Gallery.   Posted by Referee.Group: 0
Referee
 GM, 8 posts
Fri 10 Aug 2012
at 15:15
Gallery
Post OOC Chatter or Commentary here.
Referee
 GM, 10 posts
Fri 10 Aug 2012
at 19:46
Re: Gallery
Russia:
>how to apply column shifts (I used them as 'global shifts' for the entire cycle
Could you explain more what you mean?  There is only one place that the shift can be applied, the combat results table.


I applied a 3 column shift for SADC during their attack in the first combat cycle (making a 2:1 a 5:1) and had the hostile impose a 1 column shift to the left (making it a 4:1).

During the Red forces attack I applied the same column shifts... 3 to the right and 1 to the left keeping them as global shifts for the cycle.

Russia:
>thinking that damage should be based on the combat strength
>of the opposite side and not a flat percentage.
But that would be doubly applying the ratio of size, it is what goes into coming up with the odds in the first place


Except it isn't a ratio of size but a ratio of power\effectiveness.  It's an area to look at because it runs straight into the age old argument of quality vs quantity.  Should a mechanized brigade be able to pacify roughly 10 brigades worth of armed rebels (50k green infantry) in a single cycle...assuming that they'll nearly always have at least one column shift advantage?

On the converse should a inferior force be able to inflict 20% casualties on a lucky roll (as far down as 1:5) on the opposing force no matter how many brigades are involved?  For example a single mechanized brigade attacked by at least 50 rebel units (a quarter of a million troops and probably more since the brigade would have column shifts).  Yeah extreme example but not impossible (China in Korea for instance).

Something to consider at the very least.  Anyway, will resolve round 2 shortly.
Referee
 GM, 12 posts
Fri 10 Aug 2012
at 20:26
Re: Gallery
Russia:
>1 month to deal with a situation on par with Somalia (or even messier) seems a bit quick
If you go much longer then it raises reasonable questions about time to bring in reinforcements and new builds etc, etc.

>Also looking at making 'Artillery' a special ability and SAM
>a sub ability with 'artillery' the prereq.
What would be the benefit?  I have always though of some artillery and SAM included within any unit, the separate units that we list are only those formations which are large concentrations of artillery and SAM.

>Highly doubtful the dice roller hiccups up a spread like that again.
<shrug> It is combat

What I want to know is a breakdown of what actions on your part took x time ( y% of your time).  I worry that what takes an unacceptable amount of time is damage allocation.


As far as bringing up reinforcements, this may be an apples and oranges situation.  Essentially Zimbabwe is a better armed and trained Somalia facing a less effective (but still superior) intervention force.  It's not quite a conventional war and not quite a guerrilla one...where the rules in place are more for a conventional war.

I used a 'rehabilitated' Juju (the guy is kicked out of the ANC for now but the ANC is trending his direction...if he moderates his position a little I think he stands good odds to come back) to explain why South Africa would put it's hand into the hornet's nest and the mission drift.  Bringing up troop numbers from the original force deployment\mission...well we pretty much only really have Iraq and Afghanistan as recent historical examples for big redeployments for these kinds of things but the cycle seems roughly to be 3 months for heavier forces from a logistical perspective.  Looking back on similar historical situations... forces bring up reinforcement at a slower rate than their raw movement rates would indicate (at least if you want to do something other than shell coastal settlements or bomb them from the air;-).

As far as artillery...I don't really want to create a whole new category of 'self-propelled artillery' units and there are a number of different types...from foot infantry motar maggots;-) to MLRS or even something along the lines of the cancelled Crusader.  Essentially viewing each unit a brigade level formation with a focused specialty (so the artillery brigade won't need around 3 units\brigades of normal infantry to protect it).

I'm really just outlining a few things but not making any hard decision for now.

As far as time spent... I'm not familiar with these mil rules yet and work was a bit busier this week (worked late twice this past week whereas the previous week was a bit easier).  I'll get through this turn and we'll look at things before next turn starts.  I may find an old avalon hill game with some good ideas to yoink (or at least keep the Good Ideas Fairy busy).... but overall the philosophy of this game I do really want to trend towards automating as much as we can on the excel sheet and find a happy balance between realism and simplicity.
Referee
 GM, 14 posts
Fri 10 Aug 2012
at 21:09
Re: Gallery
Well SADC is done.  Going to finish up the other listed news items first and let this sit for a moment for you guys to look over before I approach Kurdistan, Iran and the other related items.
Russia
 player, 2 posts
Fri 10 Aug 2012
at 22:11
Re: Gallery
In reply to Referee (msg # 3):

You know, one easy thing we could do to address your timeline issue is state in section 8.5 that some (50%?) of the Insurgent units would have 'Stealth' ability , meaning they do not have to engage in combat unless they want to.
.
.
.
and this is why it is important that we conduct dress rehearsals like this, the paragraphs that explain the above about Stealth ability (and what CCC ability can do to find them) got lost when we dropped the whole section on detailed combat.  Will work on fixing that.
Russia
 player, 3 posts
Mon 13 Aug 2012
at 18:44
Re: Gallery
Referee:
Russia:
>thinking that damage should be based on the combat strength
>of the opposite side and not a flat percentage.
But that would be doubly applying the ratio of size, it is what goes into coming up with the odds in the first place


Except it isn't a ratio of size but a ratio of power\effectiveness.

Let me rephrase my objection to be more clear.  "But that would be doubly applying the ratio of combat strength to damage allocation.  The combat results table, by having different results for each different ratio of combat strength, already includes having damage based on the combat strength of the opposite side.  You would be right if the table in 12.5 consisted of only 1 column"
Referee
 GM, 15 posts
Tue 14 Aug 2012
at 01:37
Re: Gallery
Well what I'm getting at... an armor brigade (somewhere around 80 armored vehicles to 120 very roughly) at 8.5 tech level is a combat factor of 216.7 assuming it's experienced is the rough equivalent of 3 similarly experienced infantry brigades 9 to 15k of foot infantry at the same tech level.  Shrug... tank brigade has a 10% chance of getting wiped out (or rather reduced to 50% because of armor) and other the other end a 30% chance of reducing the other side by 40% of its entire combat value.  Understanding it's not actually killing every single guy...just destroying the brigades as cohesive units (and killing some etc).

Same 8.5 force against a 1970s equipped infantry unit... 216.5 is roughly the equivalent of 4 brigades...prolly closer to 5....automatically gets a +30 to initiative ...so probably at least 4 column shifts....very likely more.  So it has an 80% chance of inflicting 100% reduction on a 20k force....120 vehicles in a combat cycle breaking up a 1970s equipped force...it gets worse considering they will almost certainly have a higher mil rank, gps, a veteran or elite tank brigade etc etc.....making it possible a brigade of tanks to break up a forces of over 50k infantry (and probably higher).

A modern tank brigade might not be damaged by a 1970s force (assuming they fought at range in ideal terrain, still the infantry would still have some mortars and other heavy weapons...mines etc that could make it hard for the modern brigade) but there's logical limits of how much force a brigade can project in a single combat cycle no matter what their advantages are.

I'm also looking at the fact that the game is very much on a Grand Strategy Scale with it's 5 year turn cycle and by the nature of PAs but the military rules are around the Operational Scale of things or lower.

I don't know what I'm going to do for Kurdistan yet.  It's not quite an insurgency and it is not quite conventional.

For instance in Turkey....I'm not sure the Turks can suppress the Kurds short of an Armenian level genocide, but historically what they've done when things get really hairy in the Kurd region is pull the troops back and bomb them (and certainly haven't done it on the scale to eliminate the peshmerga yet).  But by the combat rules... it's possible for them to eliminate the peshmerga by air without moving a massive amount of troops into the hills.
Russia
 player, 4 posts
Tue 14 Aug 2012
at 20:00
Re: Gallery
In reply to Referee (msg # 7):

If the combat turns were short then sure, but they are a month long (and this also forms the first part of my objection to calling this an 'Operational Scale of things'), you can get a whole lot of fighting done in a month.  The example that I can think of an armoured tech 8.5 vs. a 4x larger force of infantry tech 7 is the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, about 250k of Allies vs. 1M of Iraqi's, lasted about 1 month, trivial allied causalities, an estimated 1 - 5% of the Iraqi force actually killed...but ~100% of Iraqi Military Units destroyed.  When your scale is a month and you only care about units destroyed, then modern set piece battles are bloody and over fast.  Kursk was 2 months, from Normandy beaches to Paris was 3 months, the China-Vietnam war of 1979 was 1 month, each was contained within 1 hex, each involved the destruction or reduction of huge numbers of military units.

>it's possible for them to eliminate the peshmerga by air without
>moving a massive amount of troops into the hills.
Which would be why I added that bit to section 10.7, that up to 50% of a Military Rank 4 nation can have Stealth ability ...they are just militia that can fade into the general population. To continue the Iraqi example:  The Iraqi insurgency started with [31million /5000 people per PU X 0.05 % of pop in Insurgency X ~0.5 AM / ~2 Stab] ~50-100 units, ~25-50 would have Stealth Ability, at 10 pts of Initiative Advantage each to force a Stealth unit to be revealed (note the addition to section 12.4) it is going to take a long, long, long time for the occupying force (or Turkish airforce) to root them out.  Plenty of time to drag out the fighting into the next 5-year Turn where the mere existence of Insurgent units (section 8.5) will contribute to the roll for ANOTHER Insurgency to break out.  The strength of the Insurgency being to outlast rather than outfight the occupiers.

>Operational Scale of things
Our War rounds are a month long, our hexes are the size of France; Kursk was 2 months, from Normandy beaches to Paris was 3 months, the China-Vietnam war of 1979 was 1 month, each was contained within 1 hex. When the only combat choices that a player has is 'Fight', 'Move', 'Allocate Damage' and 'Resupply', if section 12 is 'Operational level' then it is only just.  And I must point out that for Wars that you do not care about, there is section 12.10

This message was last edited by the player at 20:41, Tue 14 Aug 2012.

Russia
 player, 5 posts
Tue 14 Aug 2012
at 21:20
Re: Gallery
Referee:
Russia:
What I want to know is a breakdown of what actions on your part took x time ( y% of your time).  I worry that what takes an unacceptable amount of time is damage allocation.

As far as time spent... I'm not familiar with these mil rules yet

I still fret about the time it takes for damage allocation.  How about instead of letting players spread it around it becomes 'all or nothing', hits are allocated to a unit until the whole unit is destroyed the excess goes onto the next unit, and the next unit, until there are not enough hits to be taken left to destroy a unit?  I forsee that this change will not actually speed up an individual combat, but it will speed up a war because units will disappear faster.
Referee
 GM, 16 posts
Wed 15 Aug 2012
at 05:21
Re: Gallery
Just got back from work... in the case of Iraq it wasn't 1 brigade rolling over the Iraqi's in a month;-)  And arguably the war wasn't really over for years.

Looking for some way to simulate non-conventional warfare that just doesn't hand victory on a plate to the better equipped more conventional force in a one and done combat cycle or two.

I'm going to approach Syria and Turkey next before handling the rest of the arab spring insurgencies (some of which players may want to interfere with so I want to have a sort of impartial regimen in place that 'fits' the current structures in the game...assuming players like having brigades to keep track of and that sort of thing).

I figure no one is going to interfere in Syria... well probably not <eyes Russia>.... so it's another test bed.  And Turkey... they should be able to put down the non-kurdish insurgency (yeah reading up here with the events that have happened in Turkey and other aggravating factors they have to worry about keeping people other than Kurds down as well)...don't think it's likely the Bosporus will close and since NATO's been a bit dead in this game (and the Turks sortof moved away from the west last turn) I don't think either the EU or Russia will have to step in.

Egypt... could be another matter.  There's also a few states like the UAE that could get knocked over by a stiff breeze.  The situation is aggravated in our timeline for the factors I've covered, but I'll come up with something to dice it out and see which nations have arab spring related issues.

It could be a messy turn... I'm not entirely sure (have a few things to reference) but Lluis may have spent PAs that undercut the Saudi royal family's support base and legitimacy...they've always sort of been in a tiger by the tail type situation.  However he spent other points on stability so it may be a soft landing at worse.  Will probably dice that one out last in the Middle East.
Russia
 player, 6 posts
Wed 15 Aug 2012
at 16:10
Re: Gallery
In reply to Referee (msg # 10):
>in the case of Iraq it wasn't 1 brigade rolling over the Iraqi's in a month;-)
I was not arguing that, I was showing that modern set piece battles/wars are over in a very few months (War Rounds), and easily result in the destruction of large numbers of military units.  In the case of Iraq->military units can eliminate without loss within 1 War Round the military units of a 4x larger but TL -1.0 force.

>And arguably the war wasn't really over for years.
>Looking for some way to simulate non-conventional warfare that just doesn't
>hand victory on a plate to the better equipped more conventional force in a
>one and done combat cycle or two.
Certainly.  Reread par#2 of msg#8, it is what I had addressed in the changes to section 8.5, 10.7, 12.4 and 12.11 of the rules version 20120810 that is posted to the yahoo group.

This message was last edited by the player at 15:43, Sun 09 Sept 2012.

Referee
 GM, 18 posts
Tue 21 Aug 2012
at 17:34
Re: Gallery
If I don't have to pull an extra half a shift again tonight (this weekend was horrible, my replacement called off the entire weekend), I'll hopefully get the Arab Spring thing resolved tonight.

I'm thinking since all the players essentially 'knew' this was coming down both from last turn's results and the post up by Andreas this turn and the PAs submitted addressing the issue were for the most part (or rather entirely) limited in scope I'm probably going to restrict player responses to affecting things 'after the fact' rather than to preventative or more direct control of events to shape them as they occur.  Only 'hard power' need apply after this part of the resolution.

Just a heads up in any case;-)
Russia
 player, 7 posts
Wed 22 Aug 2012
at 21:27
Re: Gallery
In reply to Referee (msg # 12):

Sure, otherwise you will never get anything done, but I think you should at least give players with available response PAs a 'heads-up' that the Arab spring is being processed right now and if they want to use those response PAs they have (?) days to do something or forever hold their peace.
Referee
 GM, 19 posts
Thu 23 Aug 2012
at 04:13
Re: Gallery
Ugh, just got home (though earlier than last night), it's been a rough couple of days but going to do some work on this before bed;-).

What was the Israel-Syria-Russia-Germany thing?  I only have the brief mention under assorted notes but no real details.
Japan
 player, 1 post
Sun 26 Aug 2012
at 08:13
Re: Gallery
Referee:
What was the Israel-Syria-Russia-Germany thing?


Israel expressed concern that Russia was selling loads of weapons to Arab/Muslim countries and wanted a Shtil submarine based space launch system as compensation. Russia countered that Israel would have to persuade EU/Germany that in the event of intervention in Syria and replacement of the regim, all old agreements would be honored by the new Syrian regime. Israel asked this of Germnany who did not give a clear response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtil%27
Referee
 GM, 21 posts
Fri 7 Sep 2012
at 08:49
Iran
Okay, here's how I'm handling Iran and any level 7+ insurgencies to explain what I'm doing\thinking...

The Insurgency 'periods' I'm rolling for are 1 year cycles as a rule of thumb.  The modifiers between cycles can change between cycle to cycle...for instance if the food or fuel situation slowly recovers or if a neighboring country falls into anarchy.

A 7+ insurgency moves into a more aggressive unconventional war.  I'll figure out how many rough 'brigades' worth of guerrillas or other forces the insurgents will put up and will run however many combat cycles (up to 12).  In all likelihood the government forces will destroy the 'fielded' insurgent force.  This does not represent the utter destruction of a unit (even in conventional warfare), but the loss of combat effectiveness and cohesion of a fighting force.  The insurgent forces are dispersed.

In normal COIN operations, the government forces very rarely suffer enough casualties to significantly impair combat operations.  Granted there probably are a few exceptions but the biggest I can think of is the 1983 Marine Barracks attack in Beirut...which was under 250 men iirc.  Considering our combat scale is mostly brigade level...

What the combat cycles represent are opportunities to do 'real' damage to government forces.  I'm mostly looking a Vietnam here which had several up tempo cycles.  On the basis of how well or poorly the insurgents did that combat cycle I'll apply a modifier to the yearly insurgency roll.

If the insurgency is still rated at a 7 or higher the following year, I'll set up another combat cycle and repeat the process up to five times total.  Damage to the committed government forces will be repaired and supplied, more units may be committed to the COIN theater (or moved out), and if applicable reliability and other factors may be checked and adjudicated (for instance if active fighting occurs for 12 full cycles or in the case of something along the lines of Syria a unit mutinies).

Some insurgencies have lasted for decades with up and down cycles (heh...Stalin had Ukrainian guerrillas well after world war 2 as a side note...into the 50's iirc;-).

Anyway, I thinks that's it for this bout of insomnia...off to bed;-)

And

This message was last edited by the GM at 02:52, Sat 08 Sept 2012.

Russia
 player, 10 posts
Sat 8 Sep 2012
at 05:05
Re: Iran
In reply to Referee (msg # 16):

>destroy the 'fielded' insurgent force.  This does not represent the utter destruction of a unit (even in conventional warfare), but the loss of combat effectiveness and cohesion of a fighting force.

Actually that is what I already have in my latest version, just polishing up a few details before I post it to the management page, probably by this weekend.

When a unit is destroyed it is temporarily reduced to Reserve status, if no more non-Reserve units left to attack in a hex only then may the Reserve units be totally destroyed.
Referee
 GM, 24 posts
Sat 8 Sep 2012
at 17:11
Re: Iran
Well just wrapping my head around this in regard to insurgents who can disperse into the local populace, and historically 'get stomped' when they go toe to toe during 'maximum efforts' against regular forces.

The VC had to be rebuilt a few times if I recall correctly.  But on the other hand it never recovered after it was burnt down to the waterline during the Tet Offensive (and from an old General Giap interview I recall Tet was not planned as a political propaganda stunt, it had military goals and it didn't include killing off the insurgency network in the south).  I figure an Iraqi Kurdistan functions similarly as a North Vietnam (as well as an independent Baluchistan to the East).

The experienced units and veteran unit involved are pretty much directly connected to the supply and training pipeline to Iraq Kurdistan (where they've had a increasingly free hand to do that sort of thing post Gulf War I in 1991)... so they function a bit like the NVA.  The green units are a mishmash (more so than the experienced+ peshmerga at least;-), made up of more locally supported units... beat up Toyota pick-ups with the machinegun welded on the back, irregular supply and equipment, and in manpower probably have more than 5,000 men per unit (one or two steps above a mob).

This theater got a veteran unit because of persistent rumors that Israeli commandos have been working within the peshmerga in Iran.  Given the game's history\circumstances I felt it was logical.

I'm still iffy on the combat system... on a roll of 7+ Iranian air (essentially 2 units of multi-role fighters) would have eliminated the entire Kurdish force of 12 'brigades' (60k+).  Giving the Kurds column shifts due to terrain (both urban and rough countryside) would have made it more likely that the Iranian air would take more damage... that would be likely impossible for the Kurdish forces to inflict.

Attacking this round with the Kurdish forces against forces with a 50% damage absorption seemed too suicidal.  As an observation, initiative purchases seem pretty powerful and racking up a high initiative bonus can build up fairly easily.  I felt the +6 in 'GM call' bonuses I applied to the Kurds were reasonable (terrain, support from local population, and covert support from a effective intelligence agenc(ies)).
Russia
 player, 12 posts
Sun 9 Sep 2012
at 17:11
Re: Iran
In reply to Referee (msg # 18):

>insurgents who can disperse into the local populace, and historically 'get stomped' when they go toe to toe
As I have pointed out, the most recent version posted to the Management page allows units of military rank 4 nations to have 50% with stealth ability.  Most of these are going to be Reserve quality units so they cannot go toe to to with regulars, their power is in forcing the regulars to stay in the field because as Stealth units they cannot attack or be attacked unless they want to or unless a very heavy initiative toll paid by the regulars.

> on a roll of 7+ Iranian air (essentially 2 units of multi-role fighters) would have eliminated the entire Kurdish force
There is a reason why modern forces put so much attention to air defense, why big ships and close formations are history.

> initiative purchases seem pretty powerful and racking up a high initiative bonus can build up fairly easily.
They are powerful deliberately, to give some choice and interest to what is otherwise a dry exercise of math.  Was not quite expecting how free you would be with the bonuses, + in the few combats so far you have also tended to roll very high or low with the initiative rolls -->Has resulted in initiative values with a greater spread than I was expecting.  In the long run though these should even out, for now though it just makes combat even more decisive, hence resolved faster, for the victorious side.
Referee
 GM, 26 posts
Sun 9 Sep 2012
at 20:19
Re: Iran
Russia:
In reply to Referee (msg # 1):

This is going to be short and pointless.  You need to give the Kurds a lot more units (as per latest version of sec 8.5) with Stealth ability (as per latest version of sec 10.7 and 12.11), else at 5 to 1 odds I think the Kurds would have figured out it is best if they just stayed home.


I'll try to keep commentary out of the battle threads (and keep it in the gallery).

In regard to the likelihood the Kurdish forces getting wiped out, these battles represent an active phase of the guerrilla war that depending on what happens will apply a modifier to the year long insurgency phase.  So if for instance the Kurds were wiped out in the first combat cycle and inflicted no casualties against the Iranians, I'd probably apply a -3 die modifier to the Kurds insurgency roll this year.

If the Kurds still have a 7+ level insurgency, before the next years insurgency phase is rolled I'll run another combat cycle (after figuring out what forces the insurgents are putting in the field).  Basically the insurgents regather and reconstitute their forces year after year until the insurgency level is reduced to 6 or less no matter how badly they are slapped around the previous year.  The Order of battle may not be the same year after year...

Given the current status the combat forces, both the Kurds and Iranians are down 40% each though the Kurds got to pick where the damage went with their initiative purchases so I chose to pick on the unarmored Iranian units rather than the 50% damage reduction of the tanks.  Granted, had they eliminated a tank unit or two I would probably rule the Kurds may be able to field an adapted tank unit in some very limited capacity of their own from captured equipment.
USA
 player, 1 post
Sun 9 Sep 2012
at 21:29
Re: Iran
It's devilishly hard to simulate an insurgency using the same system as is used for regular armies in open battle. Basically insurgencies tend to suck but they do have one big benefit: relatively rapid replacement of losses.

You can pound an insurgency in one month, and then it fields basically the same forces the next month. This will go on as long as the base population that supports the insurgency (be it an ethnic, religious, cultural, or ideological "base population") continues to have enthusiasm for the mission.

That enthusiasm can be disipated either through genocide, successful ethnic cleansing, or simply causing them to lose heart (which usually only happens after some "major" setback, disruption, or event. Otherwise insurgencies tend to go on and on).

Like Chris said earlier: a "destroyed" unit doesn't mean every member is slain, captured, or wounded to the point of being combat ineffective forever. It simply means it ceased to exist as an effective military unit.

This means that under most circumstances, with respect to insurgencies, cadres will continue to exist and will reform basically the same insurgent unit until one of the three things mentioned above (genocide, successful ethnic cleansing, or a setback/event significant enough to convince the base population that insurgency is no longer worth participating in).
Japan
 player, 4 posts
Mon 10 Sep 2012
at 04:40
Re: Iran
In reply to USA (msg # 21):

...or the reason for the rebellion is improved/removed, ie conditions improve, certain rights are extended to the population.
Russia
 player, 14 posts
Mon 10 Sep 2012
at 12:36
Re: Iran
In reply to USA (msg # 21):

I have not added it to the Management website yet (fixes to 12.2 and 12.9 to do, was a busy weekend, got nothing done on the Game) but what I have changed is making units be temporarily reduced to 'Reserve' status upon being destroyed.  The original intent was that I shared the same concern, a military unit is a very hard thing to completely destroy, especially given how I defined them as per sec 10.0 par#1, Reserve units only completely&finally destroyed if no other non-Reserve unit is available to take the hits.

But this could serve equally well in an insurgency, where so many of the rebel units have Stealth (sec 12.11), they can avoid combat long enough to be repaired (sec 12.7), so the core of the rebellion can survive to return again and again until finally rooted out
USA
 player, 2 posts
Mon 10 Sep 2012
at 21:51
Re: Iran
Japan:
In reply to USA (msg # 21):

...or the reason for the rebellion is improved/removed, ie conditions improve, certain rights are extended to the population.
That's a "special case" of getting them to lose interest in insurgency. I suppose I phrased it badly when I said "getting them to lose heart" - but of course at extremes this blends into "insurgency ends because it wins" (succeeds in achieving enough of their goals/objectives that the insurgents see it as fullfilling their victory conditions).
Russia:
But this could serve equally well in an insurgency, where so many of the rebel units have Stealth (sec 12.11), they can avoid combat long enough to be repaired (sec 12.7), so the core of the rebellion can survive to return again and again until finally rooted out
While that works in a sense I'm still not sure it replicates the "strength" of an insurgency; insurgent economies tend to be "weak" by official stats, but they can keep fielding units rather repetitiously. Not, say, once every five years or even once every year or so.

What makes insurgencies bothersome, at least to powers as represented in this game, isn't their threat to win battlefield victories against a great power (typically), they'll get repeatedly defeated. But they just don't go away and they raise a disproportionate cost threshold on their opponents. Basically in "game theoretical" terms, insurgents try to affect the cost/benefit ratio to the point where intervening powers question whether it's worth continuing to stomp the anthill month after month year after year. (Contrarywise, the government/intervening allies attempt to affect changes as mentioned above, aimed at making the insurgency go away. And, yes, "carrots" can be part of changing the perceived cost/benefit ratio in the minds of the "base population" of insurgencies).

It's probably going to be kludgy to try and satisfactorilly model insurgencies in the game system, since overall it's intended for interstate war rather than intrastate conflicts. But I decided to babble anyhow.