• 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.

HOI4 Dev Diary - Collaboration, Compliance and Coups

Hi guys! Today we are going to be talking about collaboration, compliance and also coups as we missed covering them in last weeks dev diary about operations.


Coups

Lets start off with coups. These are now an operation and needs to be set up by your agents.

upload_2019-11-27_10-54-7.png

Its possible to say where you want the coup to originate, which adds some nice strategic power to it (such as targeting colonial areas that are harder to recover etc).

There are several ways to make a coup more successful, and in reverse protect yourself. A coup needs low stability, political support for the couping ideology and agents need to have prepared a network, infiltrated the government and built up the coup. So as an attacker you will want to mess with these things in advance (say by using spy missions and operations). And of course as the target, you want to keep these values up to stay safe, as well as making sure your nation counterespionage is up to the task.

We have also changed the behaviour of the resulting wars a bit so when a side wins against the other planes and ships will switch hands instead of being lost. This could often be a reason to launch small coups with no hope just to mess with the enemies navies.


Collaboration

Collaborators work similar, but opposite to Governments in Exile. They are created by an operation where agents are sent in to convert and/or support local collaborators.

upload_2019-11-27_10-11-17.png


This is an operation you can run more than once (although cost and time goes up every time), and for each one you will strengthen the collaborators. Foreign Collaboration governments are tracked (much like GiE) from your country screen.

upload_2019-11-27_10-41-25.png


The higher the value of collaborators present the easier it will be to make the nation capitulate which can be important in cases where you need to move in fast. You also unlocks levels of compliance in the new resistance and compliance system which will be transferred to regular compliance once the target nation is capitulated. This can be useful for giving you a head start on managing a lot of occupied areas by laying some groundwork before you even attack.

upload_2019-11-27_9-57-14.png


Speaking of compliance, we never really went into detail on how that worked before, so lets take a look now. If you need to read up on the changes coming to the resistance system as a whole though check out the dev diary here.

There are several levels of compliance "unlocks". These happen on a national level for the occupied nation.
upload_2019-11-27_10-57-28.png

The first unlock is “Informants.” Secret police working in the province have established a network of snitches and collaborators. This gives an increase to defense against enemy operatives in the occupied nation. The next unlock is “Local Police Force.” At this level, enough locals have been trained and are loyal enough to police their country for the occupiers. As a result, local garrison needs are now reduced. The third unlock is “Reorganized Workforce.” At this point, Life is returning to some level of normalcy and people are able to go about their daily lives and perform their normal jobs. This compliance unlock adds access to another 10% of factories and resources across the occupied nation. “Volunteer Program” is the fourth compliance unlock. This represents locals volunteering to serve in their occupier’s military and adds 10% of the population as fit for service.

The final unlock is “A New Regime”. At this highest level it is possible to create a new subject type “Collaboration Government” directly. This frees you up from policing it and ensures that it sticks to you in any peace deal you win. Getting high compliance can be a lot of effort in war time and it can be a very good idea to make sure you have collaborators in place before invasions.
upload_2019-11-27_11-2-4.png


Collaboration governments will mirror your map color as well to show how closely aligned they are.

upload_2019-11-27_11-4-1.png


See you all next week when we will look at some intel gathering tools…
 
Last edited:
I really think we need active counterintelligence of some kind.

Totally 100% agree. It's unbelievable that they're only doing one half, talking only about offense and never about defense. Utterly ridiculous that there's no active defense of any kind.

They might as well take anti-air or the fighters out of the game and just let us get bombed... Because deploying fighters to intercept is too much micro. Might as well just let your troops and cities get annihilated.

There's not even a little half-assed thing you can do actively. It's all strictly passive, apparently.
 
podcat, you wrote this here: "This compliance unlock adds access to another 10% of factories and resources across the occupied nation." Has occupation laws changed? What does this 10% add on to or is this just 10% IC/resource add from 0%? As far as I see it, a nation should get much less IC/resources when occupying another, even if not at war - or take several years to ramp up to 100% when not at war - as in Germany taking Czechoslovakia. IMO, you definitely shouldn't get 100% IC resources when using occupation laws. I think at max with harshest it should be 60%. 100% is just way too high and leads to Germany having more IC than the US.

Will you be addressing this with this DLC?
Will you please read the prior DDs...this was covered in the DD that covered the changes to garrisons. In essence, yes the Occupier get FAR less from occupied territory until compliance grows, and even then it will be less than currently.
 
When will you finally show us the Portuguese tree? Come on, why so much delay when the Spanish one was shown ages ago...
I'm guessing the Portuguese tree is going to revolve considerably around Intelligence/Espionage since they were neutral in the war itself and only contributed indirectly, so makes sense they would be working on the Intelligence mechanics before making a Portuguese tree.
Also, in the Agencies DD you can spot the Portuguese Secret Police, which further makes me believe they are going to be involved in the Intelligence game.
 
Last edited:
@podcat


The wording of the tool-tip in the final image is really poor, and inconsistent. What is the point of the red X's? They are either redundant, or misleading. For me, the red X's imply 'disabled', 'negative', or 'no'. Well let me translate how I interpret these rules:

"RED X: Cannot declare wars" - Translation: the rule 'Cannot declare wars' is disabled (This is wrong?)

Suggested fix: Either remove the red X entirely so it simply says "Cannot declare wars", OR if you insist on having the red X then "Can declare wars? RED X" - Both of these suggestions clearly say that you cannot declare wars.

"RED X: Can decline call to war" - Translation: The rule 'Can decline a call to war' is disabled (This is correct?)

Suggested fix: "Can decline call to war? RED X"

"RED X: Control over deployed units go to overlord" - Translation: Deployed units do NOT go to the overlord (Wrong?)

Suggested fix: "Deployed units are controlled by overlord? GREEN CHECK MARK"

"RED X: Can be spymaster" - Translation: Being a spymaster is not allowed. (Correct?)

Suggested fix: "Can be spymaster? RED X"

"RED X: Contributes operatives to Spy Master: Yes" Do you seriously not see anything wrong with this?

Suggested fix: "Contributes Operatives to Spy Master? GREEN CHECK MARK"

This type of phrasing problem, as well as the lack of consistency, is prevalent in many tool-tips, not just this one I've highlighted. The way many tool tips are phrased adds ambiguity. I can usually figure out what the rule actually is, but some tool tips actually confuse more than they help.
 
Last edited:
Cheers for the DD Podcat, sounds like you and the rest of the team are all collaborating very well :D. This does sounds like a cool way of building up support in an area, and also a nice way of managing the sometimes chaotic situation at peace deals too - nice :).

maybe :) we are picking favourite achivements atm
like any subject they can try to gain independence etc but they start in a tough spot

Sounds like this needs an achievement for becoming independent after starting as a Collaboration Government :eek:

This is a bit of a tricky week for naval pics (at least as best as I'm aware) - there were some members of the Kriegsmarine from various countries, but I don't have any pics of them. So, drawing a somewhat ridiculously-long bow, here's a big of the Panzerschiff Deutschland in Songefjord in 1934, where she sailed with Hitler and other dignitaries on board to Norway. Clearly they were laying the really, really early foundations of the Quisling collaboration government of the 1940s..... :rolleyes:

Deutschland at Songefjord, p. 34 - from Central Military Archive, Warsaw.jpg
 
I like the flavour, but why would a player bother with all of this in lieu of direct conquest?

Depending on compliance levels, you may never get 100% factory output from an occupied territory. Collaborator governments give 75% MIL/CIV, which may be better than you can get from an occupation. They'll also use the remaining 25% for themselves. That's better than the 75%/25% MIL/CIV we get from integrated puppets now, and also 100% manpower to overlord for colonial divisions.

It's already beneficial to puppet rather than annex if the territory has a lot of manpower and few factories, this just seems like the same but moreso with a few extra steps. Also really nice you can do it at war.
 
Just thought of another question:

How is this mechanic going to affect annexations done via focus? Example, will Germany need to deal with occupation in Czechoslovakia? If so, will they benefit from building support there before taking Sudetenland?

What about Austria-Hungary? Example, would you need to gain compliance in Austria as Hungary even if you annexed them via referendum? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense as they willingly joined you. Going the military route it does make sense, but then are you going to have to keep worrying about occupation on your own cores after you restore the dual Monarchy?
 
Will you please read the prior DDs...this was covered in the DD that covered the changes to garrisons. In essence, yes the Occupier get FAR less from occupied territory until compliance grows, and even then it will be less than currently.
Yes, I am aware of that. However, what you failed to notice is that the % is now not the same as it was. I take it occupation laws have changed, but I was asking what it looks like now - with the 10% added when you get to a better collaboration level.

10% from what? We have no idea what it is right now. We don't have any numbers other than that. I've read all the DDs - care to tell me where the % of occupation types grant you?

All it states is:

"In conjunction with these new systems, we have reworked how occupied states are handled. Colony states will be removed as a concept and every state not controlled by a nation with a core on the state will be viewed as occupied. Occupied states will now be less rewarding for the occupier. Access to the factories and resources of the state will by default be much lower than before. However, the conqueror can get more out of the state by cultivating compliance or adjusting occupation laws. This gives a bit of granularity between what was previously colony states and cores.

Occupation laws will also be updated to work with the new resistance and compliance systems and give the player more choice. Previous occupation laws were mostly a linear system of paying PP and increasing suppression need for increasing rewards. If you could afford it, harsher occupation would almost always be more beneficial. This was also a system not a lot of people interacted with as it was hidden behind several layers of the menu.

New occupation laws are built around trying to give the player choice based on playstyle and short and longterm goals. The new laws tend towards one of three objectives: compliance growth, resistance suppression, factory/resource exploitation. Compliance growth is a longterm reward, while resistance suppression and resource gains are more short term. These laws will, in turn, be bad at what they are not concerned with. IE focusing on resistance suppression will generally not be very rewarding in terms of resources or long term compliance growth. Cultivating compliance will mean that the player will have to deal with a period of low yields and maybe a more active resistance movement. Each of the big three ideologies will also get their own special occupation laws. These laws fit the themes of the ideologies and give them some unique choices."

So where are the %? I know occupation will be different, as it states it in the DD I pulled this from. However, regardless of all that, I am stating that the cap for IC/resources should at max with harshest be at 60%, not 100%.

No where have we gotten any details about what we can expect from the different occupation paths, other than a general description.
 
Well, it sounds like the 10% at whatever compliance level is just a flat bonus on top of what you're getting from your occupation law. Assume it'll be lower for the resistance/compliance stances and higher from the factory output stance. Since the stated goal is to make occupied territories less productive across the board, I doubt that factory focus + the 10% will exceed the 60% we have now.

I'm curious about that part where anything not a core is considered occupied. Does that mean the UK is going to have to garrison everything from Bermuda to Diego Garcia to keep it from just revolting? Because that sounds like a major pain.
 
Totally 100% agree. It's unbelievable that they're only doing one half, talking only about offense and never about defense. Utterly ridiculous that there's no active defense of any kind.

They might as well take anti-air or the fighters out of the game and just let us get bombed... Because deploying fighters to intercept is too much micro. Might as well just let your troops and cities get annihilated.

There's not even a little half-assed thing you can do actively. It's all strictly passive, apparently.
So you want to make your defensive agents only try to stop tech stealing operations, even if the enemy is not running any, and totally ignore the coup operation that they discovered?
There is no way a nation would be able to protect itself actively against every operation type with only 2 agents.
Much better to have your defensive agents actively protect you against all threats. Then increase your countermeasures to assist this. And you can actively work towards improving your stability, war support and party popularity to make espionage against you inefficient.

Anti-air counts as passive defence - you don't get to move your AA batteries around between states.
 
Defense is mostly passive because we need to keep the overall pressure on player attention down.

Fair enough. At first I was quite concerned about the lack of active counterintelligence, but given the point you made above, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt until we see more and/or the finished product. Good fortune on striking the right balance with player attention.
 
I think Communist China's infiltration mechanics needed a rework anyway. They are kind of weak and pointless as they are now.
Exactly. As PRC players, we would really have to play the infiltration and partisan games since historically, Japan really had trouble with them.

Is anything planned for Denmark as they surrendered in a few hours in order to protect civilians? Starting them with high collaboration seems like it would simulate this fairly well, or maybe they could have a surrender decision similar to Japan?
This should also give AI Germany more time to prepare rather than just immediately declare war on Denmark once Operation Weserubung Focus is complete.
 
Well, it sounds like the 10% at whatever compliance level is just a flat bonus on top of what you're getting from your occupation law. Assume it'll be lower for the resistance/compliance stances and higher from the factory output stance. Since the stated goal is to make occupied territories less productive across the board, I doubt that factory focus + the 10% will exceed the 60% we have now.

I'm curious about that part where anything not a core is considered occupied. Does that mean the UK is going to have to garrison everything from Bermuda to Diego Garcia to keep it from just revolting? Because that sounds like a major pain.

I believe one of the earliest DD's announced that for an ocuppied territory to revolt it would require very high resistance and it would be very rare. Almost always would it require outside influence.
They said Europeans would not be forced to garrison all their colonies.
Besides, even if you did, garrisoning will be much less time consuming since it happens off-map.
 
So you want to make your defensive agents only try to stop tech stealing operations, even if the enemy is not running any, and totally ignore the coup operation that they discovered?
There is no way a nation would be able to protect itself actively against every operation type with only 2 agents.
Much better to have your defensive agents actively protect you against all threats. Then increase your countermeasures to assist this. And you can actively work towards improving your stability, war support and party popularity to make espionage against you inefficient.

Anti-air counts as passive defence - you don't get to move your AA batteries around between states.

I agree.
Counterintelligence should be passive because there is really not much else you can realistically do other than increasing security measures.
Maybe, if you do uncover an ongoing operation, you could have a way to interact with it to counter it or reduce its effects of some sort, but overall, the offensive operations are necessarily far more micro-intensive.

The only semi-active thing i can see ~maybe~ working would be deploying your own agents in your own territory to try to dismantle networks other countries might have been building.
 
Last edited: