Best Compliance Division?

[SgtFancypants]

I think a more important question is what is the best occupation laws and if they should be modified. There is no decent way to lower resistance and at 50% the damage to increased 100%.

There is no “best”, really. It all comes down to what the numbers look like for a specific occupation. You can view these numbers by hovering the mouse over a territory while the “resistance” map setting is on. Note that the numbers you see change depending on if you’re hovering the mouse over the number or some random part of the territory.

What you’re most interested in is seeing the effective “resistance target.” That’s exactly where resistance for a given state will land after everything is accounted for (occupation law, garrison, etc.). You want that number to be as low as possible, but you have to balance it against compliance gain (viewed by checking the numbers).

The reason why there is no “best” is because not all territories go into riot mode when you take them. I mentioned France earlier, France likes to riot, France is going to need to have a military governor at a minimum when you take their land. Egypt, on the other hand... Egypt don’t care, just swapping one colonial master for another, so they start compliant enough that you can probably start with secret police and adjust down from there.

The whole idea is to slowly grow compliance over time so you can ease up on the occupation laws. Personally I like to keep the resistance target below 25%, but I’ll let it creep up to as high as 30% if I can go a step lower to boost compliance gain.

 

[jju_57]

It seems the resistance target is lowest after a year for Local Police Force and Civilian Oversight. Which is sad because that means the harsher laws should never be taken.

 

[Apollon]

Just an idea I got... Since the suppression templates never se battle, and is not "trained" as normal. What if you design a templat, check off "use new equipment", and de select all equipment.. So the template is without eequipment... Will you still loose equipment in garrisson log? Will the template stil have an ordinary suppresion stat? can you add tanks for hardness, but not commit the equipment? Please find ou!

That wouldn't work. Garrisons always use the newest available equipment, even if you specifically tell them to only use old equipment and uncheck both the "use newest equipment" and individual equipment types.

 

[Secret Master]

It seems the resistance target is lowest after a year for Local Police Force and Civilian Oversight. Which is sad because that means the harsher laws should never be taken.

That assumes you don't need the extra resources and factories now as opposed to later.

Compliance increases that improve resource and factory output while also lowering resistance over the course of three years doesn't help if you need everything you can get to win the war in two.

 

[jju_57]

That assumes you don't need the extra resources and factories now as opposed to later.

Compliance increases that improve resource and factory output while also lowering resistance over the course of three years doesn't help if you need everything you can get to win the war in two.

Actually this is a false assumption. Brutal Oppression gives you no extra factories that the other two don't. Forced labor and Secret Police give you 5% more and that's it. Germany as for resources need oil and tungsten mostly. Poland, France, Denmark, Low countries give you none or almost none of that.

If those laws actually did give you a good bonus then yes it would be a choice of more now or later. But they don't.

 

[Secret Master]

Actually this is a false assumption. Brutal Oppression gives you no extra factories that the other two don't. Forced labor and Secret Police give you 5% more and that's it. Germany as for resources need oil and tungsten mostly. Poland, France, Denmark, Low countries give you none or almost none of that.

If those laws actually did give you a good bonus then yes it would be a choice of more now or later. But they don't.

Liberated Workers is +25% to factories. Harsh quotas is 25% extra factories.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

That wouldn't work. Garrisons always use the newest available equipment, even if you specifically tell them to only use old equipment and uncheck both the "use newest equipment" and individual equipment types.

That cannot be true, can it....?

 

[Secret Master]

That cannot be true, can it....?

There are some issues with how equipment is prioritized to garrisons. It seems buggy at times, with new infantry kits showing up in my garrisons even when the template prohibits them.

I'm still looking in to it, because it's possible that I've missed some things.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

There are some issues with how equipment is prioritized to garrisons. It seems buggy at times, with new infantry kits showing up in my garrisons even when the template prohibits them.

I'm still looking in to it, because it's possible that I've missed some things.

Ok. Please lmk. I have held off on LR for a while until some hugs are fixed.

 

[Cavalry]

There are some issues with how equipment is prioritized to garrisons. It seems buggy at times, with new infantry kits showing up in my garrisons even when the template prohibits them.

I'm still looking in to it, because it's possible that I've missed some things.

Is that because there is no old gun in inventory? The old gun need to remove from a divisions first then go to inventory before go to other divisions. And the game probably bypass the equipment setting for garrison.

 

[Secret Master]

Is that because there is no old gun in inventory? The old gun need to remove from a divisions first then go to inventory before go to other divisions. And the game probably bypass the equipment setting for garrison.

No, because there were plenty of Latvian and Estonia Tier 1 kits sitting the stockpile while Tier 2 Soviet goods right off the factory floor were going into garrisons.

 

[Simon_9732495]

I think a more important question is what is the best occupation laws and if they should be modified. There is no decent way to lower resistance and at 50% the damage to increased 100%.

I think the answer to that lies in the question: What is the best law to raise compliance?
Because only compliance reduces resistance sustainable. (And that is a good thing, cause historical and a interesting mechanic. Otherwise you just press a button for 0% resistance. Done.)

So the answer is: The best law is "civilian oversight".
You choose other laws only if you need to:
- You have not enough equiment or manpower to meet the garrison requirements
- The Garrison loses are to high and you cant afford (in terms of ic) hardness in garrisons
- Resistance goes >= 75 in a province
- Provinces with a lot resources, where you MAYBE use "forced labour" if you really really need the resources.
- I dont think more factorys is worth "harsh quotas". Low compliance makes you lose many factorys afterwards.

I'd recommend trying to keep resistance below 75% and not bothering too much about it beeing >25 or >50.

If you choose harder laws you can lower the resistance and keep your requirements and losses down, but you damage your compliance. And low compliance over a long time is far worse than high resistance while compliance grows.

Best Compliance Division? What have you guys been using?

- Use MP Support
- Use as much batallions as possble because 1 MP support counts for all batallions.
- Use 50 Armored Cars if you can afford (you cant)
- Use a mix of Cav and Armored Cars (Add division if you have free army XP, add cars if you have free cars, add cav if you lack cars)

Also do divisions with higher suppression lower resistance faster?

No. Less divisions are used then. You can only lower resistance by raising compliance, laws, permanent focus and spies. (But Spies are not really effective.)

Also the divisions are not really deployed does a field hospital or do any other support divisions help?

Field hospital doesnt help, MP support does.

 

[Martynios]

That assumes you don't need the extra resources and factories now as opposed to later.

Compliance increases that improve resource and factory output while also lowering resistance over the course of three years doesn't help if you need everything you can get to win the war in two.

The 25% factories from Harsh Quotas are a pittance. You can easily get double that number from compliance in just a year if you go with Civilian Oversight.

 

[jju_57]

Liberated Workers is +25% to factories. Harsh quotas is 25% extra factories.

I knew I couldn't trust the Wiki to be accurate.

But we'll use the +25% for Harsh. That means at the start using harsh you get 100% - 75% + (.65 * compliance) + 25% (harsh) = 50% of the factories. Using a base average of 50 for resistance target that means you must have 50 * .6 = 30 * .75 = 22.5 suppression points in garrisons and they take normal damage. CO at the start only gives you 25% of the factories but only requires 50 * .9 = 45 * .75 = 33.75 /2 = 16.875 suppression and they take 25% less damage. Using MSPAA for suppression it costs 144 IC for 2 suppression.

Let's say the province has 15 factories (which is a above average). Harsh nets you (15 * .25%) = 3.75 more factories. You need (22.5 - 16.875) /2 * 144 / 3.75 = 108 days just to cover the initial cost of the higher garrison. And that is without taking into consider larger damages to the garrison, increase in CO compliance etc.

At the 6 month mark your compliance will be 180 * .08 = 14.4. CO now requires even less suppression 50 * .9 = 45 * (100 - (14.4/2)) = 41.76 * .75 = 31.32 /2 = 15.66 suppression and now gives you 100 - 75% + (.65 * 14.4) = 34.36% of factories. Harsh is now only giving you (15 * (.50 - .3436)) = 2.346 more factories. Remember you are also taking 25% less losses with CO and at 25% compliance the garrisons are further reduced by 25%.

The straight BE point between Civilian Oversight and Harsh is 480 days which is how long CO takes using 65% of the .08 gain per day to get to the 25% Harsh additional factory bonus.

This on the surface seems like a good trade but it ignores the additional IC cost of the garrison and the IC cost of the additional damage.

I still haven't see any formulas on how often garrisons are attacked and actual damage per attack. But it does appear the larger the garrison the more damage it suffers. I don't know if this is linear or not. CO requires 16.875 suppression at the start while harsh requires 22.5. That is a 33.3% increase. This implies CO will actually have as mush as a 78% reduction in losses but it might be limited to as little as 41.625% depending on formulas.

We could calculate the true BE day between Harsh and CO if we knew the actual garrison losses per day based on suppression point.

Finally, if Harsh is good then why isn't brutal occupation even better short term since it is the harshest law?

I think the answer to that lies in the question: What is the best law to raise compliance?
Because only compliance reduces resistance sustainable.
- Resistance goes >= 75 in a province

Resistance >= 75 is extremely rare and I have not seen it happen even once yet. The highest I've seen is right at 50%. Are you referring to the base resistance target before any modifiers that lower it (laws and compliance)?

Outside of these major capitals (Paris, London, Tokyo, Berlin, Moscow) no provinces have 50 VP. So a realistic max is actually under 75 resistance target. Vast majority should be under 50-55 before laws and compliance.

 

[Reman]

Here's some charts for people. The first is the cumulative stock of equipment produced from Civilian Oversight vs Harsh Quotas:

The second is the flow of resources from Civilian Oversight vs Forced Labor:

Both of these assume Government in Exile is not a factor.

 

[Secret Master]

The 25% factories from Harsh Quotas are a pittance. You can easily get double that number from compliance in just a year if you go with Civilian Oversight.

The straight BE point between Civilian Oversight and Harsh is 480 days which is how long CO takes using 65% of the .08 gain per day to get to the 25% Harsh additional factory bonus.

Your skepticism is warranted, but you are leaving out some of the external factors that might matter. Let me give an example.

As the Soviet Union, you get half of Poland thanks to the MR Pact. You know war with Germany is coming. If you don't think you are going to hold or bother defending Poland, (as in, you are going to defend the Riga-Kiev line), then raising compliance in Poland is largely irrelevant. You might have 18 months at most to utilize those factories until Barbarossa (less if the AI gets a bee in its bonnet and DOWs long before june of 1941); why bother focusing on the long term? Exploit those factories now. A T-34 in hand in June of 1941 is worth more than 0.5 T-34s and extra compliance in June of 1941.

That being said, Civilian is a solid occupation setting for many situations. It's just not a panacea for all situations.

 

[Reman]

I agree with @Secret Master here. It's not immediately obvious to me whether long term laws are better than short term laws, as it comes down to your situation. If you have a short time horizon like a midgame achievement or historical multiplayer, then harsh quotas is probably best. On the other hand, if you're doing one of the game's many pseudo WC achievements then Civ Oversight is probably optimal.

Here's my tentative tier list of the occupation laws:

• Best (unique): Local autonomy, Liberated Workers
• Best short-term: Harsh Quotas, Forced Labor
• Best long-term: Civilian Oversight
• Situational: Local Police Force, Secret Police
• Excessively situational: Martial Law, Brutal Oppression,
• Don’t Use: Military Governor, No Garrison

 

[Secret Master]

Hmm, the forum is having hiccups. Ignore my 25 double posts. They should all be deleted now.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

One thing I would like to know is without LR, do panzer is and iis and captured obsolute panzers provide enough hardness..... Have not played through yet...

 

[jju_57]

Your skepticism is warranted, but you are leaving out some of the external factors that might matter. Let me give an example.

As the Soviet Union, you get half of Poland thanks to the MR Pact. You know war with Germany is coming. If you don't think you are going to hold or bother defending Poland, (as in, you are going to defend the Riga-Kiev line), then raising compliance in Poland is largely irrelevant. You might have 18 months at most to utilize those factories until Barbarossa (less if the AI gets a bee in its bonnet and DOWs long before june of 1941); why bother focusing on the long term? Exploit those factories now. A T-34 in hand in June of 1941 is worth more than 0.5 T-34s and extra compliance in June of 1941.

That being said, Civilian is a solid occupation setting for many situations. It's just not a panacea for all situations.

Of course if you are going to lose the province then CO makes little sense. I was trying to refer to the situations where a country capitulated and chance of losing it are either small or very far off. I think the BE point is around 500 days on average.

BTW my reason behind all of this is I would have thought a better "design" would be the harsher the law the more you actually get. It's sort of based on the following logic. Non-harsh laws would let the occupied country keep almost everything. They are almost an independent country in some regards. While the harsher the law the more you steal and the more you force the occupied people to do work for you. They grow to hate you and therefore you have to have a large army present or they will attack you. You cost is having that army there and not fighting. And the lower your percentage of that garrison requirement the more likely they attack. But if you do have 100% garrison requirements then they don't attack very often.

I just don't see the laws doing this. Why do you get less from Brutal than forced labor?