Resistance/Garrison is very mess up & overly simplistic & non-intuitive

[goodcigar]

I been play game on my cousin computer. Different nation and it seem to me Resistance and Garrison are mess up and overly simplistic. First problem is Resistance can cause extreme insane number of casualty. I see high Resistance cause hundreds of thousand of casualty. Maybe even million eventually. This is crazy and goofy. It should never be possible for have hundreds of thousand/million casualty from Resistance.

Another problem is AI Garrison choosing is mess up and basically broken. It seem to me AI choose its Garrison template base only one one thing, the number of Battalion in template. It always use template that has least number of Battalion. AI does not care about Suppression value, Manpower per Suppression value, or Production per Suppression value. This AI behave is very dumb and leads to very high casualty and very high cost Garrison.

Another big problem is Garrison is non-intuitive and super overly simple. Quality of Garrison unit literally not matter at all. Only thing that matter is Manpower per Suppression value and Production per Suppression value and that it. So it very fake feeling and not intuitive. Field Hospital not help Garrison casualty at all. Garrison with new advance weapon no different than Garrison with 1934 weapon. Garrison with new advance vehicle no better than Garrison with 1934 vehicle. Garrison experience not matter at all. Because Garrison is not real unit. It just some kind of nebulous fractional non-unit. Which very weird and not realistic. Make it feel fake and gamey. Also Garrison/occupation force have no leader. Because Garrison not real unit.

In real life Garrison are real unit. They basic are units that are stationary and can't move around like normal field unit. That how Paradox should have made Garrison. Real unit with real name and real leader. With equipment and experience that matter. And can do operation against Resistance in their area. If have emergency then can pull Garrison out and move to another area, disband, or convert into field unit. If player have land occupied then player should be able to control what Resistance does.

On top of that, Resistance and Compliance are totally automated. Player cannot control what Resistance forces do at all. It just a meter that go up and down. Same with Compliance. Player has no control and no agency. It very boring and unfun. Literally only thing that matter/player can do with whole system is Manpower per Suppression value and Production per Suppression value and that it.

After play many hours with new Garrison/Resistance I not like new system at all. It boring, overly simple, non-intuitive, fake feeling, broken for AI, and not fun. This kind of DLC is example why Paradox should involve community when making new thing. If involve community it would be much better probably.

There is mod which try to fix some bug.

 

[Áurum]

One of the things I dislike most about resistance is that, when I improve my garrison units, that doesn't mean I'll get less resistance, it means I'll need less units to fill occupied states to fight resistance. So there's no real way to improve your garrison without changing occupation law.

 

[Simon_9732495]

Disagree.

1) Resistance has to have some effect. With minimal care about it the effect is pretty low. If you dont do anything or make mistakes you are punished and that is good.

2) The new system is better than the old system. In the old one you just slapped on the hardest law and spammed 500 divisions with 1 horse. Now you are rewarded in the long run for treating them better but you can decide to get better results in the short run with harsh laws. And in the old system you were able to annex a country and use their full industrial capacity in the next moment, which is not very realistic.

3) I'm fine with a high grade of automation. You have to do something about resistance now or you are punished. You cannot occupy a very big country as a very small country. But I dont want to have to deal all day with resistance and garrisons.

 

[goodcigar]

One of the things I dislike most about resistance is that, when I improve my garrison units, that doesn't mean I'll get less resistance, it means I'll need less units to fill occupied states. So there's no real way to improve your garrison without changing occupation law.

Yes Quality of Garrison not matter at all. Super simple dumb down system where only thing that matter is "Manpower per Suppression" and "Production per Suppression".

 

[jobarin94]

I for one like the new system very much, although I agree that the template design is a bit silly and could be more meaningful.
And it’s true that the AI isn’t great at handling resistance at the moment, but that should be fixed eventually.

 

[Mr.Bajskorv]

I for one like the new system very much, although I agree that the template design is a bit silly and could be more meaningful.
And it’s true that the AI isn’t great at handling resistance at the moment, but that should be fixed eventually.

I find the new system is much better.
But also that it's far from perfect the garrison template could be more complex.

 

[Vlad123]

the only thing you could do is put decisions / more spies / anti-resistance power ups in the game. Because right now, if you stay in peace and with the spies to the maximum, all three focused on knocking down the resistance, the compilance reaches decent levels in 2 years! 2 YEARS! And I'm not saying to do collaborative government! but at decent levels that the resistance drops by itself!

 

[Simon_9732495]

Because right now, if you stay in peace and with the spies to the maximum, all three focused on knocking down the resistance, the compilance reaches decent levels in 2 years! 2 YEARS!

Reducing resistance is not increasing compliance growth. In fact it's the opposite if you reduce resistance with harsher laws.

Compliance and resistance are 2 mechanics, which is good.

• If you crush resistance you do it with harsh methods and damage you long term compliance
• If you dont use harsh laws, in short term the resistance will go up, but in the long term it will be rewarded with more compliance

Compliance is very strong and I think you shouldn't be able to grow it faster. Maybe "collaboration government missions" are overpowered, but on the other hand they require quite some work from the player...

 

[Vlad123]

I know I know! But If I remember correctly if the compilance is high enough, the resistance is lowered. I know there are missions to increase the compilance ... but:
1) I cannot do them in all the states that I plan to capitulate
2) if there were more spies it would be possible.
3) the idea of the decisions are to make it easier to do everything, obviously paying in PP or CP ... maybe it makes it more manageable for those who don't have LaR and easier for those who have LaR ... but let's say it would be better if not it was all so castrated.

 

[Secret Master]

This is crazy and goofy. It should never be possible for have hundreds of thousand/million casualty from Resistance.

I don't think I've ever had a million casualties from resistance in any of my Germany playthroughs, even when occupying everything from Brest to Tashkent.

There are plenty of things you can do to reduce resistance and reduce casualties taken by garrison forces. Some options are more expensive than others, but there are several ways of handling resistance.

 

[Iskulya]

The resistance system works great. It's very easy to handle.

For some reason a lot of people seem utterly obsessed with the idea that they should be able to put on extremely lenient occupation laws like civilian oversight and expect resistance to be under control, that's nuts.

What you actually want to do is start with harsher occupation laws like secret police or martial law and slowly ratchet them down as compliance rises.

I've had about half of continental Europe under occupation as the Soviet Union(while at war!) and took only something like a little over 30k losses to resistance. If your'e getting high resistance casualties that's 100% your fault and you're just going about dealing with resistance in the wrong way. Of course that's with a prince of terror and the Soviet Union's spirit that reduces garrison damage by about 15%, but still, the numbers are still very low even accounting for that. When you handle it right you're actually getting more manpower from those states than you're losing in resistance losses. I'm not even assuming running collaboration missions, just occupying while at war 'naked'.

I've found armored cars to be prohibitively expensive with really large amounts of occupation(like occupying europe) while at war, so I usually stick with cavalry with Military police support company.

 

[Dlin369]

I like the new occupation system but I do wish there were actual units involved - ones you can summon on screen or send back into occupation. I think that way they can gain experience or have some more interaction with. Also maybe some other ways to alter/improve occupation units like field hospitals.

That being said, the new system in my opinion is good because it’s fairly automated while still giving players reasonable strategic choices of cost in terms of time, manpower and production

 

[Eisscrat]

Do occupation troops still use the newest equipment available instat the old tanks and weapons?

 

[geckoman1011]

Judging something by intuitiveness might not be the best thing, but Ive struggled with the new resistance mechanics. Not as much getting any real use out of my spies, but I agree that maybe the resistance/suppression dynamic isnt as good as it could be.

 

[Secret Master]

Do occupation troops still use the newest equipment available instat the old tanks and weapons?

Not always the newest, but a mix of whatever your factories are churning out.

I've tried everything to force garrisons to just use older infantry kits in my current game, but no matter what restrictions I put on templates or garrison priority, my production line producing tier 2 kits sends some of its output to garrisons instead of replacing kits at the front and sending the old crap to garrisons.

EDIT: But some of the new kits are also going to frontline divisions. :shrug:

That's the part of the system that's a damn nuisance.

 

[Bronterre]

I personally like the revamped resistance mechanics I like how you have sub divisional units modelled as being dispersed over a territory rather then the previous division sitting somewhere reducing area of resistance thing. I also like how many men and how much equipment it goes up and attritions as it makes you have to think as an expansionist power how will you deal with this. Id like field units to have some effect on resistance while on garrison mode as it seems silly they don't though obviously this should be much less effect then those in the garrison system through the menu. If they also took damage and maybe a trickle of xp at same time the better.

 

[Vlad123]

Years ago I had designed a very similar system for a game (which they did not implement for personal reasons of the manager) but it was "much deeper" ie I had foreseen a lot of possible problems. obviously the game was always about war, but with different mechanics ...

 

[dunka2]

You see quality of garrison troops does matter. Obviously there are strategies to limit resistance by putting oppression at secret police and then bringing it down as compliance rises, but the best way to protect your garrison troops manpower (which is the most important thing to protect) is through hardness. If you add some armoured cars or light tanks, you will notice a massive decline in casualties. That's really the secret. It also makes a great place to dump all your light tanks you start with.

 

[Vlad123]

You see quality of garrison troops does matter. Obviously there are strategies to limit resistance by putting oppression at secret police and then bringing it down as compliance rises, but the best way to protect your garrison troops manpower (which is the most important thing to protect) is through hardness. If you add some armoured cars or light tanks, you will notice a massive decline in casualties. That's really the secret. It also makes a great place to dump all your light tanks you start with.

The problem is that, on balance ... armored cars / light tanks are a waste of IC ... several discussions on the forum, have brought this up. Either PDX lowers the cost of armored cars or they will remain unused by 99% of players

 

[Eisscrat]

You cant use your "old" light tanks if u use light tanks in your army at all. Garrisondivisions dont care to the restrictions you set for them. They always use the newest stuff out of storage.
Also you would need lots of tanks (thousands) to boost hardness of the divisions to lower casualties. And even then you would loose thousands of tanks to partisans without antitank weapons...
That is insane.

Also armoured cars are restricted to the DLC while the insane casualties are free for all with the update.

I installed a mod that decrease casulties dramaticly to a more realistic scale.