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

[LargeAll]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse but I would like to propose something for people who suggest stuff like puppeting or collab governments:

Turn off all of your DLCs and play a minor country.

You have two options: option one, try to occupy stuff and have them permanently on martial law or harsh quotas, either permanently having no compliance and no factories or having 50% of factories but bleeding manpower (bad already for a minor nation), or option two: puppet them, only having 25% of their factories and no manpower (DLC exclusive feature to make divisions out of puppets).

People forget that it already takes A LOT of effort for small nations to beat bigger nations, just because it's "ahistorical" doesn't matter when going against history already is difficult and a big achievement when you do, you are already biased against and you shouldn't be punished for trying to do something besides being AFK and building up endlessly. Heck, it is better to just play Germany than play the netherlands and conquer Germany before, now it's just worse.

I don't have DLC, a lot of new players don't have the DLC needed to deal with this, we don't have access to manpower efficent garrison divisions (NSB, La Resistance), we don't have access to collaboration governments (La Resistance), we can't even get more manpower to help deal with the occupation costs (TFV).

 

[JScott991]

Yes, they will fix this shortly. It isn't working the way they intended. The damage and garrison requirements are too high to be realistic or sustainable.

If they keep it like this, it will require players without La Resistance DLC to mod the game (which is what I've done in the interim anyway).

 

[Vlad123]

A idea can are add decision to figth resistance in the country (with costs) or directly a meccanics in the occupation tab: Make a hunt angaist the Partisan this cost X(civilian, or extra equipment) or decision/a meccanics for add compliance: build/increse Hospitals,distribuite goods...etc

 

[LordWahu]

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.

I don't think this comment is actually accurate

There are places where it can work, but for the most part 19th-20th century warfare was all about collaboration and puppet governments

 

[LordWahu]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse but I would like to propose something for people who suggest stuff like puppeting or collab governments:

Turn off all of your DLCs and play a minor country.

You have two options: option one, try to occupy stuff and have them permanently on martial law or harsh quotas, either permanently having no compliance and no factories or having 50% of factories but bleeding manpower (bad already for a minor nation), or option two: puppet them, only having 25% of their factories and no manpower (DLC exclusive feature to make divisions out of puppets).

People forget that it already takes A LOT of effort for small nations to beat bigger nations, just because it's "ahistorical" doesn't matter when going against history already is difficult and a big achievement when you do, you are already biased against and you shouldn't be punished for trying to do something besides being AFK and building up endlessly. Heck, it is better to just play Germany than play the netherlands and conquer Germany before, now it's just worse.

I don't have DLC, a lot of new players don't have the DLC needed to deal with this, we don't have access to manpower efficent garrison divisions (NSB, La Resistance), we don't have access to collaboration governments (La Resistance), we can't even get more manpower to help deal with the occupation costs (TFV).

This is a fair argument. Much like supply, it really is a bigger problem for minors than it really should be. Hopefully they can find a better middle-ground solution

 

[bitmode]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse but I would like to propose something for people who suggest stuff like puppeting or collab governments:

Turn off all of your DLCs and play a minor country.

I still don't see the issue. Yes, without DLC you are limited to the less crazy, more historical options. That's puppets or harsher occupation laws. I don't have those DLC myself and I think collabs, armored cars etc. are terrible. I don't think it makes sense to compare them with the base game.

 

[LargeAll]

I still don't see the issue. Yes, without DLC you are limited to the less crazy, more historical options. That's puppets or harsher occupation laws. I don't have those DLC myself and I think collabs, armored cars etc. are terrible. I don't think it makes sense to compare them with the base game.

Because previously we had better options, and now we have worse options for less gain. A modded no DLC vanilla player couldn't do minor nations as well as DLC players, but at least they can. But the changes they've done effectively makes it so that if a non-DLC non-modded player wants to experience the game to its fullest extend they need to play majors or just play modded to fix vanilla limitations.

Tying expansion options and features to DLC when we previously had the option to do so is troublesome, occupation and compliance through the already hard task of conquering a nation is one of the few ways minor nations can catch up to major nations/alliances, and with that nerfed it basically makes the hard goal of catching up to a major harder. Remember, even with the pre-nerf laws, a minor nation annexing a major nation doesn't mean you are now as strong as the major nation, you're still weak until you wait many, many years to get the factories and even then you don't have the manpower from the new land.

And already strong nations can do more ahistorical stuff for free, and are often better at it thank whatever a minor nation can do.

So why does "no DLC = you have to be weaker" have to be true? Even if minor nations do the harsh occupation + puppets you're getting weaker puppets and you are less able to deal with harsh occupation.

This applies to mods too since almost all mods use vanilla reisistance mechanics.

 

[PancuterM]

No. I think getting compliance and lowering resistance was waaaaaaay too easy before

 

[Vin55]

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.

Well in all fairness most of the time a conquered country would not be all out on a gueriall war, those countries where rare most of them become so because of the harsh quotas put on to them by their conqueres. So I find it stupid that I would losse over a hundred thousand people as Italy if I conquer France and dont have full euqipped garissions day one in them.

It is estimated that FFI killed some 2,000 Germans, a low estimate based on the figures from June 1944 only.[320] Estimates of the casualties among the Resistance are made harder by the dispersion of movements at least until D-Day, but credible estimates start from 8,000 dead in action, 25,000 shot and several tens of thousands deported.[322] For perspective, the best estimate is that 86,000 were deported from France without racial motive, overwhelmingly comprising resistance fighters and more than the number of Gypsies and Jews deported from France.[323

French Resistance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is a more realistic number 2000 killed, the germans where in general in the west not that hostile to the local population, like in Serbia or the Soviet Union where Partisans where much more common (Poland is another case) and much more effective. The whole logic is just conquering=punishment is dumb, normally if you conquered someone the punishment comes from losses during the war, occupation should be more a material drain and a manpower drain in the sense that you need to pull back some troops to garission the land(not by them dying in the thousands)

 

[Fargel Linellar]

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.

If you simply made an occupation law with 100% reduction to garrison losses, you will still have losses.

This is because in the formula for resistance damage, there's a maximum value defined for the "reduction to garrison damage" at 90%.

Same if you were to stack multiple modifiers that reduced damage to 100%, the game automatically convert any value above 90% to 90%.

You could test this by changing the maximum value in the define file.

I just did a short test on the latest public version and the damage is exactly as expected (keep in mind that all values are rounded up, so if you mix equipment, your expected losses of 0.00000001 something will be rounded to 1 for each equipment type)

 

[bitmode]

This is because in the formula for resistance damage, there's a maximum value defined for the "reduction to garrison damage" at 90%.

That define just limits the hardness to 90%. If the damage is zero, 10% of that would still be zero.
That said, even with GARRISON_EQUIPMENT_LOST_BY_ATTACK set to 0, equipment can be lost due to rounding.

equipment_remaining = floor(equipment * (1 - damage))
equipment_lost = ceil(equipment - equipment_remaining)

 

[Secret Master]

Now occupation laws are nearly horrible and compliance gain is stunted, so you pretty much need to collab government every nation you can.

Wait, who wasn't slapping collaboration governments on their most valuable conquests already?

I wasn't really paying attention to manpower.

I've seen partisans in occupied areas inflict more manpower damage that human players in MP games. Of course, that's when the occupations are poorly managed, but still. Manpower is a big deal.

That said, even with GARRISON_EQUIPMENT_LOST_BY_ATTACK set to 0, equipment can be lost due to rounding.

People sometimes say to me "Secret Master, why not mod variable X in the defines to make your tests easier or more consistent?" But then I read things like this, and I think "Zero =/= Zero, therefore I can't even trust modifications I make to the defines to do what I think they do."

Sure, it looks like I turned weather or ace generation off, but if I can't trust other defines to actually be zero, how do I know some weather modifiers or aces aren't slipping by?

 

[bitmode]

People sometimes say to me "Secret Master, why not mod variable X in the defines to make your tests easier or more consistent?" But then I read things like this, and I think "Zero =/= Zero, therefore I can't even trust modifications I make to the defines to do what I think they do."

Sure, it looks like I turned weather or ace generation off, but if I can't trust other defines to actually be zero, how do I know some weather modifiers or aces aren't slipping by?

Give it a few more years

 

[Fargel Linellar]

That define just limits the hardness to 90%. If the damage is zero, 10% of that would still be zero.
That said, even with GARRISON_EQUIPMENT_LOST_BY_ATTACK set to 0, equipment can be lost due to rounding.

equipment_remaining = floor(equipment * (1 - damage))
equipment_lost = ceil(equipment - equipment_remaining)

There's a define for both
The minimum damage will be
0.02*0.1*0.1=0.0002 (or 0.02% of the state garrison equipment)

MIN_DAMAGE_TO_GARRISONS_MODIFIER = 0.1
MAXIMUM_GARRISON_HARDNESS_WHEN_ATTACKED = 0.90

 

[Nephandus]

Wait, who wasn't slapping collaboration governments on their most valuable conquests already?

I think he mentioned not owning the La Resistance DLC and therefore can‘t slap that on anything, IIRC

 

[Nitros14]

Because previously we had better options, and now we have worse options for less gain.

That's how a nerf works yes. Civilian oversight was overpowered.

 

[Harin]

I have been using the occupation law that gives -60% to resistance target as default, because it seems many, if not most provinces I capture now start off with a 70% to 80% percent resistance target. My garrison losses have been so low, that I do not notice them. Of course, I am using more garrison forces, but once target resistance drops enough, I can go to Secret Police, Local Police, and then Civilian Oversight. It seems if I jump over to many occupation laws, I start to bleed.

 

[Jays298]

I have La resistance and almost never used Collaboration governments because it takes years to get the required compliance (unless you start off with non core areas in 1936). But have discovered that puppeting everything is the way to do it for minors and major minors like Italy.

Though I'm not sure if you can puppet Ethiopia in the new DLC.

 

[DarkSpiryt]

As a Japan i was surprised how much guns i need against resistance. I felt it pretty hard.