La resistance - nice idea, badly implemented

[CantGetNoSleep]

La resistance has some nice ideas but I think they're badly implemented. Here are a few thoughts, after a few hundred of hours of gameplay:

1) the spy stuff is too tedious: I don't want to be continuously preparing a mission to commence a mission, with only two spies (or a third if I want to be wasting a valuable advisor slot), one of which is always getting captured. Don't have prepare to commence, just do it. Don't have spies getting captured - have them killed or compromised/exposed and you have to recruit another one. And don't lose all your intel network the minute the spy goes on a mission - lose it instead if the spy gets killed or compromised.

2) You should get a higher percentage of captured factories (particularly MILs) on day 1, and something like 3/4 of resources, even with zero compliance.

3) Garrison losses are ludicrously high. It's easy (particularly when you "liberate" a land that had been controlled by the AI) to lose far more people garrisoning provinces taken over than invading Russia or beating back Germany. That's just silly.

4) As a counter to point 2 and 3, remove collaboration missions altogether. Right now, Fascist countries can invade everyone and have everyone who is invaded delighted that the fascists have taken over. That's just silly. Democracies (aka the good guys) were the ones that faced lower resistance, not the bad guys.

I think that'd help get the balance right.

 

[Simon_9732495]

2) You should get a higher percentage of captured factories (particularly MILs) on day 1, and something like 3/4 of resources, even with zero compliance.

The country was at war and has just capitulated and you get 25% of the factories and 35% of resources. There might be no workers in the factories and the resources might be sabotaged and so on.
You can ramp this up with building compliance or before with Collaboration Government missions.

In my opinion that's fine. Why do you think you should get more?

3) Garrison losses are ludicrously high. It's easy (particularly when you "liberate" a land that had been controlled by the AI) to lose far more people garrisoning provinces taken over than invading Russia or beating back Germany. That's just silly.

Garrison losses are high if your managment is not optimal. If you just use your default horse division as garrison division and occupy a lot territories you should feel a need to change something.
As Germany you can do exactly that and it will not damage you much. Yes, the losses may be higher than your Barbarossa losses, but that's because in HOI4 you are able do to Barbarossa with ludicrously low losses.
In my opinion the garrison losses at the start of LaR were fine. They have been lowered and shouldn't be lowered more. Because then you could just forget resistance because of low impact.

 

[Neal Mac]

I agree with #1. I try not to complain about things I can't offer a possible solution for, so I will just say it needs work and it just feels like unneeded busy work. For some reason Civ 6 had an element of interest for me as I sent a spy to steal a great art work or something, but here it is just "blah, let's get it over with" and most times a spy gets captured despite being fully upgraded in blueprint stealing etc.

#2 and # 3 I don't agree with. for reasons see Simon's post above.
Although again it feel like more unnecessary busy work that add nothing enjoyable or intriguing to the game. Which is what "spy stuff" should do.
Just allow me to set the policies for what levels the various occupation laws are enacted and be done with it as the local commanders follow my standing orders.

Make it fun and intriguing ffs. How about assassinate a minister or general or something - I don't know.
I like scout planes though, so there is that,

 

[Fulmen]

PDX said their reasoning for HoI4 not having a spy system at launch was because they felt it was too tedious in the previous games. Ironically they then proceeded to make the most tedious spy system in any HoI game to date.

To be fair to them though, I do understand it's a difficult balancing act. On the one hand it needs to be engaging enough to keep the player interested, on the other it needs to not be too hands-on to require constant babysitting. As you probably already guessed, I feel like they weighed too heavily on the latter: once the initial wow-factor wears off, it just becomes repetitive, tedious micromanagement.

A system where you set priorities and funding, and then interact only once in a while, something like the more fire-and-forget approach of HoI3, would've been preferable. It's not great either, but then again, spies aren't supposed to be that detailed in a game of this scope anyway.

 

[GrandVezir]

1) the spy stuff is too tedious: I don't want to be continuously preparing a mission to commence a mission, with only two spies (or a third if I want to be wasting a valuable advisor slot), one of which is always getting captured. Don't have prepare to commence, just do it. Don't have spies getting captured - have them killed or compromised/exposed and you have to recruit another one. And don't lose all your intel network the minute the spy goes on a mission - lose it instead if the spy gets killed or compromised.

You are correct, but I think that was the point: if you have only the two or three default spies, you are only supposed to be running defensive missions (counter-espionage and resistance suppression).

To do more, you need to be your faction's spymaster.

 

[Bki]

PDX said their reasoning for HoI4 not having a spy system at launch was because they felt it was too tedious in the previous games. Ironically they then proceeded to make the most tedious spy system in any HoI game to date.

To be fair to them though, I do understand it's a difficult balancing act. On the one hand it needs to be engaging enough to keep the player interested, on the other it needs to not be too hands-on to require constant babysitting. As you probably already guessed, I feel like they weighed too heavily on the latter: once the initial wow-factor wears off, it just becomes repetitive, tedious micromanagement.

A system where you set priorities and funding, and then interact only once in a while, something like the more fire-and-forget approach of HoI3, would've been preferable. It's not great either, but then again, spies aren't supposed to be that detailed in a game of this scope anyway.

Simply having the spies automatically go back to their previously assigned task after accomplishing their mission would help greatly. Better notifications for missions being prepared too.

Also have a way not to be fucked for a year when your only spy (or worse, a spy get captured, you make an network with the other to help him escape, then the second spy is captured).

 

[Simon_9732495]

Simply having the spies automatically go back to their previously assigned task after accomplishing their mission would help greatly.

That option is available.

Check the "Resume mission" box when you assign operatives to a mission. They will get that small "post it" on their image.

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

You are correct, but I think that was the point: if you have only the two or three default spies, you are only supposed to be running defensive missions (counter-espionage and resistance suppression).

To do more, you need to be your faction's spymaster.

Right but then you have to join a faction early on for it to be of any use (or fun rather than a pointless interruption), which is often next to impossible...

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

The country was at war and has just capitulated and you get 25% of the factories and 35% of resources. There might be no workers in the factories and the resources might be sabotaged and so on.
You can ramp this up with building compliance or before with Collaboration Government missions.

In my opinion that's fine. Why do you think you should get more?




Garrison losses are high if your managment is not optimal. If you just use your default horse division as garrison division and occupy a lot territories you should feel a need to change something.
As Germany you can do exactly that and it will not damage you much. Yes, the losses may be higher than your Barbarossa losses, but that's because in HOI4 you are able do to Barbarossa with ludicrously low losses.
In my opinion the garrison losses at the start of LaR were fine. They have been lowered and shouldn't be lowered more. Because then you could just forget resistance because of low impact.

The problem isn’t the player. Yes, I can manage garrisons just fine and set the levels properly, so you start relatively harsh and slowly decrease it as compliance rises. That’s not rocket science.

The issue is that the AI does an awful job of compliance. So when you liberate somewhere (eg as Poland I just liberated Prague) but you’re not at the peace conference and it’s still a huge way off, you have to deal with ridiculous rebellion - I can’t even set them free because the game mechanics won’t let me.

As for why I want to get more stuff, it’s three fold:
a) as others have observed, the current mechanics make the resource war pointless.
b) I think collaboration missions are probably the dumbest thing I’ve seen in the game mechanics. They’re unrealistic, unhistorical and OP. The only reason they exist is to allow Germany and Japan players to snowball as they used to, but that makes the whole shenanigan pointless. So more resources and some more factories day 1 is is a way to balance that.
c) Finally it’s also a way to boost the AI, which right now is soooo bad at managing its garrisons. I suppose there are other mechanics possible.

 

[Kryndude]

If you're playing optimally, don't annex anything you can't core via NF. There's zero reason to annex in the current patch, make puppets instead, but that gets boring quickly because puppets are OP so I roleplay a bit. It isn't the usual way I play any strategy game but what can I do.

Advantages of having a puppet

• More MIC
• More manpower, no need for garrison being a small part of the reason
• More resources basically for free, because you get more factories and puppets tend to give you back your CIV by importing 8 resources from you
• Can be used as buffer state, less fronts to defend
• Free additional troops to guard coastlines
• Develops lands for you

Advantage of annexing

• Prettier border

 

[MobiusTwo]

If you're playing optimally, don't annex anything you can't core via NF. There's zero reason to annex in the current patch, make puppets instead, but that gets boring quickly because puppets are OP so I roleplay a bit. It isn't the usual way I play any strategy game but what can I do.

Advantages of having a puppet

• More MIC
• More manpower, no need for garrison being a small part of the reason
• More resources basically for free, because you get more factories and puppets tend to give you back your CIV by importing 8 resources from you
• Can be used as buffer state, less fronts to defend
• Free additional troops to guard coastlines
• Develops lands for you

Advantage of annexing

• Prettier border

You forgot one advantage of annexing - less lag. The more countries that exist in the game, the slower it loads. This is part of the reason why all my strategies involve rushing. Personally I think the increase in lag is the greatest problem with La Resistance. They really need to keep the game as optimized as possible - I've had some games in the current build that get frustratingly laggy by 1941 or 1942...before, it would start to get bad for me in 1943/1944.

 

[Simon_9732495]

If you're playing optimally, don't annex anything you can't core via NF. There's zero reason to annex in the current patch, make puppets instead, but that gets boring quickly because puppets are OP so I roleplay a bit. It isn't the usual way I play any strategy game but what can I do.

Advantages of having a puppet

• More MIC
• More manpower, no need for garrison being a small part of the reason
• More resources basically for free, because you get more factories and puppets tend to give you back your CIV by importing 8 resources from you
• Can be used as buffer state, less fronts to defend
• Free additional troops to guard coastlines
• Develops lands for you

Advantage of annexing

• Prettier border

The expeditonal troops you get from puppets, are clearly a disadvantage. It annoys me no end if get a new division every week from puppet soviet union.
THERE IS A F...ING FEATURE TO GRAB THAT TROOPS WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT! I WILL TAKE THEM IF I NEED THEM!!!! NOW GET THE **** **** ******.



Jokes aside:
There are situation where you occupy land for a long time wihtout a peace deal. Means you cannot puppet. You have to work on compliance to get factories and resources anyway...
And yes, I also like clean borders more than the advantages of puppets. And my games tend to be over with the first big peace deal.

 

[Spelaren]

I just wish you could annex some core parts of a country and THEN make them a collaboration government, right now it gives them all their cores.

 

[Neal Mac]

The expeditonal troops you get from puppets, are clearly a disadvantage. It annoys me no end if get a new division every week from puppet soviet union.
THERE IS A F...ING FEATURE TO GRAB THAT TROOPS WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT! I WILL TAKE THEM IF I NEED THEM!!!! NOW GET THE **** **** ******.

How are they a disadvantage? I do get annoyed how they keep popping up, but I just use them to garrison my occupied lands.

 

[Simon_9732495]

How are they a disadvantage?

Jokes aside:

 

[Kryndude]

How are they a disadvantage? I do get annoyed how they keep popping up, but I just use them to garrison my occupied lands.

That annoyance is why he's calling it a disadvantage. It's easy to deal with if you assign an entire army group to area defense and pack them in there whenever they show up. I make separate armies for 10 width, 20 width, and everything else so I can use them for combat easily when I need to.


So to talk more about how LaR messed up balance and discourages players from using its features, first you just puppet everything, but even if you're looking to utilize the collaboration mechanic, by the time you have enough compliance you're already earning more factories and resources than a collab government could ever give you. Only advantage is manpower but you also get 2/3 of that already so no real reason to sacrifice IC imo. There's one edge case for using collab government tho, which is for small city states with generic NF. They give you a few extra factories for free so those guys are worth releasing, otherwise just keep the already high compliance territories for yourself. I have to say, there are a few holes in this game, including the occupation mechanic, that I think the devs just overlooked.

 

[Neal Mac]

Ok, I thought there really was a disadvantage to them. I had often wondered about whether they are sucking up my equipment or if the keep getting fresh stuff from thier own country. Also they don't have much support like AA, so I mix my own garrison template troops in with them that have AA.

 

[Áurum]

Having resistance in a country you are supposed to be liberating (Poland occupying Prague, for example) is ridiculous. The minimum compliance for collaboration governments is too high. It's all good ideas very badly implemented.

 

[kimidf]

I think these mechanics are fine but like everything in the game they should be revised and polished in certain aspects and extend their use as the subject of espionage. I have to hope in time it will be stretched and I think the developers are aware of it