Habeas Corpus and Martial Law

[Jagger]

Is anyone using suspension of Habeas Corpus and martial law? I have used them in the past but once I studied the impact and the negatives, I just can't see a compelling reason to use either.

Habeas Corpus ensures loyalty does not fall below 15% but at the cost of not receiving VPs from the state and loyalty is capped at 85%.

Martial Law ensures loyalty does not fall below 30% but at the cost of negative VPs from the state and loyalty is capped at 70%.

First, I see very little advantage to maintaining loyalty above either 15% or 30% except in terms of minor increases in production (which are offset by reductions in production) and no need to worry about revolts (extremely small chance as all cities are garrisoned anyway).

Second, it seems the penalties of loss or negative VPs are very severe if victory is dependent on victory points.

To me, I just can't justify using suspension of Habeas Corpus or Martial Law when I can simply garrison cities with militia. Am I missing some factors which justify the loss of VPs in using Habeas Corpus or Martial Law?

Yet Martial Law and suspension of Habeas Corpus were used during the war. So there should be compelling benefits, in addition to negatives, to using both.

I might accept the loss of VP's (maybe) if the measures increased loyalty by 15% or 30% of regions within a state while accepting a top end cap of 70% or 85%. Although it would be even better if VP's were only lost for cities with loyalties below 50%. I really hate not gaining or even losing the VP's. That is a very harsh penalty.

Any thoughts or comments?

[Jagger]

BTW, is there any relationship between loyalty levels and military control of an unoccupied region?

[jimwinsor]

BTW, is there any relationship between loyalty levels and military control of an unoccupied region?

Yes, control will gradually go for/against you if loyalty is heavily for/against you. A few point a turn, on average, depending on the degree of (dis)loyalty.

[Jabberwock]

BTW, is there any relationship between loyalty levels and military control of an unoccupied region?

Also, you only get the benefits of HC/ML in an unoccupied region if you have 50% or greater military control.

I would only use martial law if I am trying to keep a supply line open through a hostile state and don't control many cities. Of course, you need to control one strategic city to even get these options. Suspending habeus corpus might be useful if ... you have invaded Kentucky or had a St. Louis massacre, loyalty has dropped below 15% in most regions of the state, you have tons of militia available to garrison the countryside, and it is April.

[Jagger]

I wanted to bump this once.

I am curious what sort of benefits would you want to see from habeas corpus or martial law which would convince you to use it?

It is a shame to have the feature but not use it.

[Spruce]

yes, I agree - these options should be made more attractive. Just for gameplay reasons.

[Jabberwock]

I wanted to bump this once.

I am curious what sort of benefits would you want to see from habeas corpus or martial law which would convince you to use it?

It is a shame to have the feature but not use it.

I believe the least unbalancing option might be changing the die roll to about 60 instead of 100 for loyalty changes based on police ratings. That way, the maximum rate of change would stay at 1% turn, but the chance of getting that 1% change would increase if there were troops in the area.

[Jagger]

I believe the least unbalancing option might be changing the die roll to about 60 instead of 100 for loyalty changes based on police ratings. That way, the maximum rate of change would stay at 1% turn, but the chance of getting that 1% change would increase if there were troops in the area.

That is an interesting idea. Speed up the loyalty process.

Although the lack of or loss of VP's is a very drastic cost considering the time frame required to see any real benefits even if speeded up. I know I will not give up the VP's without an equally substantial benefit.

Another idea. Delink martial law and habeas corpus entirely from VP's in rebel states. Instead increase the risk of revolts and guerillas appearing anywhere within the state. Enemy cavalry raids or even reconquering of towns or cities would provide increased recruiting to the enemy. Perhaps reduced supply available due to guerilla activity. Just some thoughts.

[GShock]

Looks odd that the President of either Nation might sign an impopular act, in a war theater and just have it applied without military forces in those regions...
...it has to be enforced with the military.

How can impopular restrictions increase the loyalty when they should actually decrease it? I think these acts should increase the MC *in regions you occupy with forces and, in neighboring regions of the same state it applies to (reduced)* and not the loyalty which should drop consequently to the signing of these acts in those states.

The new order imposed by the presence of military units who suppress banditism in regions previously ravaged by war, could slowly improve the loyalty not through the act but through the Military control (bonused by the acts in this case) making sure these restrictions actually work and help the player achieve something unachievable without.

Essentially the idea is to sign the acts to help the MC and penalyzing the loyalty. The MC in turn produces loyalty after you have suppressed the acts (the loyalty is decreased by these acts).

These acts would be targeted at giving you the possibility to increase your MC thanks to the bonus even small units can get those 25% MC needed to make the supplies pass. Once this is achieved, you can suspend the act. It must be the MC (helped by actual presence of forces) that quells rebellions, not the acts themselves, and the MC in turn, after the suspension of these acts, will help the loyalty. That's what i think.