Manpower

[Shadow Knight]

Since we have a thread about Order of battles (OOB) this thread should determine the correct amount of manpower that each country should have. Feel free to disagree with some numbers I found that I shall list below. No doubt this will be needed to be played around with in beta but good historical information is a good place to start.

First though I understand that the French had compulsary military service at the time (roughly 85% of the men able to fight) so this should lead them to have a high starting manpower. While places like German and Austro-Hungry had the potential for large manpower their starting manpower should be low and increased with events, IMO. If any other country had this too speak up, for I do not know of any others...so speak up for your home country if you think they deserve a higher starting manpower.

But on with the numbers:

Total Men Mobilised (how many of these were actually combatants I am not sure):

[These numbers are rounded]

Allies:
Russia 12 million
France 8.4 million
GB and Empire 8.9 million
Italy 5.5 million
USA 4.3 million
Romania 750,000
Serbia 700,000
Belgium 267,000 (note that they probably would have liked to have more but there country was overrun. A good event would be to simulate that if Belgium loses their three home territories their manpower should take a big hit.)
Greece 230,000
Portugal 100,000
Total Allies 42 million

Central Powers:
Germany 11 million
Austro-Hungry 7.8 million
Turkey 2.8 million
Bulgaria 1.2 million
Total Central Powers: 22.8 million

Grand Total : 65 million


This doesn't include some countries like Japan, so I leave it to others more knowledgable to drop on in for that information.

We might want to also agree on how many men were in a typical division/brigade and go from there. Including here the non-combatants usually assigned to the division (i.e. bakers, cooks, etc.)

Some other possible events that could be added if feasible are that if manpower for a country gets below a certain amount, or if that isn't possible tie it onto a date (let's say for example Germany gets below 1000) then an event fires (this should only happen a few times and should be sequential.) which allows the player/ai to draft more men adding to the manpower pool at the cost of IC (the drafting of manufacturing workers). The second event should be for old men and boys, or something like that.

Well this is only a few ideas, feel free to chime on in.

 

[StephenT]

Those figures look fine to me - my reference books have a few different numbers but nothing drastic. The biggest difference is Germany - I have 13.4 million not 11 million for them.

Of the British Empire total, 5.7m was from the UK, 1.7m from India, 0.42m from Australia, 0.62m from Canada, 0.12m from New Zealand, 0.23m from South Africa.

Japan was 800,000, Portugal 200,000.

As for conscription, in fact every single country in Europe had it (AFAIK) except for Britain! Germany in particular had a large reserve of trained manpower which she mobilised straight away into divisions.

What you may be thinking of regarding France is that just before the war, they extended compulsory military service from 2 years (normal in other countries) to three. This meant that their starting army was 50% bigger than it would otherwise be - but on the other hand their reserves of manpower were actually much smaller than comparable powers.

As for Britain, they should start off with very little manpower. An event timed to go off some time in late 1915 should give them a big manpower boost, enough to raise 50 or so divisions - this was "Kitchener's Army" or the "New Army" that was ready to fight in July 1916 at the Somme. They should get a second (slightly smaller) manpower boost in the winter of 1916/17 to represent conscription (which was finally introduced to replace the casualties from the Somme).

The USA should follow a similar principle - no starting manpower pool (to prevent them building up a huge army while neutral) but an event triggered by war entry giving them enough manpower to raise 30 - 40 divisions.

Most infantry divisions in this period had 20,000 men at full strength (a lot less after they'd been in action for a while).

 

[Allenby]

Originally posted by StephenT
As for Britain, they should start off with very little manpower.

Unless of course we make an event along the lines of "Introduce conscription in India?"

 

[StephenT]

If India supplied troops in the same proportion to its population as Britain, that would make 467 new divisions.

Maybe not...

 

[Shadow Knight]

Originally posted by StephenT
Those figures look fine to me - my reference books have a few different numbers but nothing drastic. The biggest difference is Germany - I have 13.4 million not 11 million for them.
]

That could very well be, I was not sure the source I was using had included all branches of the armed forces given in the list.

Originally posted by StephenT
Of the British Empire total, 5.7m was from the UK, 1.7m from India, 0.42m from Australia, 0.62m from Canada, 0.12m from New Zealand, 0.23m from South Africa.
]

That is interesting I knew India supplied a lot manpwer but did not that they had sent that much. Did it all go to the European theater or was some it sent to Africa and elsewhere?

That could also be useful in determining manpower that is distributed to the provinces, to help determine manpower per month.

Originally posted by StephenT
Japan was 800,000, Portugal 200,000.
]

Well Japan did have it relatively easy in Asia, not like Germany had much there. Go Portugal!

Originally posted by StephenT
As for conscription, in fact every single country in Europe had it (AFAIK) except for Britain! Germany in particular had a large reserve of trained manpower which she mobilised straight away into divisions.
]

Yep, got to give it to the Brits, experts at raising divisions from out of the void...in fifteen months no less! Well experts until the US raised two million from nothing in less than a year.

From what I understand Germany had around half a million man standing army (Almost all in Germany) with about another half a million in trained militia (the landwehr), but most of those units were older men that had military training, most to old to even be considered for the reserves (But proved to be quite tenacious on the battle field.). The rest of their manpower needed to be trained.

Originally posted by StephenT
What you may be thinking of regarding France is that just before the war, they extended compulsory military service from 2 years (normal in other countries) to three. This meant that their starting army was 50% bigger than it would otherwise be - but on the other hand their reserves of manpower were actually much smaller than comparable powers.
]

Their total manpower was smaller compared to the other powers but a large portion (85% I believe) had military training. Thus my belief that they should have a large starting manpower pool to draw from (or at least jacked up by and event really high once war with Germany starts or by a set of events to give the French a little time to 'call up the reserves'.), even if it is smaller than some of the other powers.

Originally posted by StephenT
As for Britain, they should start off with very little manpower. An event timed to go off some time in late 1915 should give them a big manpower boost, enough to raise 50 or so divisions - this was "Kitchener's Army" or the "New Army" that was ready to fight in July 1916 at the Somme. They should get a second (slightly smaller) manpower boost in the winter of 1916/17 to represent conscription (which was finally introduced to replace the casualties from the Somme).
]

I agree, for it would represent the fine tradition that Britain had of raising the armies from thin air. I wonder if maybe a small IC hit (1 IC certainly no more than 2 IC) in some of the larger cities to represent the large amount of experienced workers that volunteered...

Originally posted by StephenT
The USA should follow a similar principle - no starting manpower pool (to prevent them building up a huge army while neutral) but an event triggered by war entry giving them enough manpower to raise 30 - 40 divisions.
]

Agreed the US had only a 150,000 men and no real desire to increase that. It was large enough to chase Poncho Villa around the desert and that the way they liked it. But when war came you couldn't find enough boats to get over the pond...too bad the game can't simulate the British navy transporting them over. (Good thing Transports are cheap and built quickly.)

Originally posted by StephenT
Most infantry divisions in this period had 20,000 men at full strength (a lot less after they'd been in action for a while).

Hmm I had heard the number 15,000 with 9,000 in the later war years...but 20,000 seems like a good round number.

So that leaves the question how much manpower should a single infantry division soak up. I would say an unmodified division should eat up say...20 manpower. So for example then the US would need 20*40 = 800 at least, maybe another 1000 or 1500 for replacements and manpower for the other branches.

However this could lead Germany to need over 5000 just to put its 251 divisions in the field....hmmm.

Then maybe another 10 manpower for the various brigades. Well suggestions would be welcome.

 

[StephenT]

Regarding India, they had 10 infantry and 3 cavalry divisions overseas, mostly in East Africa, Palestine and Iraq. Two went to the Western Front briefly, realised it was too cold, and quickly went to the Middle East instead. A roughly equal number of troops remained in India.

Having looked in more details at division sizes, the Austrians, Russians, Rumanians and Serbs had 20,000 men; the British, Germans and French had about 13,000-16,000, and the Americans, Bulgarians and Belgians 27,000 - 30,000! Of course, these are theoretical strengths, ignoring the effects of combat losses but also ignoring Corps and Army-level troops.

 

[Shadow Knight]

Originally posted by StephenT
Regarding India, they had 10 infantry and 3 cavalry divisions overseas, mostly in East Africa, Palestine and Iraq. Two went to the Western Front briefly, realised it was too cold, and quickly went to the Middle East instead. A roughly equal number of troops remained in India.

Having looked in more details at division sizes, the Austrians, Russians, Rumanians and Serbs had 20,000 men; the British, Germans and French had about 13,000-16,000, and the Americans, Bulgarians and Belgians 27,000 - 30,000! Of course, these are theoretical strengths, ignoring the effects of combat losses but also ignoring Corps and Army-level troops.

Hmm too bad the Senegalese under the French didn't get that option.

I wonder if there should be two doctrines and all nations start with one or the other.
Example)

Large divisional structure: More manpower per division to overwhelm your opponents. (This would be given to Austrians, Russians, etc.) Cost more Manpower per division and maybe give a +1 to defense (more of them to kill).

Small divisional structure: Less manpower per division so you had better add more firepower if you want to compete with the hordes. (Given to the Western Powers, ect.) Cost less manpower per division constructed, and maybe an organization bonus (1-3%) or +1 to soft attack.

These could be used to help with balancing manpower between the powers. That way a base manpower would change given who the power is. Making doling out manpower levels a bit easy.

 

[unmerged(8000)]

Just to add, I don't think you should bother with different division sizes, Paradox didnt in HOI so yea... Also Germany's divisions were 20,000 with Uk and France about 15,000. Just choose an average figure.

 

[Shadow Knight]

Originally posted by Vonsson
Just to add, I don't think you should bother with different division sizes, Paradox didnt in HOI so yea... Also Germany's divisions were 20,000 with Uk and France about 15,000. Just choose an average figure.

I am not going to worry too much about it, but it might be worthwhile to go for as much historical accuracy as possible. Not all powers were created the same, and it is best to reflect this.

 

[Shadow Knight]

I am too lazy to go looking for what all the type of units were decided on, and what type of brigade attachments were also.

I am thinking that vanilla infantry should cost 10 manpower, with the other being slightly more or less than this. With 10 manpower representing 15000 men (or 1 being 1500).

Also if possible varying costs for the different brigades.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Why don't we make it easy, and go for 1 manpower equals 1,000 troops? It wouldn't be hard to tweak the numbers a little, and the system would make much more sense.

Plus, its nice to look at your manpower numbers, and say, "I've got 369,000 available troops" or whatever number, without resorting to math.

Steele

 

[Shadow Knight]

Originally posted by Steele
Why don't we make it easy, and go for 1 manpower equals 1,000 troops? It wouldn't be hard to tweak the numbers a little, and the system would make much more sense.

Plus, its nice to look at your manpower numbers, and say, "I've got 369,000 available troops" or whatever number, without resorting to math.

Steele

I suppose that could work.

That would lead overall manpower (full mobilization levels) to be:

Germany: 13,400
Austro-Hungarians: 7,800
Bulgaria: 1200
Turkey: 2800

Russia: 12,000
GB & Empire: 8,900
Italy: 5,500
*US: 4,300
*Romania: 750
*Belgium:267
Portugal: 200
Greece: 230
*Japan: 800

*Could be higher under certain conditions.
US- While only four million saw service, had the war gone on longer I would say that the US could have called up more. (Say another four to five million bringing the total to 9,000 or 10,000.)

Romania- Could have been higher had they not been overrun by Bulgars and Germans.)

Belgium- Should be higher if they retain control of there home territories.

Japan: Depending on how high of a committment the Japanese player this could also be higher. (Maybe an event once they control certain German territories in the Pacific, would give them an option to either expand the war to units in other theatres or squat on their gains and watch.)

Then vanilla Infantry should be 15 manpower. With brigades adding several more manpower points depending on the brigade.

Although it would still be cool for certain powers to have doctrines that raise or lower manpower to reflect their military ideologies.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Those numbers make sense.

However, I think the US should at least be equal to Germany's manpower levels by full mobilization, if not far in excess. Historically, the US never suffered a shortage of available manpower. The trick will be to build the units and ship them across.

Additionally, Japan, Greece, and Portugal should all be higher, to reflect the capability of raising troops, not the number of troops raised.

Steele

 

[Shadow Knight]

I agree, maybe doubling the number actually raised.

At start:

Japan: 1,600
Belgium: maybe 750?
Greece: 500
Portugal: 400

Then through events could be increased or decreased. Such as loss of home territories by Belgium or Greece's unhappiness about being involved.

Got to love the Greek King's saying to the Allies, "I do not understand how it can be wrong for the German's to occupy Belgium, when it is okay for Britain and France to occupy Greece."

The US needs to be done carefully though...I would say at most no more than Germany. But their manpower levels need to be introduced by events. maybe only 100 or so in the beginning and as the entrance to the war occurs, increase it by 4,000 or so. Then if the war goes past a certain date increase it by another 4,000 or so until total possible manpower is twelve to thirteen thousand.

[Hit reply button before done with my thoughts on the matter. D'oh!]

 

[StephenT]

Just a quick thought - before finalising these figures we need to work out each country's "manpower income" from its controlled provinces over the course of the war, and make sure the starting manpower pool accounts for this.

The following figures may also be useful; they show the number of divisions in the major armies on 1 August 1914, 1 January 1915, '16, '17 and '18, and 11 November 1918.

Germany: 113, 132, 171, 197, 244, 220
Austria: 64, 64, 75, 78, 81, 78
Turkey: 38, 40, 43, 48, 47, 26
British Empire: 12, 23, 54, 63, 83, 89, 87

For other countries I only have the 8/14 and 11/18 figures:
France 96, 221
Belgium 7, 7
Russia 94, -
Italy ?, 61
Serbia 12, 7
USA ?, 42

Germany's number of divisions was achieved by putting 20% of their population in uniform. France 22%. Britain, "only" 12%. USA 5% by the time the war ended.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

The problem with limiting the US to such a low manpower level is that if the player decides to play ahistorically, and join the war, he gets no army whatsoever. I think that it should start at 100 or less, but needs to increase hugely once war begins.

Can we tie events to the 'War Entry' score? Are we even going to use this? Perhaps an event once war begins doubling the growth rate, and another event when the US joins the war, doubling or tripling it again.

As for the other countries, I think manpower should be tied to the population, not the number of troops raised. Greece, for example, had the capability to raise far more troops than Belgium, but the fact that they did not should not prevent them from doing so. Also, Russia should have the ability to raise about 1.5x as many troops as Germany, and other things like this. Remember, this is about recreating historical possibilities, not watching how it actually happened.

Some numbers, for 1914 populations:

Russia - 166,000,000
US - 99,118,430
Germany - 64,283,000
Austria-Hungary - 51,000,000
UK - 43,335,000 (British Isles only)
France - 39,000,000
Italy - 34,750,000
Turkey - 26,000,000 (Anatolia)
Brazil - 24,160,000
Spain - 20,515,000
Mexico - 14,880,000
Egypt - 13,600,000
Argentina - 7,800,000
Canada - 7,690,000
Belgium - 7,630,000
Romania - 7,500,000
South Africa - 6,600,000
Netherlands - 6,235,000
Sweden - 5,600,000
Columbia - 5,300,000
Belgian Congo - 5,100,000
Greece - 4,800,000
Serbia - 4,500,000
Peru - 4,300,000
Chile - 3,400,000
Denmark - 2,900,000
Venezuela - 2,600,000
Cuba - 2,460,000
Bolivia - 2,050,000
Ecuador - 1,400,000
Uruguay - 1,300,000
Paraguay - 545,000
Liberia - 512,000

Obviously this is an incomplete list. But, it is a start, and I think basing manpower on capability, rather than actual output is a definite good thing.

The trick will be to get accurate numbers (which often don't exist) for the rest of the world.

Steele

EDIT: Argentina definitly has more than 7 people in 1914. Typo.

 

[StephenT]

Steele - I agree with your approach almost entirely.

The only cases where manpower shouldn't be linked directly to population are two:

1) Countries which didn't have compulsory military service: British Empire, USA, maybe more. Unlike the other countries they didn't have a pool of trained manpower to draw on immediately, but had to raise and train their armies from scratch. So, as we've discussed, some kind of event giving them a one-off boost of manpower some time after they join the war would be best. The boost should be equal to what they'd start with if they'd had military service from the beginning.

2) Countries which thanks to inefficiency and poverty were unable to raise the same percentage of troops as an equivalent Western country. China and Russia would be obvious examples, one more extreme than the other. An industrial country can shut down the factories producing luxury goods and the service industries to put its men into uniform. If most of your population are subsistence-level peasant farmers, taking them off the land will result in famine and economic collapse. In other words, we should have some kind of multiplier: First World nations get, say, 15% of their population as available manpower (perhaps with an event offering them 5% extra in return for an IC reduction), Second World (Russia) get 7.5%, and Third World (China) get 0.1%.

 

[Shadow Knight]

Originally posted by Steele [/i]
The problem with limiting the US to such a low manpower level is that if the player decides to play ahistorically, and join the war, he gets no army whatsoever. I think that it should start at 100 or less, but needs to increase hugely once war begins.

Can we tie events to the 'War Entry' score? Are we even going to use this? Perhaps an event once war begins doubling the growth rate, and another event when the US joins the war, doubling or tripling it again.

I was under the impression we would start it with an event that would kick off when they went to war. The US player should be restricted because the US population was content in its neutrality.

So if its possible I would have an event that gave the US its first manpower boost at the onset of war with anyone. (If it is not possible to do a general at war, then do a at war with either Germany or Britain, for historical and ahistorical.) Then the other the US manpower events would fire after at later dates if the US calls them up.

And I wish there was a way to get rid of war entry, it is too weird in how it works (I wonder if it is possible to disable it?).

As for the other countries, I think manpower should be tied to the population, not the number of troops raised. Greece, for example, had the capability to raise far more troops than Belgium, but the fact that they did not should not prevent them from doing so. Also, Russia should have the ability to raise about 1.5x as many troops as Germany, and other things like this. Remember, this is about recreating historical possibilities, not watching how it actually happened.

I agree with StephenT on this issue, and really like his idea about First World countries getting 15% available for manpower, etc. The only thing that I would add to this is that we use the numbers countries actually recruited as a base for their manpower. So for example Germany recruited 13.4 million men (using StepheT's numbers) out of 64.2 million (Steele's numbers), simple division shows this to be 20.85% of the population. So I would suggest that for those countries that historically went to 15% or above get the numbers that we have, and that those countries that didn't reach the percentage (based on their econonmy, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd) that they should be boosed up to that level.

And I still think every major nation (i.e. those who historically participated in the war have an event that if they loose certain territories their manpower is reduced, i.e. such as Belgium losing their three home territories.)

Some numbers, for 1914 populations:

Russia - 166,000,000
US - 99,118,430
Germany - 64,283,000
Austria-Hungary - 51,000,000
UK - 43,335,000 (British Isles only)
France - 39,000,000
Italy - 34,750,000
Turkey - 26,000,000 (Anatolia)
Brazil - 24,160,000
Spain - 20,515,000
Mexico - 14,880,000
Egypt - 13,600,000
Argentina - 7,800,000
Canada - 7,690,000
Belgium - 7,630,000
Romania - 7,500,000
South Africa - 6,600,000
Netherlands - 6,235,000
Sweden - 5,600,000
Columbia - 5,300,000
Belgian Congo - 5,100,000
Greece - 4,800,000
Serbia - 4,500,000
Peru - 4,300,000
Chile - 3,400,000
Denmark - 2,900,000
Venezuela - 2,600,000
Cuba - 2,460,000
Bolivia - 2,050,000
Ecuador - 1,400,000
Uruguay - 1,300,000
Paraguay - 545,000
Liberia - 512,000

Obviously this is an incomplete list. But, it is a start, and I think basing manpower on capability, rather than actual output is a definite good thing.

The trick will be to get accurate numbers (which often don't exist) for the rest of the world.

Steele

EDIT: Argentina definitly has more than 7 people in 1914. Typo. [/B]

Then we have to go with the best numbers we can get. If we can't get the number of actual troops raised, but we have the population we use the percentages StephenT had recommended. If we only have the actual number of troops raised then we use that and maybe double the number.

 

[StephenT]

I'd just point out that Germany (and France, which recruited 22% of its population) only achieved such high numbers by huge sacrifices, damaging their civilian economy immensely (and permanently, which kind of explains WW2).

So rather than just give them this manpower automatically, I'd still like to see an event in 1917 or so offering them a big manpower boost, but also increasing unrest and/or decreasing IC production. Let the player make the choice... (of course, the other Great Powers should be offered a similar deal).

 

[unmerged(11486)]

StephenT has a good idea. How about this:

All industrialized nations except the US and UK start out with 10% of their population as available manpower. After war begins, an event will give them the choice of losing 5+ IC (such that nothing goes below 1) in every province, but increasing their manpower to 20% of the population.

In the US and UK, conscription will come as an event, sometime after they join the war. They start with 1-3% of the population as manpower. Conscription will increase dissent by 5%, and increase manpower to 10% of the population. After a while, an event will offer them the chance to sacrifice 5+ ICs (such that nothing goes below 1) the same as other nations, in exchange for increasing manpower to 20% of the population.

Poorer nations (Russia) should have the same system, but at somewhat lower numbers. They start with 7.5% of the population available as manpower, and with a sacrifice of 2+ IC (such that nothing goes below 1) in every province, they can double this to 15% of the population.

The poorest nations (China) should have even lower numbers. They begin with 3.5% of the population available as manpower. An event will allow them to sacrifice 1 IC in every province, as long as nothing goes below 1. This will increase their available manpower to 10% of the population.

I agree about War Entry. It gets annoying, and won't be very useful I don't think.

As I said before, tying available manpower to the number of troops actuaslly raised is not a good idea. It puts an artificial limitation on the game.

Steele