@Ruanek:
Except that most VCs didn’t have too many collaborators with their conquerors. Warsaw, for example. And I don’t see too many Russians helping out Germany if they take Stalingrad or Leningrad. I think Paris is the exception rather than the rule.
Yes, I had thought of this point. I think it’s more of a problem with finding a suitable category as to what they would be considered (conscripts/militia), more than functionality. I think the advent of such a unit would be useful and doesn’t create any balance issues, and adds some flavor. But in order to make it be more ‘historically’ appropriate, there would have to be some limits. Such as only being able to produce them in a territory owned at the start of the game as was mentioned above, would avoid the Stalingrad example you give (and an amount cap is advisable… either an overall limited number, or dependent on the territory value). Granted, there is still the conundrum concerning Poland - and numerous Japanese held territories from the start of the game that have like concerns. BUT… the conscripts and militia aren’t necessarily all from the territory they are produced and stationed at. :wink: In other words, they are units with less training and/or less capable, perhaps limited weaponry as well. For instance, they could be desk jockeys stationed at the territory as punishment (eh eh eh Hogan’s Heroes comes to mind, Klink was always worried about getting sent to the Russian front and likewise used it as a threat to subordinates). So one could call them ‘lesser units’, but I think Conscripts/Militia captures this idea (and it sounds cooler). Perhaps someone has a different and more apt name?