1.2 - what have you done with my leadership points

[kdr]

After yesterday struggle I've managed to conquer nearly half of Europe (Germany, Austria, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania). I was quite proud my vast resource of leadership points and IC. But ...
Just installed 1.2 patch and whoooaaaa! 53 points of leadership are now reduced to 13 and IC was cut down by a half. What's the point of waging wars now? A partisan problem - is that all I gain after annexing a country?

 

[Ungface]

Patch probably doesnt work 100% with 1.1 save games

pretty standard.

 

[Lord Strange]

Do not play old save games. Do not work between patches. Sorry.

 

[Silktrader]

When you annex province, which aren't deemed as "core", you are losing:

75% of the province's manpower.
80% of the province's leadership.
50% of the province's industrial capacity.
​

I am assuming that is what determines the difference between the available leadership points, with the same savegame, from one game version to the newest.

 

[Johan]

annexation does no longer give you all resources for free, but its a rather harsh occupation law.

 

[marginoferror]

annexation does no longer give you all resources for free, but its a rather harsh occupation law.

Does this gradually get better as nationalism decreases over time? Or does the length of ownership not matter?

 

[Vasily]

When you annex province, which aren't deemed as "core", you are losing:

75% of the province's manpower.
80% of the province's leadership.
50% of the province's industrial capacity.
​

I am assuming that is what determines the difference between the available leadership points, with the same savegame, from one game version to the newest.

Well, that explains the drop from 221 IC to 141 IC in my Yugoslavia game... This sucks. I'll never get my Battleship finished now! At least I already had 5 new IC levels in five provinces in Yugoslavia being built. However, they won't be ready in like two years. o

 

[JimboOmega]

annexation does no longer give you all resources for free, but its a rather harsh occupation law.

Is SilkTrader's Description correct? I thought the harsh occupation law gave you 0% leadership?

Also - what % of resources do you get?

Edit: Is there any advantage at all to annexing vs. occupying now? It reduces your flexibility by forcing one occupation policy and eliminates the effectiveness of suppression, but is otherwise the same as that one occupation policy, correct?

Granted you can't choose to occupy vs. annex.... All you can do is leave the dialog open a while.

 

[Silktrader]

Does this gradually get better as nationalism decreases over time? Or does the length of ownership not matter?

It doesn't. Revolt risk due to nationalism will decrease though.

Annexation of non core provinces is more or less equal to the occupation policy labelled as "Full Occupation" - with subtle but important differences.

 

[Rundstedt75]

Excellent change!

 

[vertinox]

annexation does no longer give you all resources for free, but its a rather harsh occupation law.

Can we choose our laws or maybe can this be added down the road?

Obviously it can be a bit exploitey but since we were able to occupy nicely in nations that haven't surrendered yet, don't know why it couldn't be done afterwards.

I do agree on the non-core issue since it would be obvious that Polish person being occupied by Germany would not like to contribute to their research or officer pool.

 

[kdr]

Hmm, then it'd would nice if I could set occupation policy for conquered territories not only during the war but also after a peace treaty (annexation).
@Johan: is it true that conquerors get 80% of leadership points. I'm asking because I still get trouble with figuring out why 53 point where reduced to 13?

 

[Ciaphas Cain]

When you annex province, which aren't deemed as "core", you are losing:

75% of the province's manpower.
80% of the province's leadership.
50% of the province's industrial capacity.
​

And how much of the other resources? Also 50%?

 

[Silktrader]

Can we choose our laws or maybe can this be added down the road?

You can choose your own "occupation policies" (semantics: not laws but policies) and thus express a preference for one aspect (say, leadership) rather than another (industrial capacity, for instance).

"Occupation Policies" are only relevant in occupied territory, they do not make a difference should the land be annexed.

 

[Silktrader]

Hmm, then it'd would nice if I could set occupation policy for conquered territories not only during the war but also after a peace treaty (annexation).
@Johan: is it true that conquerors get 80% of leadership points. I'm asking because I still get trouble with figuring out why 53 point where reduced to 13?

You don't get 80% of leadership points - you lose 80% of available leadership points. I employed the term "forgoing" earlier.

 

[JimboOmega]

It doesn't. Revolt risk due to nationalism will decrease though.

Annexation of non core provinces is more or less equal to the occupation policy labelled as "Full Occupation" - with subtle but important differences.

So the key differences between the occupation policy annexing are 1)revolt risk decreases over time and 2)You can't suppress it with garrisons/MPs?

Also, I second the question about resources

 

[kdr]

You don't get 80% of leadership points - you lose 80% of available leadership points. I employed the term "forgoing" earlier.

Indeed. Now it makes sense
But don't you think that 80% is bit to harsh. Conquering a significant part of Europe still gives quite disappointing research and intelligence potential.

 

[Silktrader]

About resources:

Economic laws have a tangible impact on resources production.
​

Occupation policies and annexed provinces do not influence resources production.

 

[Silktrader]

So the key differences between the occupation policy annexing are 1)revolt risk decreases over time and 2)You can't suppress it with garrisons/MPs?

There are additional points: occupation policies may be more flexible than outright annexation, as they allow you to pick which aspect is to be preferred among leadership, manpower and industrial capacity. That is: you can switch from one policy to another.

Moreover, rebels stemming from annexation will likely be "nationalists" - whereas those issued from occupied provinces are "partisans". The two categories will behave differently.

 

[JimboOmega]

There are additional points: occupation policies may be more flexible than outright annexation, as they allow you to pick which aspect is to be preferred among leadership, manpower and industrial capacity. That is: you can switch from one policy to another.

Moreover, rebels stemming from annexation will likely be "nationalists" - whereas those issued from occupied provinces are "partisans". The two categories will behave differently.

We sitll don't have the choice to say, forgo annexation and maintain occupation, correct? When the time comes that national unity breaks, we must either annex, or puppet, right? So the flexibility goes away the moment the enemy's national unity breaks?

This suggests it might be worthwhile (if you want more leadership, say) to occupy all of the country *except* the VPs, and/or find ways to increase their national unity. That seems wrong. Breaking the enemy should not be to your disadvantage.