I am sure 2% is too small, so we can go to the middle - 3%. That would give 4.5% for the MG, 6% for the Full Occupation, hence equals to the Annexation, and 7.5% for the Total Exploitation.
-
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 am sure 2% is too small, so we can go to the middle - 3%. That would give 4.5% for the MG, 6% for the Full Occupation, hence equals to the Annexation, and 7.5% for the Total Exploitation.
The cheif complaint here is easily avoided if you do not play any campaigns other than 36 campaigns. The AI will not employ tougher policies if it conquers the land and gets to apply a policy itself. The later scenarios...while littered with many mistakes, also stupidly lock the AI's into really moronic policies..and in the case of japan, impossible to have policies. Hirohito won't ever be removed from office 
I'd even argue that some of the various complaints about japan failing in china..is probably because the player is not playing a 36 campaign, all other campaigns japan starts with TE in china....which is a complete disaster. lets face it, many german/US players skip some early years and then notice japan falling apart in their games...this is the culprit...maybe Someone in paradox is reading this and will realize the mistake.
I'd even argue that some of the various complaints about japan failing in china..is probably because the player is not playing a 36 campaign, all other campaigns japan starts with TE in china....which is a complete disaster. lets face it, many german/US players skip some early years and then notice japan falling apart in their games...this is the culprit...maybe Someone in paradox is reading this and will realize the mistake.
No, I'm happy with 1% for CG & 2% for MG in SF ATM, I'm not switching to FTM until this and a few other things are hopefully balanced, otherwise...
For it to be higher like 3-4% for CG etc, the way Suppression is applied would have to be massively improved or the suppression numbers massively increased to be balanced enough for a player to guard against or reduce it with a reasonable amount of force in game. I'm still struggling against that 2% of MG in SF. This is what I'm seeing, my binary Police Division net (many 2xMP) has a +1.95% in its non-doubled radii Provinces against that 2%, so even that leaves most Provinces not green on the RR map. A full 3xINF Div only has +0.36 in two distant radii (Zone of Control) Provinces which would struggle against CG 1% let alone MG 2% or more. It would take a full 5 Div Corps stacked with a HQ present to prevent PS/RR from getting out of hand in an area of a few Provinces against MG's 2%. You'd need two Corps against 3-4 or more Corps against more.
Against FTM's 19 for TE, no chance really to get that down without a spread of superstacks or 2 full Police Divs in each Province. The 10% of TE in SF would probably require a Police Div to eliminate it.
Partisan Support / Revolt Risk are two separate things, one is a measure of resistance including sabotage while the other is the likelihood of an actual large rebellion. I'm not sure exactly what PI was trying to achieve with the changes in this area they made in FTM, more Uprisings or greater levels of sabotage but they did what they did. But something is not balanced here, mnplastic's 6% FO & 7.5% TE sound much better.
(Right back at'cha!)
For it to be higher like 3-4% for CG etc, the way Suppression is applied would have to be massively improved or the suppression numbers massively increased to be balanced enough for a player to guard against or reduce it with a reasonable amount of force in game. I'm still struggling against that 2% of MG in SF. This is what I'm seeing, my binary Police Division net (many 2xMP) has a +1.95% in its non-doubled radii Provinces against that 2%, so even that leaves most Provinces not green on the RR map. A full 3xINF Div only has +0.36 in two distant radii (Zone of Control) Provinces which would struggle against CG 1% let alone MG 2% or more. It would take a full 5 Div Corps stacked with a HQ present to prevent PS/RR from getting out of hand in an area of a few Provinces against MG's 2%. You'd need two Corps against 3-4 or more Corps against more.
Against FTM's 19 for TE, no chance really to get that down without a spread of superstacks or 2 full Police Divs in each Province. The 10% of TE in SF would probably require a Police Div to eliminate it.
Partisan Support / Revolt Risk are two separate things, one is a measure of resistance including sabotage while the other is the likelihood of an actual large rebellion. I'm not sure exactly what PI was trying to achieve with the changes in this area they made in FTM, more Uprisings or greater levels of sabotage but they did what they did. But something is not balanced here, mnplastic's 6% FO & 7.5% TE sound much better.
(Right back at'cha!)
I have done some tests again.
I chose December 1941 scenario because German OOB and occupied territory is the closest to the 1942 Summer Offensive. I know that the scenario starts in winter but perhaps winter does not cause huge supply taxation as I have not noticed it before.
In 1942, Germans managed to make a huge offensive in the southern Soviet Union. It means with the Total Exploitation in the Soviet Union,HOI3 Germans should have enough IC for Supplies, Upgrades and Production to pull this operation.
The first picture shows German and the Soviet front line.
Current Total Exploitation Partisan support 19%. It is obvious that 19% is way too high and make neither Historical nor game balancing sense. PI should change this parameter ASAP. Now, when we know that it must be changed we have to consider to what.
This picture shows SF support rate 10%, which I have criticised probably 1 year ago but nobody noticed it. It is obvious that even 10% is unreasonable as Germans do not have IC for anything else except Supplies, which is incorrect historically and too punitive in the game. Germans would have never chose the Total Exploitation if that mean 0 production and upgrades. Don’t forget that moving South to Stalingrad and Caucasus would cause even more strain to the supply system. However, Germans managed to build Tigers by the end of 1942, didn’t they?
This last picture shows results with 7.5% which is historically much more accurate (please see my previous posts and estimations) and it makes sense for game balancing. After expenditure for Supplies and Consumer Goods, Germans still have 74 IC left for a further offensive and Tiger tanks. I am not sure if other Total Exploitation parameters should be changed too but it is definitely that Partisan Support should not be higher than 7.5% unless we use our prejudice and think that it is evil and players should be strictly discouraged from using it even when it is completely ahistorical.
I chose December 1941 scenario because German OOB and occupied territory is the closest to the 1942 Summer Offensive. I know that the scenario starts in winter but perhaps winter does not cause huge supply taxation as I have not noticed it before.
In 1942, Germans managed to make a huge offensive in the southern Soviet Union. It means with the Total Exploitation in the Soviet Union,HOI3 Germans should have enough IC for Supplies, Upgrades and Production to pull this operation.
The first picture shows German and the Soviet front line.
Current Total Exploitation Partisan support 19%. It is obvious that 19% is way too high and make neither Historical nor game balancing sense. PI should change this parameter ASAP. Now, when we know that it must be changed we have to consider to what.
This picture shows SF support rate 10%, which I have criticised probably 1 year ago but nobody noticed it. It is obvious that even 10% is unreasonable as Germans do not have IC for anything else except Supplies, which is incorrect historically and too punitive in the game. Germans would have never chose the Total Exploitation if that mean 0 production and upgrades. Don’t forget that moving South to Stalingrad and Caucasus would cause even more strain to the supply system. However, Germans managed to build Tigers by the end of 1942, didn’t they?
This last picture shows results with 7.5% which is historically much more accurate (please see my previous posts and estimations) and it makes sense for game balancing. After expenditure for Supplies and Consumer Goods, Germans still have 74 IC left for a further offensive and Tiger tanks. I am not sure if other Total Exploitation parameters should be changed too but it is definitely that Partisan Support should not be higher than 7.5% unless we use our prejudice and think that it is evil and players should be strictly discouraged from using it even when it is completely ahistorical.
How is this a point? All I see here is a really bad strategy of invading russia, for starters dont use total exploitation if you can't afford the throughput. Secondly, wheres the suppression units in your pipeline? Where is the suppression period? There are literally no units suppressing supply taxes, it looks like a classic new player strategy or someone trying to play arcade style in normal mode. Ofcourse occupations are going to look worse when you don't plan around them. The reason the supply goes up in the Production window is because the units are slowly losing their 30days supply and the number above the slider is how much to produce to fill the 30 days of all the units on the battlefield, the supply is there its just bottlenecked due to throughput problems.
Ah, thanks for the screenies mnplastic, I see what you are getting at there. That helps to make a lot of sense of this.
Also, it is hard to see but looking at the Rares for the 3 pics only the -20 something of the 7.5% would be most manageable too, Germany can have all the IC production she wants but her lowest industrial resource is the limiting determinator ultimately.
TE in SF was already a game balance killer for late start AI positions, let alone now in FTM just in terms of resource/IC impacts - now what about the hyper supply transfer cost malus?
Supply throughput problems exponentially increased - exactly.
Also, it is hard to see but looking at the Rares for the 3 pics only the -20 something of the 7.5% would be most manageable too, Germany can have all the IC production she wants but her lowest industrial resource is the limiting determinator ultimately.
TE in SF was already a game balance killer for late start AI positions, let alone now in FTM just in terms of resource/IC impacts - now what about the hyper supply transfer cost malus?
Supply throughput problems exponentially increased - exactly.
You should complain to PI or Hitler for invading that way because this is December 1941 scenario set up. I assume that Hitler and his generals were new players This exactly what I want to point out that unless somebody is playing arcade mode it is not sustainable under current the Total Exploitation system. The fact German army starts the scenario fully supplied but in a few weeks following the start of the game it will starve to death.The thing is, you have never tried to invade the Soviet Union with the Total Exploitation. It doesn't matter how many suppression units you will put there the result will be the same
Last edited:
Have you tried to naval invade with armor repeatedly? The thing is it doesn't matter how many transports you have, the penalties are so severe its better to use another unit...
Have you ever tried using total exploitation in a region your army is fighting in? The supply taxes are so bad you have to use another policy till your army has moved on....
Does that explain to you now how pointless the discussion is? You are trying to light a fire with a bucket of water. Total exploitation has penalties that cannot be overcome with long supply lines so dont use it in those situations...pretty no brainer there.
Furthermore, I've said this, and theres plenty of posts out there, any scenario other than 36 is HUGELY screwed up for many nations especially for an AI running the nations. Its your fault for wanting to play those scenarios, they dont make sense and are poorly balanced. Only a 36 promises balance...for what balance we can achieve atleast.
Have you ever tried using total exploitation in a region your army is fighting in? The supply taxes are so bad you have to use another policy till your army has moved on....
Does that explain to you now how pointless the discussion is? You are trying to light a fire with a bucket of water. Total exploitation has penalties that cannot be overcome with long supply lines so dont use it in those situations...pretty no brainer there.
Furthermore, I've said this, and theres plenty of posts out there, any scenario other than 36 is HUGELY screwed up for many nations especially for an AI running the nations. Its your fault for wanting to play those scenarios, they dont make sense and are poorly balanced. Only a 36 promises balance...for what balance we can achieve atleast.
You didn't get the point. Of course I can get around it and of course every single player will choose the Collaboration. However, this is exactly the point. If Germans historically managed to reach Stalingrad with the Total Exploitation why player is not allowed to do it? Why PI is giving 4 Occupation Policies but only 1 really can be used? I think this is because of unreasonable prejudice towards the Total Exploitation or misunderstanding of the game system which I am trying to point out.
I want to have a choice It is very simple to change for PI and I hope they will hear me out one day. It would make the game much better for the balance purposes and historical accuracy.
I want to have a choice
It is very simple to change for PI and I hope they will hear me out one day. It would make the game much better for the balance purposes and historical accuracy.
This is supply situation in the Eastern Front.
This is partisan activity. Daring Soviet partisans are stealing German ammunition even from German trenches during the battle
This is partisan activity. Daring Soviet partisans are stealing German ammunition even from German trenches during the battle
Then choose it, Do you want me to play a german game with total exploitation? I can ifyou want, I know how to beat russia as japan from the otherside...with an even longer worse supply line. Its how you play the game that is the problem, you don't adapt to the setting you stare at it as a bug when its just a puzzle you can't solve.
partisans do not steal supply. Revoltrisk applies a penalty to transfers, because the throughput isn't met the units dont get their full days supply each day and slowly their reserves drain, in the production screen the number for supplies you have to meet is how much supply you would need to fill all your units 30days supply if they were sitting in berlin. THe number goes up because the supply physically can't be moved to the units because of the unsuppressed supply lines. If you had individual MP brigades in those lines you would not have a supply problem, if you had an air supply bridge setup you would not have that problem. This is you, unable to figure out the puzzle of revoltrisk.
partisans do not steal supply. Revoltrisk applies a penalty to transfers, because the throughput isn't met the units dont get their full days supply each day and slowly their reserves drain, in the production screen the number for supplies you have to meet is how much supply you would need to fill all your units 30days supply if they were sitting in berlin. THe number goes up because the supply physically can't be moved to the units because of the unsuppressed supply lines. If you had individual MP brigades in those lines you would not have a supply problem, if you had an air supply bridge setup you would not have that problem. This is you, unable to figure out the puzzle of revoltrisk.
Do it with Japan with the Total Exploitation (which they would have had definitely used) on hard level from the other side
With air bridges supply taxes do not apply. I can and did invade all the way to moscow with a large force using airbridges, each bridge reset the supply tax, at most you pay for about 13 provinces supply taxes and even then you can air supply past the taxes to fill a units 30 days. YOu really are just not seeing the puzzle right. It won't matter what occupation policy you use, its the fact that you don't know how to manage revoltrisk that makes it look bad in your comparisons.
I have found another inconsistency related to the Occupational Policies. There is a nice rule that partisan support builds up gradually. However, if you had the TE and then change it to the CG then there is no gradual decline of the partisan support. The effect is almost immediate which resets the support to 0-3%. Because of this bug, you can then change the policy back to the TE and enjoy low partisan support for a while again.
Partisan support should not disappear immediately just because you choose more lenient policy. It should lower gradually as it increases.
Partisan support should not disappear immediately just because you choose more lenient policy. It should lower gradually as it increases.
Last edited:
Interesting mnplastic, I thought it was gradual if you switch Occupation Policies, but then again I'm fire and forget on them, which I suspect most players would be too. I mean who swaps them about much really.
The main problem is for those terrible late start scenarios the AI doesn't or can't change them, which is probably the reason why the AI fails as German & Japan.
Everybody else doesn't choose TE or TO generally for large areas when they ought to be more viable to give the historical option.
The main problem is for those terrible late start scenarios the AI doesn't or can't change them, which is probably the reason why the AI fails as German & Japan.
Everybody else doesn't choose TE or TO generally for large areas when they ought to be more viable to give the historical option.
Supply tax is applied each day off two values, one is fixed and the other is in the occupation policy, whatever occupation poicy is in effect on the end of a day is what the tax applies with. So gaming the occupation policy will only yield increased resources but still hurt your supply throughput immensely. All you gain from messing with the policy is a less chance of a partisan spawning from hour 1-23 and a slightly less penalty to resource extraction in the revoltrisk penalty.
So before I invade I should build enough MPs to make a safe line from capital to frontline? If so, do I need a MP every province or every other province? Also on the "air bridge," how many TRAs would I need to supply roughly 150 Brigades, just throw in a guess, plz.
EDIT: If I make a nice for the supply to travel through MP occupied provinces, will it follow that path? Thanks for any answers.
I find this thread very interesting.... I would like to see the game allow for the player to use diferent logistic strategies, like opting for truck convoys or using rail lines and the ability to build better roads and rail and also reasearch such things as better trucks and armored trains.
Cheers!
EDIT: If I make a nice for the supply to travel through MP occupied provinces, will it follow that path? Thanks for any answers.
I find this thread very interesting.... I would like to see the game allow for the player to use diferent logistic strategies, like opting for truck convoys or using rail lines and the ability to build better roads and rail and also reasearch such things as better trucks and armored trains.
Cheers!
Last edited:
supply does not follow suppression, it follows the least amount of provinces with the highest throughput(infrastructure without mud/snow if possible)
@ Playerguy11 Sorry, but I'm not sure on the number of Air Transports you'd need for an 'Air Bridge' to 150 Brigades, not sure it's possible. It wasn't at Stalingrad for less than half of that! I mostly use them for specific drops to one to two Provos at the end of the 'frog leap of supplies' along a chain of airbases so I'm generally working it out by just those single provinces at the end and how much they need. I'm not very good at it, but I wouldn't recommend trying to rely upon it for very large forces.
No you don't need to put an MP in each of your supply line provinces, helps in higher settings (FO/FE) but even then not enough, for CG you probably can place them with 4 provinces between each but for MG you seem to need them 2 provinces apart or to place 2xMP Divisions as before with 4 provinces between, although it might be short at times. I think also it can fluctuate and the partisan support/revolt risk can rise and fall at times, but once you get it to zero it can take a bit to get going against you again, on the plus side.
My current theory is that in the Province a unit is in its Suppression value is a third and for the next two a third of that, anyway it is quite a reduction, you don't appear to get the full 5 Suppression points from the MP Bgd.
No you don't need to put an MP in each of your supply line provinces, helps in higher settings (FO/FE) but even then not enough, for CG you probably can place them with 4 provinces between each but for MG you seem to need them 2 provinces apart or to place 2xMP Divisions as before with 4 provinces between, although it might be short at times. I think also it can fluctuate and the partisan support/revolt risk can rise and fall at times, but once you get it to zero it can take a bit to get going against you again, on the plus side.
My current theory is that in the Province a unit is in its Suppression value is a third and for the next two a third of that, anyway it is quite a reduction, you don't appear to get the full 5 Suppression points from the MP Bgd.