• 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!
 
Quoted for the entertainment value...

A Dev Diary is a view into what is coming in the next patch. They always put a disclaimer that nothing is final, all values that you see in screen shots are subject to balancing, etc. Please don't judge until you've tried this system... Don't judge a book by it's cover? Ever heard of that?

Except, you should ALWAYS voice your concerns about an update that has been presented, so the devs dont make a mistake and they can fix things they might have missed.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I dont get whats the problem with the new resistance system. The garrison? But you would spend men and equipment to build garrison divisions anyway. Then it will be various laws instead of just "gentlest-harshest". If you are saying that you were not building any garrison divisions because you preferred to conquer the enemy and finish the war and with it the resistance, then thats still the same(or I missed something). If thats changed(so Hungary conquering Romania in a separate war still needs to garrison it) then it will be up to the laws in place to see if you need a garrison at all.
 
I dont get whats the problem with the new resistance system. The garrison? But you would spend men and equipment to build garrison divisions anyway. Then it will be various laws instead of just "gentlest-harshest". If you are saying that you were not building any garrison divisions because you preferred to conquer the enemy and finish the war and with it the resistance, then thats still the same(or I missed something). If thats changed(so Hungary conquering Romania in a separate war still needs to garrison it) then it will be up to the laws in place to see if you need a garrison at all.

AFAIK, it will NEVER go away. You'll always have to Garrison, no matter what, even if you finish off the major wars. So if you beat the allies, France, Uk etc, will still be against you no matter what.

Thats what I gathered.

So countries with no manpower or equipment get the biggest hit. ALot of the formable nations will no longer be possible. You wont have the equipment/factories/resources to sustain it.

I never garrisoned, because I was always competent enough to end the war quickly before any of it became a problem.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
AFAIK, it will NEVER go away. You'll always have to Garrison, no matter what, even if you finish off the major wars. So if you beat the allies, France, Uk etc, will still be against you no matter what.

Thats what I gathered.

So countries with no manpower or equipment get the biggest hit. ALot of the formable nations will no longer be possible. You wont have the equipment/factories/resources to sustain it.

I never garrisoned, because I was always competent enough to end the war quickly before any of it became a problem.


Well if you read the OP they write specifically that among the things affecting the resistance is if the core owner is still in existence. Generally for the short time period the game covers Japan conquering China better garrison the damn place.
 
Well if you read the OP they write specifically that among the things affecting the resistance is if the core owner is still in existence. Generally for the short time period the game covers Japan conquering China better garrison the damn place.

And then what? SIt down and do nothing all game? Theres other ways of balancing this game other than a blanket nerf where its NOT needed.

You do realize how massive china is right? You have to consider all of China, including SIn Kiang, etc etc. Thats going to be one hekc of a manpower needed and I dont think Japan will ever be able to handle it.

Japan doesn't exactly get Russian/Chinese manpower.

Again, something could have been done better... and I dont think people actually struggle with fighting Japan. The big one that causes issues is Germany and this could have been addressed differently.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
And then what? SIt down and do nothing all game? Theres other ways of balancing this game other than a blanket nerf where its NOT needed.

You do realize how massive china is right? You have to consider all of China, including SIn Kiang, etc etc. Thats going to be one hekc of a manpower needed and I dont think Japan will ever be able to handle it.

Japan doesn't exactly get Russian/Chinese manpower.

Again, something could have been done better... and I dont think people actually struggle with fighting Japan. The big one that causes issues is Germany and this could have been addressed differently.

People don't struggle to fight Japan, China does. One of the big reasons why historic conquerors didn't get to go blob around is because resistance doesn't just end after a war is over, and it turns out administering newly conquered territory has a lot of logistical costs. If anything, Germany and Japan are still getting a buff in HOI4 compared to history; puppet states apparently don't have to deal with resistance, which is far different from the endemic instability Japan faced in their puppets or resistance in Vichy france
 
People don't struggle to fight Japan, China does. One of the big reasons why historic conquerors didn't get to go blob around is because resistance doesn't just end after a war is over, and it turns out administering newly conquered territory has a lot of logistical costs. If anything, Germany and Japan are still getting a buff in HOI4 compared to history; puppet states apparently don't have to deal with resistance, which is far different from the endemic instability Japan faced in their puppets or resistance in Vichy france

Congratulations. That's what happened in the real world. This is not the real world. This is a Sandbox game designed around the WW2 era while maintaining many realistic things. Forcing a game to follow history is a terrible idea because now you lose any options this game could have.

Sorry, but thats just factual. Sandbox=options, simulator=none.

Of course Germany and Japan have to be buffed. Otherwise, the game would be uinplayable. LMao.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Congratulations. That's what happened in the real world. This is not the real world. This is a Sandbox game designed around the WW2 era while maintaining many realistic things. Forcing a game to follow history is a terrible idea because now you lose any options this game could have.

Sorry, but thats just factual. Sandbox=options, simulator=none.

Of course Germany and Japan have to be buffed. Otherwise, the game would be uinplayable. LMao.

There’s a difference between plausible options and non-plausible options, and a difference between a game with sandbox elements and a total free for all.

Paradox could choose not to have forts for example, because forts impede Germany from doing things like invading France easily or manually justifying on Czechslovakia. Or perhaps they could remove terrain difficulties altogether so people can have their sandbox fun. But that wouldn’t make much historic sense, and it’d eliminate a pressing challenge the Germans and other nations had to deal with when making plans. You could certainly make a mod to remove all forts, or limit them, but for the vast majority of players having forts improves the game by giving new things to consider. So fun and realism in this case outweighs losing out on options (slamming directly into Alsac Lorraine)

Occupation and resistance are also an issue facing nations in the 1930-40s. Removing them would make some nations easier (all nations in fact), but it’d remove a piece of strategic depth people need to consider before they do things. Nations can’t just conquer large swaths of territory without having to consider how they’ll manage it, especially territory many sizes and much more populous than their homeland. So invading nations now have a new challenge they can interact with, other nations hopefully will get new interactions, and now the game has more depth and are more fun
 
There’s a difference between plausible options and non-plausible options, and a difference between a game with sandbox elements and a total free for all.

Paradox could choose not to have forts for example, because forts impede Germany from doing things like invading France easily or manually justifying on Czechslovakia. Or perhaps they could remove terrain difficulties altogether so people can have their sandbox fun. But that wouldn’t make much historic sense, and it’d eliminate a pressing challenge the Germans and other nations had to deal with when making plans. You could certainly make a mod to remove all forts, or limit them, but for the vast majority of players having forts improves the game by giving new things to consider. So fun and realism in this case outweighs losing out on options (slamming directly into Alsac Lorraine)

Occupation and resistance are also an issue facing nations in the 1930-40s. Removing them would make some nations easier (all nations in fact), but it’d remove a piece of strategic depth people need to consider before they do things. Nations can’t just conquer large swaths of territory without having to consider how they’ll manage it, especially territory many sizes and much more populous than their homeland. So invading nations now have a new challenge they can interact with, other nations hopefully will get new interactions, and now the game has more depth and are more fun

Except that, as ive pointed out, this particular depth mechanic has alot of hazards to the games health. You remove options with the way its designed. There could have been other ways to do this, but the way its designed right now does not sound appealing.

The way manpower is designed right now, alot of the nations wont be able to handle the massive amounts of manpower needed to handle territorys if this update goes through unless they radically buff alot of the nations. Will they do that? Maybe but its unlikely.

You only get a set amount of manpower currently. I dont see any sort of change that'll effect Germany enough, that wouldn't neuter the other countries. Unless they specifically make Germany suffer more from it, this was not a thought out update.

As for the plausible/non plausibility, I think thats subjective/personal opinion.

Could I see Bhutan conquering the world? No. But could I see Italy doing it? Sure. Would it be easy like a world conquer as Germany? Oh hell no. It would take alot of smart tactics to do it, which is the current build. You have to play Italy very smart in order to succeed... but this update is just going to make it pointless to play Italy, more than it already is.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But isn't it our job to point out concerns so the devs can address them instead of blindly praising them?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry, but thats just factual. Sandbox=options, simulator=none.

As per previous posts, sandbox and simulation are not two ends of the same extreme (indeed, most simulations tend to have a strong sandbox element (fire up IL2:1946 and tell me you don't have any options :)), while many games closer to the arcade end of the spectrum (and there's no question you're advocating for a more 'arcade' approach to HoI4, although clearly it's still a long, long way from what anyone would consider arcade*, just moreso than the devs intentions) can be very railroaded - see Call of Duty (pick any), for an obvious example). What it sounds like you're arguing for is not more sandbox, but less realistic (ie, I want smaller countries to be able to better do power-trip fantasy playthroughs**).

Changes to the way garrison mechanics work alter the mechanics of the sandbox, but they don't change the sandbox nature. On the other hand, if every player was forced to play with historical focuses set to on, that _would_ reduce gameplay flexibility.

However, changes to the garrison mechanics may (and at this stage we only know it's a may, not a will) make it more difficult to go on a crazy blobfest. There is no question that this will change the nature of playing the game for players that like to blob. It's absolutely appropriate for players who like this playstyle to pipe up and say "hey, this is going to stop me enjoying the game the way I like to, any chance you could take my preferences into account as well."

Could I see Bhutan conquering the world? No. But could I see Italy doing it? Sure.

If you're talking historical plausibility, based on what I've read and understand of the period and dynamics more broadly, the only country with a teensy-weensy chance of a world conquest historically was the US, and they were still a long way away. While I don't want to beat down on Italy, they would have been long odds to beat France in a straight-up fight, and world conquest would have taken some pretty out-there things to make possible (not exaggerating in saying we're talking alien intervention, or pandemics that decimate every the vast majority of the world but leave Italy untouched - both things unlikely to feature in HoI4).

Even with the proposed mechanics, even if they turn out as harsh as you think they're going to be, they will still make it possible for Italy to wildly overachieve relative to its historic capabilities. HoI4 is my favourite stategy game, and the HoI series has more hours than any other game series I've played, but when I go about modding it, I make it more realistic, not less, because the devs rightly understand that it can be fun taking a country on a bit of a power-trip fantasy (I enjoy it as well - super-Belgium can beat Germany was a very enjoyable playthrough I did once, and it ridiculously implausible :D). This has been an element of all Paradox grand strategy games since the year dot, and I think the chance this is going to change is very slim.


* And, to be absolutely clear, arcade is not better than realistic, and realistic is not better than arcade - they're different takes on interactive fun and can be just as fun as each other. Back when I played faster-paced games I was a big fan of both driving sims and Crazy Taxi :D.

** Again, this is not a bad thing to want - I'm just suggesting you could be a lot clearer in talking about what you actually want. Your sandbox =/= simulation commentary isn't correct, and will likely just confuse the discussion and make it harder for you to get your point across.
 
As per previous posts, sandbox and simulation are not two ends of the same extreme (indeed, most simulations tend to have a strong sandbox element (fire up IL2:1946 and tell me you don't have any options :)), while many games closer to the arcade end of the spectrum (and there's no question you're advocating for a more 'arcade' approach to HoI4, although clearly it's still a long, long way from what anyone would consider arcade*, just moreso than the devs intentions) can be very railroaded - see Call of Duty (pick any), for an obvious example). What it sounds like you're arguing for is not more sandbox, but less realistic (ie, I want smaller countries to be able to better do power-trip fantasy playthroughs**).

Changes to the way garrison mechanics work alter the mechanics of the sandbox, but they don't change the sandbox nature. On the other hand, if every player was forced to play with historical focuses set to on, that _would_ reduce gameplay flexibility.

However, changes to the garrison mechanics may (and at this stage we only know it's a may, not a will) make it more difficult to go on a crazy blobfest. There is no question that this will change the nature of playing the game for players that like to blob. It's absolutely appropriate for players who like this playstyle to pipe up and say "hey, this is going to stop me enjoying the game the way I like to, any chance you could take my preferences into account as well."



If you're talking historical plausibility, based on what I've read and understand of the period and dynamics more broadly, the only country with a teensy-weensy chance of a world conquest historically was the US, and they were still a long way away. While I don't want to beat down on Italy, they would have been long odds to beat France in a straight-up fight, and world conquest would have taken some pretty out-there things to make possible (not exaggerating in saying we're talking alien intervention, or pandemics that decimate every the vast majority of the world but leave Italy untouched - both things unlikely to feature in HoI4).

Even with the proposed mechanics, even if they turn out as harsh as you think they're going to be, they will still make it possible for Italy to wildly overachieve relative to its historic capabilities. HoI4 is my favourite stategy game, and the HoI series has more hours than any other game series I've played, but when I go about modding it, I make it more realistic, not less, because the devs rightly understand that it can be fun taking a country on a bit of a power-trip fantasy (I enjoy it as well - super-Belgium can beat Germany was a very enjoyable playthrough I did once, and it ridiculously implausible :D). This has been an element of all Paradox grand strategy games since the year dot, and I think the chance this is going to change is very slim.


* And, to be absolutely clear, arcade is not better than realistic, and realistic is not better than arcade - they're different takes on interactive fun and can be just as fun as each other. Back when I played faster-paced games I was a big fan of both driving sims and Crazy Taxi :D.

** Again, this is not a bad thing to want - I'm just suggesting you could be a lot clearer in talking about what you actually want. Your sandbox =/= simulation commentary isn't correct, and will likely just confuse the discussion and make it harder for you to get your point across.

1. On the first part. Correct. I am advocating for a more Arcade style than pure flight simulator. I would like everyone to be satisfied and it COULD be done. If people want a humongous realistic exerpeicen, they would play with historical focuses on.

then PDX could make it so Unhistorical focuses would make it so the game had more flexibility. Or just make it an option in the game tag, without turning off achievments. This could have been done, but I know it wont be. its too much work to satisfy a smaller portion of the community. I do realize that I am a vocal minority, but I paid for the game like everyone else and the state it was in((Currently)) is in an amazing state.((I bought it a bit before Hydra but still))

So, when I saw that World Conquest and early wars are going to be basically negated for 98% of the countries out there, of course I wanted to voice my concern. World Conquest/Blobbing was NOT harming anyone nor was it a balance issue. It was merely a gameplay style. Just because YOU((Not saying you in particular )) Dont like blobbing/World Conquest doesn't mean that it was harming the balance of the game. Im not trying to hamper on anyone elses style, but as you seen in this thread, they want to do it on mine.



Now for paragraph 2.

Of course, no nation could have taken over the world really in the real world, but im just saying that basing it off of what plausability? Anyone can make an arguement for plausibility. There isn't a way to find out the real possibilitys of anything back then, because it already happened. What happened happened and we can't change the past. People say Germany could have won WW2, if they didn't attack the Soviets when they did and focused on Sea lion etc. But we dont know if thats true or not.

As for the proposed mechanics, we dont have all the information, but the informatino provided is alarming to me. It puts a clock on a World Conquest but it also removes any of the early game province sniping((early wars)). The early wars was how alot of the current nations actually kept up in the current meta of the game. You really think people wait until 1941 to invade Yugoslavia as Germany, let alone Italy? Of course not. We go for a early province as quick as possible because we need that land to be relevant. Italy, by itself, is trash. Lets be honest. It is. We always break the 'realistic' in order to fit the meta of the game. The issue is, do you think the devs will help fix these nations that require such gaming, or will they just leave them to rot?




As for what I want for this game?

I want everyone to be happy. I want the realistic people to be happy and I want people like me who just want to play a fun game to be happy.
There is no balance issue regarding world Conquest. Ther eisn't. Have you ever played a game as the USA and watched Germany conquer the world? I haven't... granted I never play late... but Germany has never gotten past the Soviets((They conquer and then I quit)).. but ive not once seen a world conquest done by an AI. So, based on MY experiences, it shouldn't matter if Belgium defeats Germany and goes on to make everyone eat their waffles because they said so. It doesn't harm anyone, yet, it's being changed? For what purpose? They could have found a different solution to the problem of Germany being too strong/snowballing, but instead they went for an occupation system. The only way I forsee the occupation system being actually good, is if they select every other country, but Germany and give them a manpower boost. But is it realistic? No. I dont think so... so people will stil lbe up in arms on this thread about it.

So what I want is a game where everyone can have fun and enjoy themselves. The game we have currently is a blast for me. I'd love more focus trees and maybe some customization on planes like the navy gets, but the game is a blast. I love it. I do, but finding out that what I enjoy is being taken away is unfair to me. I paid for the game like everyone else.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So before this conversation derails, you will have different options to deal with resistance and compliance, both with cons and pros.

This new system (we hope) is more interesting than a binary "ill just put horses here and be done with it".

I would like to remind everyone that we take different nations into account when doing balancing and introducing new systems, not just Germany.

This is a war game and you need at least two to tango

A helpful reminder.
 
Does this mean that colonies can get independents and occupied countries can regain independence

Yes, though if you're not at war it's really difficult because another country most support the resistance do a rebellion can happen.

Maybe if we get later an early cold war DLC we will see things such as the USSR supporting independence movements in Africa and Asia
 
Will it be possible to incite resistance in shared core states? For instance, could Germany stir up rebellion in Danzig, or could Ireland support secession in Ulster?