MPP gain from islands

[Chernobyl]

This is probably in the manual somewhere but I'm too lazy to look it up.
What economic gain do you get from capturing resources that are not directly connected to your capital nor have any sort of convoy? For example when Japan captures the mine at Nauru, or if Germany captures England. Is it a smaller percentage than if there is a road or rail connection to your capital?
Does it matter if there is a road or rail connection at all? I understand road and rail connections can increase the strength of the resource, but I mean besides that.
I also take it that island resources get "sucked in" to a convoy, because I don't imagine you get their MPP for existing in your empire PLUS the convoy value, and it seems the MPP value of the convoy is related to the total value of the resources in the region that convoy represents (one oil refinery gets damaged, convoy sends less MPP)

[BillRunacre]

Yes, the lack of a connection to the capital means that the resources' strength won't be at their potential maximum, consequently the income is proportionately less.

The interface does show the MPP value, once the island is in the war and fog of war permitting of course.

You can obtain a good idea of the value of Nauru and similar places by starting a new Hotseat game of the 1943 campaign, with Fog of War off, and just scrolling the map to compare values, e.g. Nauru's mine is worth 6 MPPs a turn at strength 3.

As to convoys, where one exists they are the sole means of transferring MPPs to the convoy recipient, so if the convoy is very heavily raided then it is possible that the recipient will receive no income from that country.

[Chernobyl]

Thank you.

It sounds like you actually get 100% of the resource MPP despite no road or rail connection to the capital.

[BillRunacre]

It depends on how you look at it, because its strength and consequently its MPP value is only 30% of what it would have been had it been connected to the capital.

[Chernobyl]

I think one of the reasons I was confused is because in the editor I see every country has a "Max Occupational Efficiency %" which is 80% for every country except for Italy which is 100%.

I assumed this was the % of MPP you get from occupied territories, but now I'm not sure what it is.

[BillRunacre]

It's the maximum strength an occupied resource can go to, e.g. French resources under Axis control that would normally maximize at 10 can instead only have a maximum strength of 8.

This doesn't apply at lower strengths, so I think it's not relevant on the Pacific islands in general.

[Chernobyl]

It's the maximum strength an occupied resource can go to, e.g. French resources under Axis control that would normally maximize at 10 can instead only have a maximum strength of 8.

This doesn't apply at lower strengths, so I think it's not relevant on the Pacific islands in general.

But then why does Italy not get higher strengths (100%)? I haven't noticed Italy being able to get higher resource strengths compared to Germany. I certainly don't see any improvement in Russia if I give a city or resource over to the Italians (not even sure if they get the MPP from owning those hexes, either; the money still seems to go to Germany if I put an Italian garrision on top of a Caucasus oilwell while USSR is still alive). I believe I noticed some differences in the Middle East as far as how strong the oilfields will repair up to, but I thought this was due to having a rail connection thru Turkey or not?

USSR has a uniquely low MOE% of 60%, do they actually get worse max resource strengths when they conquer territory? I haven't noticed this but I don't often play a scenario where they would be conquering outside territory.

[BillRunacre]

But then why does Italy not get higher strengths (100%)? I haven't noticed Italy being able to get higher resource strengths compared to Germany. I certainly don't see any improvement in Russia if I give a city or resource over to the Italians (not even sure if they get the MPP from owning those hexes, either; the money still seems to go to Germany if I put an Italian garrision on top of a Caucasus oilwell while USSR is still alive).

The same rule applies no matter which Axis power is occupying Soviet resources, as the Occupational Efficiency applies to all of them, so whether Italian or German occupied, the max strength will be the same.

Pre-Soviet surrender, Italy will receive the MPPs of resources its units occupy, unlessthe unit is operated into the resource. If it moves normally then it will take ownership, and receive the MPPs.

I believe I noticed some differences in the Middle East as far as how strong the oilfields will repair up to, but I thought this was due to having a rail connection thru Turkey or not?

It will also be related to the Occupational Efficiency of the countries in question.

It might be useful to play a game in Hotseat with no Fog of War, say of the 1942 campaign, and operate some Italian units to the USSR then in the following Axis turn move them manually into various resources so they own them, and then compare the difference in both Germany and Italy's end of turn income with that of the previous turn.

Possibly also mocking up your own very simple campaign in the Editor to test out a few things, and then seeing how things work in game. I do this myself when testing out different ideas, and when I saw a very simple campaign, I mean it, as I might start by just creating a map with a very small number of land hexes, capitals for both sides, and then go from there depending on what I'm testing.

USSR has a uniquely low MOE% of 60%, do they actually get worse max resource strengths when they conquer territory? I haven't noticed this but I don't often play a scenario where they would be conquering outside territory.

No they don't, all armies on one side or the other experience the same Occupational Efficiency rules when conquering an opponent, though of course other factors like railways and connections to a home country do play their role too.

[Chernobyl]

Thank you for the detailed explanations.