-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would also like to point out that there are no units in holland other than 1 island and theres actually very little troops in occupied territory other than china. your scripted tests you first posted had to be fabricated cause theres no troops drawing supply in those lands. The increasing supply numbers is unrelated to our tests, it has to do with the army in china not being fed enough supplies. so the Supply slider says it needs to be increased. The supply is there it just can't travel fast enoughto get through all the low infra. the games starting at war with troops waaaay out in china, over time it will start to correct.
That is interesting. My game adds percentages before multiplying the base number. Yours is multiplying percentages. Could you show your picture of the same spot? My game is FTM 3.05.
15-75-3+5+25=-33; 7*.67=4.69
15-75-3+5+25=-33; 7*.67=4.69
I actually did show it, click on my post 2 posts up they are links under text.
Thanks. Your picture shows 1.4 and not 2.6 
This is because the tool tip has to be re-setted. It automatically resets on the 1st of each month. So run the scenario until the first of march and you will see the correct number. As you can see your tool tip still keeps incorrect revolt risk.
This is because the tool tip has to be re-setted. It automatically resets on the 1st of each month. So run the scenario until the first of march and you will see the correct number. As you can see your tool tip still keeps incorrect revolt risk.
There are troops in Burma
So no fabrication. Besides supplies in China have no affect as I do not change policies in China on the test results.
Last edited:
There are troops in Burma
LOL, 95% of the entire japanese army is in manchukuo, china, or Japan. theres a total of 18 combat brigades in occupied territory other than china(9 are in ports so that means no supply increase). You can't count china because my original point stated that active fronts get collaboration government. Technically I also wouldn't have full occupation on the UK either...but ya gotta admit, this scenario was not built for a japanese player, its god awfully screwed up. Regardless, I think my screenshots make it very clear, full occupation and total exploitation is very useful in regions that do not need to be supplied at all. So for germany, denmark, sweden, and norway could do with some total exploitation, maybe even the french coast as well. Technically I only use full occupation if I need resources though, cause I'd rather have leadership as japan.
No, I am writing about 1943 scenario test. I can not fabricate your tests can I?
However, I ask you once again. Could you please run tests on your save game?
I need gain or losses of Coal, Metal, Rare Material, Oil, Manpower, Leadership, total IC and Net IC (minus supplies and Consume Goods) with the CG and with the FO. Run 2 days with the FO before taking results. Then reload the same game and run 2 days with the CG.
Look heres how I know you doctored the screenshot, your excuse...that the percents are added up? Why is the other screenshot matching my line up method and your second screenshot....quite simply, was photoshopped lol. Moreso than that, you are trying to prove a point that is just not true, why would the occupation cost you more resources even though the provinces give you dramatically way more resources? Do you think that somehow there is a hidden cost of something? You get more IC, more resources out of strict occupation, and you lose out on manpower/leadership. Also due to a bug, you can stack suppression units onto resource provinces and neutralize the penalties to manpower/leadership in a full occupation. Theres absolutely no way your so called tests can actually work, if anything...if you are trully honest....you got a bad install of the game going on if your screenshot was not photoshopped. Your left picture adds up right, your right has a photoshopped value on it lol.
Plus my screenshots are full screen and were taken by steam, yours are partial, edited to some lower quality format, and uploaded to a third party, I literally can't edit my screenshot, its steams.
Plus my screenshots are full screen and were taken by steam, yours are partial, edited to some lower quality format, and uploaded to a third party, I literally can't edit my screenshot, its steams.
I think you didn't read my post about the tool tip. Have you run the 1943 scenario until the 1st of March with the CG? Take a shot on the 1st of March and upload.
I need your numbers before I can comment about your game.
I need your numbers before I can comment about your game.
I know what you are trying to do with the test, you see how 99% of the occupied area is empty so if you run amonth long test as total exploitation theres on average 3-6 partisans that spawn, in my only attempt at humoring you, I lost dagu and 2 sorrounding provinces, singapore and kuala lumpur, and palembang from partisans spawning. Thats alot of lost resources due to an empty order of battle. Singapore is a convoy port for resources and dagu is a gateway province around the hub for the mengukuko convoy. I would not have lost singapore, kuala, palembang, or dagu if it was my save game, furthermore Id have MP's stacked on provinces boosting the manpower and leadership during full occupation making it even more useful than collaboration government.
No I need a picture of Soerabaja on 1 March but run the scenario with the CG. Ignore everything else. I need just a picture which will show the correct tool tip as the game does not reset tool tip on the other days. Upload the picture.
Your tool tip clearly shows Revolt Risk of 38% in the Collaboration picture. Can't you see it? This is because the Revolt Risk number is incorrect. However, the game calculates the correct number number from the day one.
My collaboration picture was made on 1 March 1943 when the tool tip was reset.
Your tool tip clearly shows Revolt Risk of 38% in the Collaboration picture. Can't you see it? This is because the Revolt Risk number is incorrect. However, the game calculates the correct number number from the day one.
My collaboration picture was made on 1 March 1943 when the tool tip was reset.
Last edited:
Guys, things like that should be solved by PM. When you have real data, present it here.
I do not mind, Cybvep, but my PM keeps filling up all the time
Besides maybe somebody will add something.
Besides maybe somebody will add something.
OK, please bear in mind that I'm still playing SF, but yeah I found Military Government's 2% the highest Partisan supporting setting that I can manage with a Police network. Looking at things that Police network is going to have to be in divisional pairs of MP Bgds, rather than as just as single individual Bgds, which is still fine for Collaboration's 1%. The range is two Provinces from all units which have Suppression, very roughly at 1/3 of the Division I think. May be I'll still set up that net as a double layer of MP Bgds, rather than in paired binary Police Divisions. I'll have to take another look at this.
So mnplastic's assessment of the impact of the FTM high partisan supporting settings is quite accurate. I'm not entirely sure just what exactly this 'Partisan Support' percentage is actually precisely representing in historical terms, but in game terms if it was set at that 4% minimum mnplastic is suggesting as realistic even for Collaboration I reckon that would be unmanageable. It would require players to commit large numbers of units to be able to reduce it effectively over a wide area, garrisoned Pacific Islands excepted.
Interestingly, suppressing units seemed to have boats, because the range of Suppression goes through bodies of water to third and even fourth Provinces to affect them at the same rate. So from a coastally placed unit it conducts itself over the Sea tile as the first Province and reaches any further coastal land Provinces it borders that are beyond its normal two land Province range. See Riga as an example in mid war scenarios.
So mnplastic's assessment of the impact of the FTM high partisan supporting settings is quite accurate. I'm not entirely sure just what exactly this 'Partisan Support' percentage is actually precisely representing in historical terms, but in game terms if it was set at that 4% minimum mnplastic is suggesting as realistic even for Collaboration I reckon that would be unmanageable. It would require players to commit large numbers of units to be able to reduce it effectively over a wide area, garrisoned Pacific Islands excepted.
Interestingly, suppressing units seemed to have boats, because the range of Suppression goes through bodies of water to third and even fourth Provinces to affect them at the same rate. So from a coastally placed unit it conducts itself over the Sea tile as the first Province and reaches any further coastal land Provinces it borders that are beyond its normal two land Province range. See Riga as an example in mid war scenarios.
Basically don't use total exploitation in a supply line territory and you are fine since you really don't need to supply much in a dead end occupation like denmark/western france, scandinavia other than ports and if you set the ports to manual then the supply comes from ports that don't travel across a province at all causing no increase to supply taxes. Also I believe somehow, ships cause a suppression effect, I don't know how but docked ships reduced revoltrisk in port provinces.
They are having an interesting discussion about a game-feature, why should that be done through PM where no one will notice it ?
I'm definitely not seeing ships doing that. I've just tried the move to the port for a month, then rebased to the port they are docked in for another month, but the Suppression from the local ground units stayed the same. It was short of the actual partisan support, but since these were the start of game garrison units the level of partisan support stayed the same.
It seems to me that the level of partisan support goes to the level which the occupation policy sets as the maximum, unless there is some Suppression being applied. When that suppression amount is less then that setting, it only reduces it from that level by that much. If the suppression is more then the partisan support setting then it declines eventually to zero and ceases to show up in the tooltip.
So that Occupational policy setting number is really critical then. FTM's FE 19 is just ridiculously gangbusters because how ever Suppression is being calculated it is at least close to approximately halving it from units in their own Provinces and seems to only be using a small percentage in the radii Provinces. How many ground units need to be committed in that framework to actually reduce a partisan support factor of 19, a superstack?
I assume, CplKatie you have checked Soerabaja on 1 March and I do not have to convince you that I have not edited my picture.
The fact is that all modifiers are added before multiplying.
I was hopping you will give me numbers from your own 1936 Japan game. As it is really interesting. I must admit that there could be some benefit in a way you are using the FO. In my Lithuanian game I did the same with Norway, Sweden and Denmark but I was using Military Government as it was the highest possible for Lithuania and besides in SF the MG partisan support was just 2%.
The current system encourages to use the CG in territories where it was historically the TE; and use the TE (if useful at all) where it was historically the CG simply because you have access to port and do not need to keep troops there.
Unfortunately AI is not clever enough to understand that the TE in the USSR is the destruction of its economy to the Stone Age
The fact is that all modifiers are added before multiplying.
I was hopping you will give me numbers from your own 1936 Japan game. As it is really interesting. I must admit that there could be some benefit in a way you are using the FO. In my Lithuanian game I did the same with Norway, Sweden and Denmark but I was using Military Government as it was the highest possible for Lithuania and besides in SF the MG partisan support was just 2%.
The current system encourages to use the CG in territories where it was historically the TE; and use the TE (if useful at all) where it was historically the CG simply because you have access to port and do not need to keep troops there.
Unfortunately AI is not clever enough to understand that the TE in the USSR is the destruction of its economy to the Stone Age