomed to remain a small force unable to do more than inflict fleabites on an elephant that can't find the flea to crush it.

[Clertar]

IRT Gilthans:

Terrorists sometiemes are the good guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Maquis).

During the German occupation of France, the Spanish Maquis engineered more than four hundred railway sabotages, destroyed fifty-eight locomotives, dynamited thirty-five railway bridges, cut one hundred and fifty telephone lines, attacked twenty factories, destroying some factories totally, and sabotaged fifteen coal mines. They took several thousand German prisoners and - most miraculous considering their arms - they captured three tanks. In the south-west part of France where no Allied armies have ever fought, they liberated more than seventeen towns.

[Amy]

Finally, is anyone else slightly frightened that the spell-checker picks up cliches as a spelling error (MS Word says it's fine), but acknowledges weren't as a word (Word says that's okay too, which only disturbs me further)?

What's wrong with "weren't"? It's a word. Short for "were not". Granted, it's not grammatically correct in that position, but a spell-checker wouldn't pick that up.

[Arkenputtyknife]

What's wrong with "weren't"? It's a word. Short for "were not". Granted, it's not grammatically correct in that position, but a spell-checker wouldn't pick that up.
It'd probably get you clobbered if used in a term paper ("not formal enough"), but out in the real world, it's fine. Sadly, or maybe fortunately, spell checkers don't usually have formality settings.

[Droodle]

Vietnamese lost ~ 800,000 KIA (Vietnamese claim). USA lost 58,209 KIA. That is worse than 10-to-1 for them. Being a guriella is tough...I think you may be leaving out a crucial detail, here. Between swiftboats, seal teams, green berets, and the small squads the Army began to use later in the conflict, the American troops quite often traveled in groups small enough to be considered guerrillas, themselves. What gave us the advantage was better technology, better strategy, better weapons, and better support (air strikes, etc). When technology and tactics are equal, guerrilla warfare still works. The US uses it even today.

[Ethdred]

Vietnamese lost ~ 800,000 KIA (Vietnamese claim). USA lost 58,209 KIA. That is worse than 10-to-1 for them. Being a guriella is tough...



But that was mainly because the North Vietnamese did NOT just fight a guerrilla war. When they stood up to fight the US army conventionally (eg Tet, as mentioned) they suffered heavy casualties. There is also an argument that the US actually militarily won the Vietnam war, but lost it politically.

The reasons why everyone doesn't fight guerilla style are, in no particular order:

- Guerrillas can't win a war - they can't take territory and hold it, because that exposes them to the conventional forces of the other side, who will be more heavily armed, and better trained at stand up fights (and probably itching to get their hands on some of these pesky guerrillas)

- not everyone wants to be a guerrilla - they only come about when there is a strong political cause, and they generally require a higher level of initiative and low-level leadership than a regular army

- guerrillas will usually only fight on their own territory, so would be no use for an offensive war

- all geurrilla-style fighters require a regular army to back them up, provide support, logistics etc. The Long Range Desert Group may have done much more damage to the Afrika Corps than a similar number of regular soldiers in the 8th Army, but without the army behind them they wouldn't have lasted long or been as effective (see also, Chindits). There's a reason why geurrilla is Spanish for 'little war' :)

[chrono]

B) Evacuate the population that spawns the guerrillas. In humanitarian countries, this means grabbing the population and putting them in 'strategic hamlets' or 'concentration camps' where the government can keep an eye on 'em (worked in Malaysia and in South Africa). In lest scrupulous places like the Balkans, it means indiscriminate slaughter and forced ethnic cleansing until either the population is cowed or their isn't any population left. A guerrilla can be a lot less motivated when he knows that anything he does will mean the deaths of his wife, sisters, brothers, uncles, sons, daughters in his home village.

I resent that. How did the Balkans become the "least scrupulous places"?
There haven't been any concentration camps (on the contrary, many Jews were saved during WWII) and there hasn't been total ethnic cleansing or mass limb cutting off (unlike some other recent conflicts I can recall). Granted, a number of conflicts plague recent history but there is little in terms of killing off a country's own population (there are certainly regions that are far more notorious for that kind of cleansing).
Anyway, guerrillas usually take on that "occupation" because horrible things are already befalling their wives/sisters/brothers/uncles/sons/daughters in their home village (let alone town or city).

[Oslecamo]

Yes, and deciding that magic abitrarily works or does not work soley on the basis of whether the target has spell resistance was not exactly a stroke of tactical genius.

One could look at it as an issue of resources or morale. Either is fine.

Hmm, actually 99% of the D&D spells out there demand a save, a touch attack both, or don't care affect a character directly. Spell resistance is only a small part of the game.

As for the guerrilla, it's a very complicated thing. Depending on the situation, it may be completely diferent.

But I think we can put some strings togheter:

1-Suprise attack. Unlike normal armies, guerrillas seek to attack whitout any kind of warning. Regular armies will be spoted several hours or days before the battle due to their large sizes and noise.

2-Severly outnumbered OR outgunned. Guerrillas either have numerical disadvantage(american special forces) or their equipment is inferior(Vietnam). Thus they seek advantage on the element of suprise. You can't shoot what you can't see.

3-Hit and run. Guerrillas don't like long fights. Win or lose, they quickly retreat after a few shots.

4-Small guns and transport. Due to need to quickly move around and stay hidden, guerrillas are mainly composed of infantry with portable weapons and light vehicles, if any.

4-Precision. A big army will tackle anything that gets in their way. Guerrillas choose a weak vulnerable target and hit it with all they've got.

Regular armies fight big battles. They charge at each other and shoot with massive firepower untill one of them either dies or gives up and retreats/surrenders. A regular army is like a hammer. It takes time to prepare and aim, but when it comes down everything is going with it. Guerrillas deliver small attacks to hinder the oponent.

And actually I think D&D strongly enforces guerrilla tactics. Many times players have to face much bigger forces with only their party of about 4 members against dozens or hundreds of goblins/giants/drows/whatever. Parties normally use stealth to avoid enemies, and seek their enemies weakest points before attacking.

As for the battle of Mogadish, the US army were asking for it. Their helicopters had destroyed a building with several clan leaders who were discussing for peace, plus civilians. Then they tought they could just drive inside town and keep shooting stuff whitout any kind of retaliation. They never intended to stop the war. They only feeded it. No wonder the population united against them.

[monty]

I'm fairly surprised that this thread hasn't been locked yet, what with all the discussion of real-world politics. Tone it down a bit.

[Faramir]

Just wanted to point out that the resistance has one huge advantage - knowledge of the terrain. A large city has numerous nooks and crannies and unless the hobgoblins just burn the whole thing to the ground (leaving themselves no place to stay) people could hide out for a long time without being found, especially if they move from place to place. The potions and arrows also implies that at least some people on the side of the resistance know of weapons caches. And taking food supplies is accomplishing two things - feeding the resistance and taking food from the hobgoblins. Now that the city is Cloistered they probably don't have access to much farmland and it's unclear how it would affect growing crops in city gardens. Didn't look like normal sunlight in there.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Real world politics is an Inappropriate Topic for these boards. That includes these types or real world military/terrorism/guerilla warfare/genocide discussions.