Occupational Policies

[unmerged(47028)]

You agree that historical accuracy is not possible but then continue to complain that it makes no sense historically.

Yes but then my real complaint is about the game balance which doesn't exists. I can sacrifice some game balance if it is at least historically accurate but then it neither historically accurate nor game balance then it makes no sense at all


More or less historically accurate and game balance would if:

Collaboration - 4
Military Government - 6
Full Occupation - 8
Total Exploitation - 10

Actually the highest partisan support began in 1944 when Germans were close to the defeat. Closer it was more support and it didn't really much matter what type of Policy was in place.

 

[CplKatie]

I think the reason the balance is missing is because you are either playing on very easy or the AI is broken and wont' employ underground resistances as often in your games. The whole point of FTM was the introduction of player influenced resistance.

 

[Cybvep]

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.

Agreed. It doesn't make much sense to introduce policies that nobody will use. It is especially important when considering the fact that the AI cannot change occupation policies, while the player can.

If one policy gives much higher revolt risk, then its other bonuses should be much higher, too. There was no such thing as "the revolt risk" IRL - we use such abstract concept to represent various elements of reality and it is often impossible to determine how high they should be in order to be "historical". In cases like this we should have balance in mind - otherwise nobody will use other options. If sth is crucial for semi-historical results and there are no other ways of representing it properly, then it should be enforced. If there is choice, it should have some meaning.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

I think the reason the balance is missing is because you are either playing on very easy or the AI is broken and wont' employ underground resistances as often in your games. The whole point of FTM was the introduction of player influenced resistance.

No, I think you never played with the Total Exploitation. I offer try it on let's say Hard level and then tell if you feel it is in any way balanced

 

[CplKatie]

Why would a japanese player choose collaboration government for holland, uk, france, australia, and the USA(before mainland invasion)? I think you guys are falling victim to only thinking of europe/germany for balance, there are alot of scenarios where those occupation policies you claim are useless are quite useful. I WISH I had access to total exploitation as japan, I'd use it every game regardless of very hard or easy. Some game features are really pointless to use for some scenarios and countries, thats the nature of a grandscale game like this one.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

I am almost sure that you actually never looked at Occupational Policies results.

I just started 1938 scenario as Japan as it has Total Exploitation Policy in China.

		TE	CG
Coal		105.45	124
Metal		2.92	11.71
Rare Materials	-14.83	-10.72
Oil		-73.95	-69.45
		
Manpower	31.5	35.1
Leadership	21.26	22.86
IC		93.07	128.85

These numbers show gains or losses. IC is net IC following deduction of Consumer Goods and Supplies.

All the items are in favour of the Collaboration Policy. So why would you choose the Total Exploitation?

 

[unmerged(47028)]

Another example: 1943 Germany

		TE	CG
Coal		1097.31	964.49
Metal		348.53	368.69
Rare Materials	12.25	5.73
Oil		-163.51	-151.91
		
Manpower	54.1	57.6
Leadership	40.27	42.36
IC		-195.55	175.68

The Total Exploitation of the Soviet Union gives you a bit more Coal and Rare Materials. However, why would you need that if your IC is -195.55. Yes, MINUS :wacko:. And now imagine how German AI which can not change the TE to the CG has to survive? Of course any player would immediately change the policy but AI is crippled permanently.

 

[Cybvep]

Also, with higher revolt risk, partisans appear more frequently and supply lines are more strained.

 

[CplKatie]

I think you guys need to play a japan 36 campaign on very hard a few times to know what I am talking about. I am not talking about the occupation of china or any warlord, I'm talking about the occupation of India, malaysia, indonesia, papau new guinea, australia, and the various allied islands. All that matters is resource extraction and IC. port defense forces do not get a supply penalty, only the occasional indian anti partisan would be getting supplies that cost more. You are only occupying china during the war, it never joins a faction and becomes annexed shortly after attacking them. I'm at war with china for about 3 months in every game and I choose collaboration government during that time to help with supply flow. I do not use full occupation for nations I'm still fighting in, I use it for areas that I've moved on from. Furthermore you can't have total exploitation as japan, thats a scenario mistake on paradox's part giving total exploitation to japan in that campaign. Its not actually possible without a regime change.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

I have checked 1943 Japan scenario. All occupied territories have the TE except Australia (the CG). I have changed Australia to the FO. In the second test I have changed all allied territories to the FO except China which remained the same. Results:

		TE	CG
Coal		176	185.87
Metal		34.79	39.43
Rare Materials	169.79	172.11
Oil		-61.25	-58.55
		
Manpower	44.1	44.9
Leadership	24.08	25.82
IC		117.35	121.57

As we can see the CG is better in all accounts. The enormous partisan support destroys all the benefits. So, CplKatie you lose nothing by not having the CG Don't forget you would also have 14 times higher revolt risk.

 

[CplKatie]

Sorry, I have the exact same test only with a 1936 start as japan and a well played game. When i switch my occupied island nations to FO I get gains out of metal, oil, and rares that I don't see when they are in CG. I don't care or want to know how you are doing your tests, cause its quite obvious to me that I am right. I don't need to prove you wrong. If what you are saying was true, my daily gains of my resources would reflect the same thing as you but they simply prove me right.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

The FO's partisan support is twice as low as the TE

 

[CplKatie]

Yeah I decided to check the 43 campaign and what I say is how it is, FO yields much better returns for resources regardless of partisan support. You are either making your numbers up or are playing with some sort of odd mod to your partisan/local revoltrisk. Anybody is welcome to check, start a 43 as japan, switch the TE to FO(because japan is not supposed to have total exploitation anyway) and let it sit for a while so the convoys update, then switch to CG and watch the gains drop to deficits.

 

[CplKatie]

The FO's partisan support is twice as low as the TE

Do you even know how occupied territory works? Simple tooltips will show you that partisans do not effect the extraction of resources from a province, they only effect supply transfer costs and partisan spawn chance. Look at the tooltips for the resources lol. Why on earth would they even need the other settings in occupation policies if the partisan support directly modified the resource rates...that'd be a needless setting lol.


EDIT: It is literally impossible to duplicate your numbers unless you somehow reversed the settings by accident.

EDIT: They do effect resources but not as dramatically as you think, simply looking at the resources and mousing over them in a province will show you in real time the differences between the occupation polices and show you that his so called tests were either fabricated or bugged by a poor install of the game.

 

[Cybvep]

because japan is not supposed to have total exploitation anyway

Have you read sth about WWII in Asia? If the Japanese occupation policy wasn't "total exploitation", then I don't know what was.

 

[CplKatie]

It has nothing to do with history and everything to do with game features. The reason he couldn't put australia to total exploitation in his so-called test trials was because in order to have total exploitation the Control Clique has to be removed from office. Thats not possible in this game without editing save games. This isn't an argument of history, its of testing game settings.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

I assume I am the one who is laughing the last? There is some gain in resources but then IC spent on extra supplies eats up the gain.

My test was simple. I started 1943 Japan scenario and run 1 day in both cases.

 

[CplKatie]

LOL

Yeah its as I thought, you really don't know what your talking about. In my game if I had that region I'd have 1 unit at all 3 ports for that land mass. No there would not be an increase in supply, the only thing that is effected by revoltrisk is provincial transfer costs and you are putting WAY too much emphasis on a number that is very tiny. If the units are in ports and manual convoys are set, then there is no transfer costs being incurred to those lands. Only australia would have limited increases due to 1 or 2 anti partisans and india has 5 anti partisans, but the sheer number of resource provinces I am talking about far out do any increases to supply. Again, my original statement before you went on your crusade of misinformation was that I use collaboration government wherever I have an active theatre full of troops.

I think why you german players place so much emphasis on the occupation policies is because your conquered lands all fall in your supply lines.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

Could you please run your test then and write the numbers? The FO is not the TE but still interesting. Include the Total IC and Net IC too.

 

[CplKatie]

7.00*1.15=8.05
8.05*.25=2.01
2.01*.97=1.95
1.95*1.05=2.05
2.05*1.25=2.6

I rounded numbers, my game view of this very same spot on the map with the same scenario shows a 2.4, so either your game has a really weird bug or you photoshopped the numbers. Great try, but ya shoulda modified the tooltip too if you were going to try that one on us.