HOI4 Dev Diary - Collaboration, Compliance and Coups

[Hoi Neuling]

That´cool. Therfore you need the first DLC (TfV), which get in the Autonomy-System.

 

[BeauNiddle]

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.

I can see them doing their usual popups on discovery

"Plot has been found!"

Option A) stop Plot (+40% to resistance)
Option B) trap spy (50% chance to capture, 50% chance opponent succeeds)


They are usually quite good about offering options on panels but we wont know till we see it in practice.

 

[Faeelin]

So this is all great, but what will be behind DLC mechanics? I plan on buying but it would be helpful to understand for modders.

 

[Petropolitanus]

How do you balance the hardness of capitulating Denmark etc. for Germany with and without DLC? I assume it's supposed to be equal, and collaboration system changes that

 

[frolix42]

I hope coups make sense now. They were badly implemented on release in 2016 and then left to fester. It's very disappointing they are being reworked only now, and with a paid DLC.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

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.

Active ways of increasing your counter-intelligence capability:

• Assigning agents to run counter-intelligence (unless by default that's what they do already, it's necessary player's agency to assign them to this task).
• Improving your Intelligence Agency for better counter-intelligence capability (it requires player's agency to improve your agency)
• Improving stability in your country (assigning political power to improve your stability requires player's agency)
• Reducing resistance in occupied territory (assigning garrisons require player's agency)

I mean. If what you actually wanted was another layer of vision like there is for air and navy where it shows, I don't know, probabilities of having spies in a given state and you would manually send an agent there to try and flush it (if there is indeed one) sounds too micro-managing for me. Sure, the battle planner it sucks but the idea of it is something sorely needed for this game to avoid already all the micromanagement that happens when you try to create a breach and encirclement (not to mention the whack-a-mole of strategic bombers moving every 24h to a new state)

And comparing to anti-air. Are you actually selecting which planes individually get shot down when you build an anti-air unit in a given state? No! You build it (player's agency) and let it sitting there doing its own thing (passively). Same thing with the fighters, you built them and deployed them to a given zone, after that, it's out of your hands. The fighters deploy passively (the AI handles that) to intercept the bombers.

 

[ukn00wn]

Looks promising,hope it won't be fucked up,bugged and easy to exploit,like a lot of things from Paradox

 

[P3D0VKA]

But would you be able to create collaboration government if country doesnt exist but has core territories ? (Ukraine, Belarus, etc.)

 

[Achab]

Will it be possible to create a collaboration govt for one side of a civil war allowing to puppet the whole unified country eventually?

 

[xtfoster]

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.

OK, I see. You read the previous DDs, but didn't understand or comprehend them. From the HoI4 Dev Diary - Resistance and Compliance we know that

As compliance increases in a state, it will decrease local resistance and give access to more resources, factories, and manpower.

The way I read that is that it is a sliding scale based on compliance, so there is no set percentage (and more importantly this early in the development process all numbers are subject to change so they certainly aren't going to include them in a DD).

From what I read the occupation laws modify Resistance and Compliance (separately), and resistance and compliance modify what resources/manpower/industry/etc you get from a given state (again separately). So as Compliance grows (and Resistance is reduced) what resources/factories/manpower/etc you get also grows.

So yes, we don't know what the base values for resources/factories/manpower are but as I read it, it no longer is solely tied to occupation laws. Now occupation laws seem to affect mostly Resistance Target and Compliance Growth. But we did see from one of the screenshots in that DD (and this one) that there are spikes based on new levels of compliance. For example, 'Reorganized Workforce' (which seems to start when you hit 50%, but it doesn't go away until it falls below 38%) gives a +10% bonus to both Local Resources and Local Factories (and since these are are measured at the state level it will vary across your occupied territories.

 

[xtfoster]

Active ways of increasing your counter-intelligence capability:

• Assigning agents to run counter-intelligence (unless by default that's what they do already, it's necessary player's agency to assign them to this task).

• Probably the default unless there is a chance to lose your agents during domestic counter-intelligence.

  [*]Improving your Intelligence Agency for better counter-intelligence capability (it requires player's agency to improve your agency)
  [*]Improving stability in your country (assigning political power to improve your stability requires player's agency)

  True, but also no change from current unless you don't normally try to keep stability as high as possible for the bonuses it currently provides.

  [*]Reducing resistance in occupied territory (assigning garrisons require player's agency)

  From the way I read it, it will actually require less 'agency' from the player since it is all off-map. There is a default level and template set, so unless you want to micromanage this at the state level all you have to do is make sure you have the equipment and manpower to meet your requirements.

I mean. If what you actually wanted was another layer of vision like there is for air and navy where it shows, I don't know probabilities of having spies in a given state and you would manually send an agent there to try and flush it (if there is indeed one) sounds too micro-managing for me. Sure, the battle planner it sucks but the idea of it is something sorely needed for this game to avoid already all the micromanagement that happens when you try to create a breach and encirclement (not to mention the whack-a-mole of strategic bombers moving every 24h to a new state)

And comparing to anti-air. Are you actually selecting which planes individually get shot down when you build an anti-air unit in a given state? No! You build it (player's agency) and let it sitting there doing its own thing (passively). Same thing with the fighters, you built them and deployed them to a given zone, after that, it's out of your hands. The fighters deploy passively (the AI handles that) to intercept the bombers.

 

[Delpheus]

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 defense - you don't get to move your AA batteries around between states.

That’s not what I’m saying. Why would you think that it has to be one or the other? I’m saying there must be active defense in addition to passive defense. I think many people must be getting confused about that and that must be why they disagree. I have always been arguing for an active side to defense in ADDITION to the passive. It absolutely makes no sense to respond to something that isn’t happening. I’m saying that if you discover that it is happening you should be able to do something about it…

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

That’s exactly what I’m saying. When and if you discover something, you have options. You get to do something about it. It’s so stupid that you just sit there and let it happen, that makes no sense. If I find out the enemy is trying to do something to me, I need to be able to respond, to take action, and actively defend myself. I am not going to let them get away with it. I should be able to reduce its effects or counter it somehow.

I can see them doing their usual popups on discovery

"Plot has been found!"

Option A) stop Plot (+40% to resistance)
Option B) trap spy (50% chance to capture, 50% chance opponent succeeds)


They are usually quite good about offering options on panels but we wont know till we see it in practice.

Simple and easy and gives us a basic form of active defense. We get to choose to do something in response.

And comparing to anti-air. Are you actually selecting which planes individually get shot down when you build an anti-air unit in a given state? No! You build it (player's agency) and let it sitting there doing its own thing (passively). Same thing with the fighters, you built them and deployed them to a given zone, after that, it's out of your hands. The fighters deploy passively (the AI handles that) to intercept the bombers.

Again, this argument is insane. That doesn't make any sense. And it's totally wrong.
You can move fighters. You can deploy them where they are needed. You can move fighters or add more to a specific zone to counter a specific threat.
The air game is not passive and automatic. What you described does not happen in HOI4. The production and deployment of fighters is not "out of your hands." It's literally something you need to manage. The AI does NOT passively deploy fighters to intercept. I don't know what game you're talking about, but it isn't HOI4.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

You have state anti-air to defend against bombers (passive).

Now, here's where we get into the active defense determined by the player.

You can add anti-air guns to divisions and chose where to deploy them to counter specific threats (active).
You can choose to deploy fighters to a specific zone, choose a specific mission for them, to counter specific threats (active).
When you discover a zone is threatened, where the enemy has air superiority (a red zone), you can choose to deploy or redeploy air units in response (active).
The AI does none of this for you and none of this is passive. The AI does not automatically add AA into your divisions and it does not handle the deployment of fighters. The player decides where and how his air units are used.

All I'm saying is that counter intelligence is a similar concept. You discover something, you respond to it. I thought the air game comparison was a decent example. But it applies to just about everything.

Let's say the enemy lands at Normandy. Would you like to do something about it, or trust the AI to handle it? Should we just let the AI passively decide if it wants to respond effectively to the invasion or not?
What if the enemy is strat bombing you and your industry is completely gone. Do we just let the AI passively handle air defense, or should we be able to decide to put more fighters on intercept than the AI deems necessary?

There is no other part of this game that you would want to be entirely passive. How boring is that? How stupid is that? Should we just let the AI passively handle every aspect of our defense? Draw our defensive lines for us and we just watch? Just hope the AI deploys our divisions correctly? How often do people complain about the front line AI being stupid?

We need active defense. There is not argument about it. Nothing as critical as security should be entirely passive.

 

[C-Breeze]

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding with people talking from various sides with different concepts of the same terminology. (Welcome to the internet)...

When I read statements like: 'Counterintelligence should be passive because there is really not much else you can realistically do other than increasing security measures,' it strikes me as an oxymoron. On the one hand, we have 'counter intelligence should be passive,' and the reason given to support this being - because realistically all we can do is the active act of increasing security measures. Huh?

If we were to remain truly passive, we would never increase the number of checkpoints and would never venture beyond the safety of our guard shacks to check anything. Therefore the very act of 'increasing security measures' would seem to necessitate non-passive action.

That said, I really don't want to see the player bogged down in 'active' micro-managing, yet I do think there should be some minimal mechanism for an 'active' (read: extra/specific) response to an identifiable threat.

 

[Delpheus]

That said, I really don't want to see the player bogged down in 'active' micro-managing, yet I do think there should be some minimal mechanism for an 'active' (read: extra/specific) response to an identifiable threat.

I don't want to get bogged down in micro management either.
But for some reason, people seem to think that's what I'm advocating. Not at all.
Active player-made decisions of some kind based on discovered specific enemy threats isn't too much to ask for.
This can be accomplished simply and with minimal micro.

And why would you NOT want the ability to do just a little extra micro to save your country from a coup or another massive operation that could utterly destroy your country!?

What people are not thinking about is the alternative. They don't seem to realize that failing to prevent these actions means you may LOSE or suffer severely.

And in multiplayer this is extremely important. You will have players attempting to do this stuff to you intelligently. When you have a player that can walk all over you and ruin your game, what the fuck am I supposed to do? Passive is not enough.

 

[Idle America]

Will there be post-war decisions to "Deal with the Traitors", if the collaborators are defeated? Suppose, for instance, there was one fellow in Norway that the people hated so much, that they were willing to temporarily reinstate the death penalty just for him...

Also, YAY COUPS! I can finally build my democratic Pan-American faction without war!

 

[NormieCamo]

Now all that needs to happen is to make certain that you keep claims or cores you get on other nations even if you release them as collaborators. I want Alsace dammit!

 

[pheonicia]

I don't want to get bogged down in micro management either.
But for some reason, people seem to think that's what I'm advocating. Not at all.
Active player-made decisions of some kind based on discovered specific enemy threats isn't too much to ask for.
This can be accomplished simply and with minimal micro.

And why would you NOT want the ability to do just a little extra micro to save your country from a coup or another massive operation that could utterly destroy your country!?

What people are not thinking about is the alternative. They don't seem to realize that failing to prevent these actions means you may LOSE or suffer severely.

And in multiplayer this is extremely important. You will have players attempting to do this stuff to you intelligently. When you have a player that can walk all over you and ruin your game, what the fuck am I supposed to do? Passive is not enough.

Except there are ways to counter specific enemy threats using active player decisions, but you keep ignoring them. For example if you're being targeted with a coup you have at minimum four different responses you can take.
1. Boost your countries stability using decisions ( improve worker conditions, promises of peace, etc.) National foci, advisors and so on. If you have high stability, the coup won't be successful.
2. Boost or reduce party popularity in you country by running advisors, taking decisions (raids, press censorship, etc.) The coup won't be successful if your current party has high popularity and the one trying to throw the coup has low popularity.
3. Reassigning your limited number of agents from offensive operations to counter espionage (which is an active decision about the opportunity cost and risk you're willing to take) to catch and put an end to foreign operations inside your country which would stop the coup in its tracks. Further more theres the secondary active decision to decide how many civilian factories you can afford to have upgrading your counter intelligence, decryption, and over all espionage efficiency that you won't have available to do things like build factories that will make guns and planes and tanks that will actually win you the war.
And 4. Just invade and annex the country you suspect is going to or currently sponsoring a coup in your country. They can't back a coup if they don't exist.


What people are trying to tell you is that there are already plenty of ways to defend yourself and they don't see a need for an extra layer of hassle where you have to go and tell the game to do what's it's already doing but harder without making a good argument that there would be any tangible fun benefit to doing so.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

That’s exactly what I’m saying. When and if you discover something, you have options. You get to do something about it. It’s so stupid that you just sit there and let it happen, that makes no sense. If I find out the enemy is trying to do something to me, I need to be able to respond, to take action, and actively defend myself. I am not going to let them get away with it. I should be able to reduce its effects or counter it somehow.

Sorry, if that really was the argument you were making, you really were unable to make your point and just seemed to ramble on.

I totally agree that once you found out an enemy agent in your territory you should be given a choice on how to proceed. Again, that's player's agency on something that is run passively (counter intelligence).

Again, this argument is insane. That doesn't make any sense. And it's totally wrong...

Apparently you haven't read anything I wrote at all. I point to all the places where you use player's agency (i.e: action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect) but after that, it totally is out of your hands. There's a rule to see how the fighters will intercept or not the bombers and how they will scramble to fight the enemy's own fighters if they are sent to screen for the bombers.

So, sorry, but this was the first post where you actually said what you were hoping to be "active counter-intelligence" and this was something already shown in the DD that you will receive options if you find enemy agents operating in your country.

 

[Delpheus]

Except there are ways to counter specific enemy threats using active player decisions, but you keep ignoring them. For example if you're being targeted with a coup you have at minimum four different responses you can take.
1. Boost your countries stability using decisions ( improve worker conditions, promises of peace, etc.) National foci, advisors and so on. If you have high stability, the coup won't be successful.
2. Boost or reduce party popularity in you country by running advisors, taking decisions (raids, press censorship, etc.) The coup won't be successful if your current party has high popularity and the one trying to throw the coup has low popularity.
3. Reassigning your limited number of agents from offensive operations to counter espionage (which is an active decision about the opportunity cost and risk you're willing to take) to catch and put an end to foreign operations inside your country which would stop the coup in its tracks. Further more theres the secondary active decision to decide how many civilian factories you can afford to have upgrading your counter intelligence, decryption, and over all espionage efficiency that you won't have available to do things like build factories that will make guns and planes and tanks that will actually win you the war.
And 4. Just invade and annex the country you suspect is going to or currently sponsoring a coup in your country. They can't back a coup if they don't exist.


What people are trying to tell you is that there are already plenty of ways to defend yourself and they don't see a need for an extra layer of hassle where you have to go and tell the game to do what's it's already doing but harder without making a good argument that there would be any tangible fun benefit to doing so.

You're not paying attention. I'm talking about dealing with the operatives involved in the espionage and causing the problems. Doing things to improve your stability or whatever it may be IS NOT THE SAME THING. There are hundreds of different ways your stability can be changed. But I'm talking about discovering and countering the operative that is causing the stability reduction or whatever it may be. It's about REAL counter-intelligence. Actually doing something about the real problem.

 

[walt526]

Will there be post-war decisions to "Deal with the Traitors", if the collaborators are defeated? Suppose, for instance, there was one fellow in Norway that the people hated so much, that they were willing to temporarily reinstate the death penalty just for him...

Also, YAY COUPS! I can finally build my democratic Pan-American faction without war!

This is approaching forbidden subject matter for this forum.