• 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 - Resistance and Compliance

Hello HoI bois and ladies, welcome to the second dev diary on our upcoming unannounced expansion and 1.8 ‘Husky’ update. This update features some big changes to how occupied territory functions. The biggest part of this is an overhaul of the game’s current resistance system into what we are calling the “Resistance and Compliance” system. This should help curb a bit of power from snowballing (Hello, Germany), remove gamey early war sniping of provinces, and put a bit of a clock on world conquest runs.

The old resistance system is rather simple. Each occupied state has a suppression requirement. If you meet that requirement nothing happens. If the suppression requirement is not met then you suffer from increasingly common sabotage to factories or infrastructure as resistance strength grows. We decided we could make this more interesting and use it as a way to further control the power of snowballing.

The growth of resistance is no longer stopped by having an adequate garrison. Resistance now functions with a target system. The resistance level will grow or decay towards whatever the current target is. The target is impacted by the development of the state, the core owner still existing and other factors. Resistance activities will still scale with the level of resistance, but the garrison will now work as a shield that absorbs these sabotages. If the garrison is adequate, the garrison shield will absorb the vast majority of sabotage attempts and take losses to manpower and equipment. Not having an adequate garrison means a higher resistance target and more resistance activity making it past the garrison shield to the state.

DD_RESCOMP_COMP.png


Compliance is in some ways the opposite of resistance. It is a rating of how willing the local state is to work with their occupiers. Compliance will normally start at zero and increase slowly over time. Compliance growth will generally be slow and several factors can affect that speed of growth. As compliance increases in a state, it will decrease local resistance and give access to more resources, factories, and manpower.

DD_RESCOMP_COMP2.png


Resistance and compliance also will have various effects that are unlocked. Resistance will gain the ability to more frequently bypass the garrison shield after it reaches a strength of 25%. Reaching 25% compliance means reducing suppression requirements for the current level of resistance.

DD_RESCOMP_UNLOCKS.png


The highest level of resistance unlocks include two levels of uprising. The first is a passive malus that is applied to the state, adding attrition, decreasing move speed, and slowing org regain for occupying forces in the area. The 2nd level uprising is a full scale organized uprising that functions somewhat like a civil war. The states that rise up will gain low-quality divisions and either rejoin their former master or if that no longer exists, reestablish themselves on the map. Both of these should be somewhat rare and will require the local resistance being supported by an outside source.

DD_RESCOMP_UPRISING1.png



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

DD_RESCOMP_OCULAW02.png


That's all we got for this week. Next week we will update the good people of these forums on what is going on with France. Secrets and things hidden will be revealed!
 
okay, just one question: will some nations have the ability to core certain sates through this new system? While I don't think this shouldn't be accessible for all countries (like obviously, Great Britain should not ever be allowed to core Ceylon or Malaya), this could still be a really fun addition to minors. Like if Australia could core Papua, and the surrounding areas they could effectively gain a 15% boost to their population, which is extremely limited by default. Same for South Africa and the colonies they can be given by Britain, Samoa for New Zealand. Even some majors could have some minor coreable states like the Baltic states for the USSR, Puerto Rico for the Us and Korea/Taiwan for Japan.

The US can already get cores on Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Alaska through decisions added in MtG. Papua as an Australian core is far fetched, Germany controlled it just 20 years ago and the native population hardly as anything in common with the average Australian. UK getting core's anywhere else wouldn't make sense, maybe Ireland but even than the population would probably feel occupied and not actually British. Japanese core on Taiwan and Korea is ridiculous, Korea was essentially occupied and was indiscriminately abused by the Japanese government and Taiwan is mostly of Han ethnicity or the native Taiwanese people. Cores are suppose to represent the proper heartland of a country where the ethnic or cultural group is of that country. So Germany getting a core on Alsace makes sense since the population was mostly German, this is in their focus tree. South Tyrol is Austrian, so they have a core while Trent is Italian, but they are the same state in game so both tags have a core on the state of South Tyrol. Italians and the Yugoslavian people (referring to all members of the South Slavic ethnicity) were heavily mixed in the region of Istria so both have a core on it. Italy getting cores on Greece because it gives them more manpower, factories and don't have to deal with the unrest doesn't make sense. It takes a long time for a country to justify taking land over and saying its a core territory of the country when the population has nothing in common. You play from 1936 to maybe 1950 max, unless you're using mods but Paradox shouldn't be prioritizing adding mechanics for overhaul mods, so the whole process of "coring" a state isn't feasible in such a short time. In EU IV's time, countries waged war all the time and people claimed stuff all the time. But by HoI time, diplomacy and international negotiations is becoming more common, nationalism is present and other factors. You can't just throw cores around to everyone to make them stronger, realistically, taking a country or a part of a country should come with advantages and disadvantages.

So I will have to disagree on countries getting cores unless it makes sense, such as Poland ceding Danzig, Poznan and Katowice to Germany and them getting cores on it, though I will admit that Poznan as a German core is a bit far fetched for me. Italy getting cores on Corsica? That works, Savoy is complicated so I could maybe let that slide but Savoy is such a broad state that covers different areas. Portuguese cores on Galicia works, but I am unfamiliar with how closely the Galicians feel to Portugal. But no ridiculous cores like the UK having a core on Malta, Gibraltar and Cyprus. Or Japan on Taiwan or Korea. Or the Americans getting cores on any Canadian territory or vice versa.
 
Korea/Taiwan for Japan.
Then China shall demand core in Tibet/Mongolia as they are part of Qing Dynasty, Korea/Vietnam/Ryukyu as historical tributary states, and also Japan as historically culture influence. :p
 
What about "civil war" issues, like China? When you have multiple cores on the same province? It feels natural Nat. China should make Com. China territories compliant, for example.
Maybe add a modifier making such "core" states building resistance?

EDIT: Or, maybe, "uncore" non-Rep. China provinces, adding claims on all this territories, with events/decisions making territories core when some level of compliance is achieved?
That happens in Kaiserreich, in civil wars sides have claims and not cores, it's a good way to have resistance in civil wars.
 
Just, please, please, include an option to use the old resistance system instead. It sounds hellish manpower wise to ensure you have enough divisions, that now also have to be useful instead of two horses and a bobby, everywhere.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It sounds hellish manpower wise to ensure you have enough divisions, that now also have to be useful instead of two horses and a bobby, everywhere.
Options are good. But as far as I feel, making occupations being costly is kind of idea.
 
Last edited:
Axe99,I just thought i could be an interesting feature to help smaller country expand their navys and HOI4 is already very Unrealistic although i agree that i if it is to be implemented then it needs to be properly balanced
 
Interesting... are they going to finally separate roads and rails? It's interesting to see them implementing the fixes to issued that we were all discussing 5 years ago.
 
Sounds very interesting ;) But can you please allow us to turn off automatic repair in states? Because some states are more important than others (especially when you control a lot of area and need to prioritize). Leaving some states without a garrison will allow the resistance to destroy a lot of stuff, and while that itself is not a problem, it causes a massive spam in the repair queue :(

I also think that it would have been nice if you could turn a state into a core state once the compliance hits 100% for example :)
 
Axe99,I just thought i could be an interesting feature to help smaller country expand their navys and HOI4 is already very Unrealistic although i agree that i if it is to be implemented then it needs to be properly balanced

Aye, like I said, there's nothing wrong with wanting something like that - I'm a boring 'historical plausibilityist' (and one that's particularly into navies) so it's the kind of thing that would feel a bit off if France, say, was giving all their fleet to Germany (or Britain - probably the more likely of the two options if they were forced to choose and didn't have any other options like scuttling) after they'd fallen, so it's not my thing, but if HoI4 was just designed by me it would have a far smaller audience, and probably be a clunky nightmare to boot! Definitely don't hold back in putting your preferences forward :).
 
I'm really hoping this is a nerf for Germany, but I'm not going to hold my breath. I'm guessing the Axis might just have some godly way of dealing with this while the Allies just get held back or something.
 
I really hope they make garrisons something that generally exists off map, but can be brought into the real map if necessary. It would make no sense if the allies land in yugoslavia with 9 German garrisons and then the area is completely undefended.

Garrison should be a mission that you put units under which removes them from the map, but, if necessary you could activate them and they would cease providing suppression, immediately appear on map, and take a week or two to reach full readiness.