• 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!
 
Very excited about that! So much from this.
It will make the Colonies more realistic for French or English Empire, also the fact that it nerf annexing too much is great.
As Germany I never did the ReichKommisariat as I prefer to manage all myself, but now it will be more realistic by encouraging the player to do it :p
Hope some focuses will impact the Resistance/Compliance, like 'Develop the colonies' as the French !!

No, compliance has a nice Horus Heresy style euphemism thing going on.
Countries that do not 'comply' will receive an express Inquisition visit...
 
This all sounds awesome!!

But, good grief, could you please rename 'compliance' to 'cooperation' or 'collaboration' or even 'sympathizers'?? 'Compliance' makes it sound like a GDPR exercise... Collaborators was a common label given to people who collaborated with the occupying enemy.
Take a deep breath. Calm your mind. You know what is best. What is best is you comply. Compliance will be rewarded. ;)
Hail Hydra. :p
 
Compliance is better than collaborator. It must be neutral so it fits as well to your side as to the other side. Were the colonial troops that obeyed their British or French masters 'collaborators'? Yes, looking from a colony freedom fighter perspective.
 
Why is Guderian dyiny -zhukoow isn*tvthat good

If you ment why Zukov is better in game than Guderian, that really is wrong historically. Both Zukov and Konev have skill 5 from the start and that is ridiculous; they were not great theorist and had a lot to learn before being able to win the Germans. They should start much lover, 3 or max. 4. IMHO, of the Soviet commanders Rokossovsky proved to be the best strategist. He planned the succesful Operation Bagration, the only main operation where German losses were larger than the Soviet losses. In all other the Soviets lost more men even when they won. So, Rokossovsky should be ahead of Zukov and Konev. Zukov especially won by being a harsh leader (should have that trait) winning by not caring how many men he would loose. In his own memories he told he ordered his subordinate commanders to be shot when they tried to save their men. Is brutality talent? Zukov made stupid decisions until 1945, while winning by force. Like ordering his tanks to attack with lights on at night at Seelowe Heights, what a nice target for at-gunners.

Guderian succesfully invented and implemented the new mobile warfare concept, based on research of WWI battles. Others tried developing similar concept, like Fuller in the UK, but failed to get it accepted. Guderian also was not just a theorist, but also prooved a very capable commander in Poland, France, and the Eastern Front. IMHO he deserves the highest skill level given to any general from the beginning. Now he had 4, he should have 5 or 6. Of the Germans, von Manstein was maybe the greatest strategist and Rommel the most daring.

Of the Allied commanders, Patton was much like the best German commanders. Speed and initiative were similarly seen in actions by Patton, Guderian and Rommel.

Developers: please lower the skill levels of the Soviet commanders, at least Zukov and Konev. They were not exceptionally skilled, at least not before learning it the hard way until 1944. And give Zukov the hars leader trait; he really deserves it.
 
i hate this because the game is not going to be as fun as before by a lot (in my opinion) but it of curce limits snowballing witch is a part of why i play this game and enjoy it in the first place and i will hate this change unless i hear that there is a way or more to stop that resistace or whatever so your divisions dont just sit there forever being an almost waste of manpower not saying that i think thats what they said i just hope you still have the ability to snowball by doing the correct choices because im not gonna lie the current resistance system is realy lackluster and most of the time i dont think its worth putting units there. Just PLEASE i beg you paradox to make this update still possible to snowball and dont just be lazy AF and nuke snowballing in the game by forcing you to have divisions that are waste of manpower just sitting there. This is just as much a rant as criticism from me and i hope this will be a great DLC paradox.
 
i hate this because the game is not going to be as fun as before by a lot (in my opinion) but it of curce limits snowballing witch is a part of why i play this game and enjoy it in the first place and i will hate this change unless i hear that there is a way or more to stop that resistace or whatever so your divisions dont just sit there forever being an almost waste of manpower not saying that i think thats what they said i just hope you still have the ability to snowball by doing the correct choices because im not gonna lie the current resistance system is realy lackluster and most of the time i dont think its worth putting units there. Just PLEASE i beg you paradox to make this update still possible to snowball and dont just be lazy AF and nuke snowballing in the game by forcing you to have divisions that are waste of manpower just sitting there. This is just as much a rant as criticism from me and i hope this will be a great DLC paradox.

Given that HoI4 still has some basis in history, at least from my angle it's perfectly reasonable (indeed - a very good thing - the 1930s and 1940s without the concepts of resistance and compliance oversimplifies the period a bit more than I prefer) putting these kind of mechanics in. That said, there's nothing wrong with not wanting them in either, but if it does turn out to limit the snowball factor beyond where you'd like it, and you'd prefer a less historically based snowballer, I'm pretty confident it'd be possible to mod defines and similar to allow you to expand as you can now.
 
Just PLEASE i beg you paradox to make this update still possible to snowball and dont just be lazy AF and nuke snowballing in the game by forcing you to have divisions that are waste of manpower just sitting there.
... there is a certain irony in saying you want an arcadey snowballer, and then accusing the developers of being lazy for doing work to implement a meaningful resistance mechanism.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
 
i hate this because the game is not going to be as fun as before by a lot (in my opinion) but it of curce limits snowballing witch is a part of why i play this game and enjoy it in the first place and i will hate this change unless i hear that there is a way or more to stop that resistace or whatever so your divisions dont just sit there forever being an almost waste of manpower not saying that i think thats what they said i just hope you still have the ability to snowball by doing the correct choices because im not gonna lie the current resistance system is realy lackluster and most of the time i dont think its worth putting units there. Just PLEASE i beg you paradox to make this update still possible to snowball and dont just be lazy AF and nuke snowballing in the game by forcing you to have divisions that are waste of manpower just sitting there. This is just as much a rant as criticism from me and i hope this will be a great DLC paradox.
I'm challenging myself to say this whole sentence without drawing my breath. So far I've gotten to "worth putting units there".
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I have a Suggestion for the 1.8 'Husky' Update, Prize Ships, Basically once someone has capitulated in the peace deal if they have navy you can take those ships for warscore, once you have taken a ship it design is added to your ship production menu so you can refit it. Yes there is a Historical Bases for this, German Cruisers Prinz Eugen and Nurnburg are good examples. This would help you grow your navy as a minor nation, although there should be a limit to how many ships you can take maybe based on dockyards or something similar. Anyway just a suggestion i think would improve the game for minor nations
 
I have a Suggestion for the 1.8 'Husky' Update, Prize Ships, Basically once someone has capitulated in the peace deal if they have navy you can take those ships for warscore, once you have taken a ship it design is added to your ship production menu so you can refit it. Yes there is a Historical Bases for this, German Cruisers Prinz Eugen and Nurnburg are good examples. This would help you grow your navy as a minor nation, although there should be a limit to how many ships you can take maybe based on dockyards or something similar. Anyway just a suggestion i think would improve the game for minor nations

My angle on this is 'I think the safest simple abstraction from a historical plausibility perspective is to not have seizing of enemy ships on capitulation' (it's a very complicated issue, and even moreso if the nation capitulating still has allies in play - there was no way known the French, for example, were going to give up their fleet to the Germans in July 1940, but a small number of smaller French vessels did end up in German and Italian service) but from a practical perspective, it can be difficult servicing vessels that are not catered to by a nations' naval industry. For example, iirc Prinz Eugen ended up having to be towed at least partway across the Atlantic to the US because the crew on board couldn't get her engines to work. Spare parts, ammunition (even if a gun is the same calibre as the armament of similar ships in a nation's navies, it doesn't mean that the seizing nation can use it's existing ammunition in the seized ship's gun - this can depend on the size and shape of the chamber and the set-up of the ammunition supply arrangements, amongst other things).

There are, of course, cases of fleets that were seized and used before a war was 'over' (ie, a situation different to that after WW1), and other examples of damaged or partially completed warships that were repaired/finished by the conquering nation and put to work, but these were mostly minor (iirc even after WW1, the largest vessel to be taken over and put into service, as opposed to used as a gunnery target, was a light cruiser). From memory, the last time capital ships or large cruisers were actually used as naval vessels by the victorious nation was after the Russo-Japanese War (1905), and my impression was that the time spent on getting these ships up to speed (noting more than a few were raised and repaired, so it wasn't a straight handover) seriously retarded Japan's capacity to complete it's planned naval construction programs.

If the devs were keen, and wanted to spend some serious time and effort developing a system that could model the myriad complexities of when a nation would be likely to scuttle en mass (eg, German fleet post-WW1) or capitulate in a way that the ships could be potentially used in the future (Germany and Japan in WW2) then it might be interesting, but it'd be a lot of work to get it right, with significant balance implications to getting it wrong (a Germany seizing all of the RN after a quick and cheesy capitulation of Britain, for example, would be ridiculous, and do all sorts of horrible things to balance).

Just my 2 cents as always, and it's probably a mark of good sense if you disagree :)