Occupational Policies

[unmerged(47028)]

First I have one question.

I have amended Occupational Policies file and did not save a copy of the original. I do not want to re-install the FTM but I want to change Partisan support numbers back. Could anybody tell me the numbers, please?


On the other matter. I have noticed that in the FTM Total Exploitation became even worse comparing with SF: double partisan support, negligible (or better say 0 manpower after partisan effect) MP gain, same with leadership (0), and twice less IC. So basically the Total Occupation became much worse than it was. Having in mind, the increased supply tax due to partisans, the Total Exploitation actually exploits the country which is using it through enormous supply demand and gives nothing in return.

As AI can not change Occupational Policies, in all later scenarios (1940+ and especially 1941.12+) AI is permanently crippled.

Why is that?

 

[Ciaphas Cain]

1.5
7
11
19

Why is that?

Probably because it emulates the fact, that germany didn't choose it's occupation policies for tactical or military purposes but for ideological ones.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

Thanks!

 

[Jos de trol]

Probably because it emulates the fact, that germany didn't choose it's occupation policies for tactical or military purposes but for ideological ones.

I find this explanation unsatisfying though, especially as HoI 3 doesn't emulate nazi ideology.

 

[21oliver]

What are the percentages (IC, manpower, resources etc...) you get if you Annex as opposed to Puppet again? All resources and no leadership or manpower is that correct? or do you get manpower i cant rem, its been awhile since i played. When it comes to annexing or puppeting isnt it whether you want the resources or the leadership/manpower? Thanks for the help...

 

[Panncakemouse]

I find this explanation unsatisfying though, especially as HoI 3 doesn't emulate nazi ideology.

Without entering into any discussions not allowed on the forum, I still think that it is safe to say that the gamed does emulate the German foreign policy - both the diplomatic part and the part where the arguments were made by Wermacht - in the period from 1936 and forward.

This was "ideological" (or at least based on a not 100% imperically proven teoretical framework), but for practical reasons France had to go as well (just as in WW1) but Vichy could be allowed thanks to the underlying framework. The rest of AI occupation policy decisions can be seen as driven by the same theory-base in the foreign policy

 

[unmerged(47028)]

fact, that germany didn't choose it's occupation policies for tactical or military purposes but for ideological ones.

Actually if Germany annexes the Soviet Union partisan support changes from 19 (Total Exploitation) to 6. Does it mean Germany's ideology changes after the annexation? It does not make sense that the annexation causes the partisan support to be 3 times smaller.

 

[Jos de trol]

Without entering into any discussions not allowed on the forum, I still think that it is safe to say that the gamed does emulate the German foreign policy - both the diplomatic part and the part where the arguments were made by Wermacht - in the period from 1936 and forward.

This was "ideological" (or at least based on a not 100% imperically proven teoretical framework), but for practical reasons France had to go as well (just as in WW1) but Vichy could be allowed thanks to the underlying framework. The rest of AI occupation policy decisions can be seen as driven by the same theory-base in the foreign policy

total exploitation should give you total exploitation, the word does not have an ideological connotation and shouldn't have. it should be an economic spectrum.

 

[21oliver]

I have always said that this is much closer to a sandbox game then a realistic game. You cannot disclude any element of a war for any reason, and then profess that the game is a historical simulation. Its sort of an oxymoron. How about also the fact that they chose to give the Soviets a Faction, hence they cannot ally with the allies. Also there is simply too many elements that happen in real life to simply recreate such a vast experience. However we do like it and hope it gets better but we have to take it for what it is. BTW there are plenty of ways to simulate all the elements of the War that they prefer not to discuss in round a bout ways. An example is German ideology, they would have their own occupation policy,which was definitely different then other nations. It would likely be more expensive not only in resources spent but manpower to maintain, and likely return more as well. Plenty of roads lead to the same place.

 

[CplKatie]

No it has everything to do with the will of the conquered people not the will of the conquerers. nationalism is a steadier average revoltrisk that can't be suppressed but slowly degrades over time. occupation revoltrisk can be suppressed by the military in the short term but once their hope has been crushed(their faction has lost) they will revert to being a part of their conquerer's nation.

 

[21oliver]

Throughout history some nations have always fought for independence with more fervor then others, some seem to be ok with being conquered as if it didnt matter who ruled them, others fought on even with no visible hope in sight. Sometimes it simply had to do with the history of the people in question as well.

 

[unmerged(181758)]

1.5
7
11
19

Are these the same as in SF and what file is it under and how do they exactly effect things and operate? (I normally choose Military Occupation, is that the 7?)

 

[CplKatie]

in the commons folder there is a file called "occupation policies" they are the partisan support values of the 4 primary choices(civil war being the 5th). They decide the spawn chances of partisans in the occupied provinces. In occupied territory there is a seperate hidden value for supply transfer costs that is seperate from occupation policies and is in the static modifiers file.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

No it has everything to do with the will of the conquered people not the will of the conquerers. nationalism is a steadier average revoltrisk that can't be suppressed but slowly degrades over time. occupation revoltrisk can be suppressed by the military in the short term but once their hope has been crushed(their faction has lost) they will revert to being a part of their conquerer's nation.

I think PI significantly overestimates partisan strength in the Soviet Union. In November 1942, there were about 47,000 partisans in Belarus. However, in Lithuania which was annexed not occupied, there were 20,000 partisans in 1944. Belarus had 3 times large population. It means there would have been about 60,000 partisans in Lithuania with the same population. If 47,000 is 19% then 60,000 equals to 24 or 4 times higher nationalism than it is now. Don't forget, Belarusian partisans had direct support form the Soviet Union while Lithuanians were completely isolated.

I maintain my position that Total Exploitation partisan support is way too high and Collaboration is way too low. France population was 6 times large than Belarus (but we should remember the existence of Vichy). There were about 100,000 partisans before landings in 1944 that makes 7% partisan support under collaboration regime. In 4 months the number rose to 400,000 or 28%.

So why Total Exploitation partisan support is so overestimated and Collaboration is so much underestimated?

 

[21oliver]

as i was suggesting, resistance of all kinds was something that was unique to basically each and every society, it really isnt something you can cookie cutter and create one that fits all nations. Some nations throughout history would continue to fight on against impossible odds, others would give up quickly and embrace their conquerers and not care at all. each nation is unique, and should be represented, or at least have diff levels seperating them.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

Actually I think, we are affected to much by our own ideology. There is too much prejudice towards the Total Exploitation and too much lenience toward the Collaboration policy. We should forget our prejudices and look into the facts.

If we take 6% during annexation as a basis (Lithuania 1944), then the Total Exploitation equals to 5% (Belarus) and Collaboration 2% (France pre D-Day). If we assume that Lithuanians extremely hated the Soviets and were afraid of further repressions, we can double the Total Exploitation to 10% and then Collaboration becomes 4%. In no way the TE should be 19% and Collaboration 1.5%.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

Are these the same as in SF and what file is it under and how do they exactly effect things and operate? (I normally choose Military Occupation, is that the 7?)

I think before it was

1
2
5
10

Basically if Collaboration and Military Government were obvious choice, then now Collaboration is the only choice as MG's partisan support was increased 3.5 times.

 

[CplKatie]

Historical accuracy is not exactly possible in a game but just to point out, theres more to occupation/annexation than partisan support/partisan efficiency, theres also "local_revoltrisk" and minimum revolt risk/nationalism as well as underground resistance that the lithuanian or russian countries can employ. The problem is that they can't get the AI to act as a player would, essentially underground resistance is a player only function, it can be used by an AI, but it lacks something called intelligence

 

[unmerged(47028)]

I agree that historical accuracy in not possible but the current occupation policies make no sense neither historically nor game balance. The Full occupation and Total Exploitation are used only by AI in post 1939 scenarios which simply cripples AI and unbalances the game.

Players and AI (not defined by scenario) chose only Collaboration (some of them used Military Government pre the FTM) because other policies are completely unbalanced. The problem with the Collaboration that Partisan support is unhistorically low and therefore Military Police and any policing is completely useless.

 

[CplKatie]

You agree that historical accuracy is not possible but then continue to complain that it makes no sense historically. As for game balance, the later scenarios have alot more problems than occupation policies, heres a good one for you, explain how japan can use total exploitation on nationalist china in 1939 They can't have access to that law yet somehow its enabled. I use full occupation as japan all the time, its easier to use than stacking suppression on provinces and as long as your supply lines dont go through the area your fine. Only russia and china get collaboration, until I annex china then its the annex code.