Does anyone else think the occupation laws nerf is a bit too much?

[LargeAll]

Occupation laws are already bad compared to how strong collaboration governments are, with its only advantage is the fact that you don't have to spend 270 days waiting to make it. Now occupation laws are nearly horrible and compliance gain is stunted, so you pretty much need to collab government every nation you can. Some major problems with nerfed occupation:

1. Minor nations, who already are starved in civ factories, need to do this since they cannot handle the new resistance. This is especially troublesome for non-laresistance owners, since they don't have access to collab governments and need to actually do the resistance system "as intended" thus suffering more than DLC owners.

2. Growing compliance normally is sub-optimal now, you have a permanent -0.02% compliance growth during war, and half of the game you will be at war. You also take the equivalent damage as previous unnerfed civilian oversight anyway.

3. If you choose to just tank the losses from civillian oversight you will lose ~150000 troops for strong minor nations (poland, italy, spain) and ~300000+ for major nations (germany, ussr, usa) by the time you get any benefit.

4. Governments-in-exile previously can get really strong if the host country decides to boost legitmacy, that combined with the new nerfed occupation laws would be stupidly powerful.

 

[Nitros14]

Resistance previously did basically nothing. You could just set it on civilian oversight and never think about it again. That's super a-historical and also gave you zero reason to use the eight other occupation laws.

Did you ever feel the need to use any of the many other occupation laws besides civilian oversight?

If not, civilian oversight was overpowered.

I think they made the right call, this is the only way to wean people off using civilian oversight in 100% of situations.

Embrace the newfound usefulness of brutal oppression and rejoice.

Heck today I researched anti-partisan and used spies to reduce resistance targets and it felt meaningful, how about that.

 

[spartansociety]

Agreed. It's silly if civilian oversight is the optimum policy for a Nazi occupation of France.

 

[Jays298]

Resistance previously did basically nothing. You could just set it on civilian oversight and never think about it again. That's super a-historical and also gave you zero reason to use the eight other occupation laws.

Did you ever feel the need to use any of the many other occupation laws besides civilian oversight?

If not, civilian oversight was overpowered.

I think they made the right call, this is the only way to wean people off using civilian oversight in 100% of situations.

Embrace the newfound usefulness of brutal oppression and rejoice.

Heck today I researched anti-partisan and used spies to reduce resistance targets and it felt meaningful, how about that.

It was actually pretty crippling in the last patch as far as equipment used and manpower wasted.

To the point that puppets and collaboration governments were the meta.

So by making civilian oversight weaker, it's going to continue that trend (puppet everything) while making the resistance game probably seem more farcical.

Which is basically the issue. They made resistance into an economic model basically, when it should have had tactical / strategic factors instead.

 

[Xinamon]

I guess puppeting is better now.

 

[LordWahu]

It was actually pretty crippling in the last patch as far as equipment used and manpower wasted.

To the point that puppets and collaboration governments were the meta.

So by making civilian oversight weaker, it's going to continue that trend (puppet everything) while making the resistance game probably seem more farcical.

Which is basically the issue. They made resistance into an economic model basically, when it should have had tactical / strategic factors instead.

You're saying that this is a bad thing

Yes, I will agree the tactical/strategic factors do need to be increased

But the balance of "Puppet for a limited amount of their stuff, vs. most of their stuff for a massive drain on resources" does make a lot of sense as a mechanic

Puppetting has it's own downsides that need to be considered and calculated. So creating that balance for the players opens up more decisions for the player

 

[JScott991]

I think it's actually bugged. I don't think the damage reduction to garrisons is being applied.

I've been testing this all morning. No matter whether I have Himmler in government or not. No matter whether I'm using Local Police or Civilian oversight. The damage to my garrisons does not go down. It just increases and increases.

I took France in September of 1939. I'm in October of 1939 and I'm already suffering about 100 infantry equipment a day in losses (my template is 4 CAV, all set to Local Police).

Something is wrong.

 

[bitmode]

I think it's actually bugged. I don't think the damage reduction to garrisons is being applied.

I've been testing this all morning. No matter whether I have Himmler in government or not. No matter whether I'm using Local Police or Civilian oversight. The damage to my garrisons does not go down. It just increases and increases.

I don't know how you ran your test but here are two resistance attacks at 10% resistance with a Prince of Terror and two prior ones without him:

*
If your damage keeps increasing, your resistance levels are probably rising too quickly (which increases both severity and frequency of incidents).

*(Equipment losses don't go down 25% because my quick test template had other equipment than rifles and PDX is bad at math)

 

[JScott991]

I don't know how you ran your test but here are two resistance attacks at 10% resistance with a Prince of Terror and two prior ones without him:
View attachment 883823*
If your damage keeps increasing, your resistance levels are probably rising too quickly (which increases both severity and frequency of incidents).

*(Equipment losses don't go down 25% because my quick test template had other equipment than rifles and PDX is bad at math)

I wasn't really paying attention to manpower. I just saw something very similar to what you saw in equipment.

I've also noticed that if I mod the file (using a mod I quickly put together) to have 100% reduction of garrison losses, I still lose things.

So it doesn't quite work the way I would assume.

 

[LargeAll]

Resistance previously did basically nothing. You could just set it on civilian oversight and never think about it again. That's super a-historical and also gave you zero reason to use the eight other occupation laws.

Did you ever feel the need to use any of the many other occupation laws besides civilian oversight?

If not, civilian oversight was overpowered.

I think they made the right call, this is the only way to wean people off using civilian oversight in 100% of situations.

Embrace the newfound usefulness of brutal oppression and rejoice.

Heck today I researched anti-partisan and used spies to reduce resistance targets and it felt meaningful, how about that.

Yes, I do agree that civilian oversight was overpowered relative to other occupation laws but I don't think the solution was to nerf all occupation laws. I think the solution was to buff the short-term occupation laws so sticking on them doesn't mean getting outpaced by compliance gain laws only 2.5 years down the line. The solution they chose basically means that unless you go liberated workers/harsh quotas/forced labor you cannot go for compliance occupation in hoi4 effectively without the laresistance dlc or you have to do non-collab puppets, which are pretty bad.

And this doesn't answer my original concerns, this basically makes collab governments + resistance suppression from a good choice to the only choice if you want to do well. What about non-laresistance dlc owners? They don't have access to either and have to make normal puppets to cope with occupation costs instead of actually trying to occupy land, which they can't do until they win the war. What about government in exile? The AI might not do it but players can abuse it if you don't collab government everything, and no -15% resistance will stop a france or poland with maxed out legitimacy.

And again, compliance occupation turned from a not best but still good thing to do to an unviable strategy. even if you're on local police force half the time and civilian oversight on the other half, you still won't outpace harsh quotas in production for 4 years.

 

[Noldo_Prague]

Wehraboo players who only play for Germany, which I assume is about a half of all the players, will not like this change. If nothing else, this is a good result.

 

[Descolata]

Just slap on Local Police and don't expect huge value out of conquered lands. Then build out cheap, hard (NO ROAD WHEELS) Interwar Tanks, make a 40 width with MP Support, and move over to Civilian Admin as the damage no longer matters.

It just means getting value out of conquered lands is a few extra steps and some hefty investment.

...or do what I do and Collaborate the Shit out of Everyone.

 

[eastcoastceojam]

Just slap on Local Police and don't expect huge value out of conquered lands. Then build out cheap, hard (NO ROAD WHEELS) Interwar Tanks, make a 40 width with MP Support, and move over to Civilian Admin as the damage no longer matters.

It just means getting value out of conquered lands is a few extra steps and some hefty investment.

If I'm playing a minor nation, and can't spare the research or the factories in the early game for tanks, is Local Police Force still a decent option when used with a basic infantry template?

Or would I be better off only puppeting non-core states (instead of annexing them) until I can afford to build a decent stockpile of tankettes?

 

[Descolata]

So... TECHNICALLY its always better to puppet as that gives better extraction and lets you soak their Manpower. Puppeted nations use your templates, so they wont have ass div choices. As a Minor, you need all the manpower you can find, buy, or steal.

Local Police (I believe) has the lowest% of required garrisons and highest% reduced damage. Not great straight resistance reduction, but it limits how much you are risking and the damage.

Make a 1 horse template for garrison, horses are MUCH more efficient than inf for suppression. Minor nations should be fine with that.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

- this make game heavyly unfun for minors.
- i detest puppets, collabs.
- its force micromanage the stupid occupation laws, by far the most boring micro in the game

 

[Jays298]

You're saying that this is a bad thing

Yes, I will agree the tactical/strategic factors do need to be increased

But the balance of "Puppet for a limited amount of their stuff, vs. most of their stuff for a massive drain on resources" does make a lot of sense as a mechanic

Puppetting has it's own downsides that need to be considered and calculated. So creating that balance for the players opens up more decisions for the player

I'm saying that resistance on economic level is a hand that is overplayed by the engine basically. If I would look at the combat logs and the manpower and equipment used against resistance it starts to become astronomical at some point. I don't know what statistics it would be but it would probably be in thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of infantry equipment to deal with so-called resistance. Not to mention losing a lot of manpower to something not even on the map.

To the point where yes it makes more sense to puppet or create collaboration governments.

Because basically the conquered territories become a drain on the factories to produce equipment to put down resistance.

And the whole thing is just farcical to me because that's like saying the resistance destroyed more men and equipment than the actual army. It's just silly.

Tldr :. History : conquer and use resources
Game : conquer, create another government, use the manpower, the cost benefit isn't there to own non core territory.

 

[Nitros14]

I'm saying that resistance on economic level is a hand that is overplayed by the engine basically. If I would look at the combat logs and the manpower and equipment used against resistance it starts to become astronomical at some point. I don't know what statistics it would be but it would probably be in thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of infantry equipment to deal with so-called resistance. Not to mention losing a lot of manpower to something not even on the map.

To the point where yes it makes more sense to puppet or create collaboration governments.

Because basically the conquered territories become a drain on the factories to produce equipment to put down resistance.

And the whole thing is just farcical to me because that's like saying the resistance destroyed more men and equipment than the actual army. It's just silly.

Tldr :. History : conquer and use resources
Game : conquer, create another government, use the manpower, the cost benefit isn't there to own non core territory.

What? Historically countries made tons of puppets and reichcommisarriats. The Nazis put collaboration governments everywhere so did the Japanese. Not to mention the Soviet Socialist Republics of Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania.

 

[Eisscrat]

What? Historically countries made tons of puppets and reichcommisarriats. The Nazis put collaboration governments everywhere so did the Japanese. Not to mention the Soviet Socialist Republics of Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania.

And never loose tens of thousands of soldiers to resistance befor maybe 1944 when the fronts closing in.

 

[Mackus]

Makes sense.

Before the patch I think I literally never changed occupation policy.

 

[plared]

Many of us like to play, with smaller nations that have trees. As it is now, it is very difficult. The resistance forces you to create puppets, there is no other solution, it is impossible to maintain a territory right now without losing many men and weapons.

When they devised the resistance thing, the same thing happened. In the next patch they reduced it to almost half It was unplayable.....