Manpower

[unmerged(11486)]

Australia isn't even a country in the game, as we are treating it as a part of the British Empire; a singular country.

Thanks for the input, however.

Steele

PS: SykoNurse, if you happen to see this, could you move these two posts into the general thread...

 

[unmerged(18045)]

Serbia 1914
population 4,5
army 360,000


By 1918 serbia have called 852,000 soldiers to fight under its flag.
Had many volunteers from all around the world coming in since 1876.
Also there were refugees(dont know how many) from austro hungary after the assasination.
I am not sure but about this but on my own free estimates 150.000 serbs were in the russian,italian and romanian army(whole divisions made completely of serb volunteers in some cases).I have many different info about loses and some activites on these volunteer but not exact figures.but lets coutn that there were at least 100.000.You will not probalby use this until the first patch but by then ill se to find more info.

 

[ptan54]

I have a problem with the fact that the rate of manpower gain doesn't change at all during the war. Granted, if a country loses territory this goes down, but the fact that manpower was diminished but frontlines hardly shifted on the western front is something that must be addressed.

After 4 years of war, isn't it odd that I have no manpower problems at all, assuming that I havent gained or lost much territory? If I'm low on manpower I just have to sit around and wait until it goes up again.

I therefore propose that an event fires in mid 1916, that reduces the manpower of major cities of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, AH, Italy. Another one fires in mid 1918.

The counterargument is "How do you know they undertook massive offensives?"

However, I think a prolonged war will in most cases lead to heavy losses, and this should be reflected on the rate of manpower gain per month.

 

[Shadow Knight]

Well, we could have a decrease in monthly manpower with the mobilizaiton events. Basically each nation starts with their monthly MP (Although GB and the US should start with a very low one that gets raised when they first mobilize, then decreased later.), then when the mobilization event fires they loose some monthly MP. The problem though is that monthly MP is supposed to represent children coming of the age of where they can serve in the military (typically 18). So having cities loose monthly MP because of massive offensives would imply that people younger than military age are participating in the conflict.

However we could also have a yearly (at year's end?) event that decrease the monthly MP that represents people already joining up before they become of 'age'.

 

[ptan54]

Well I know in 1918 Germany had to increasingly draw on younger and younger recruits, and the class of 1900 would only be available for callup in October. They were in effect the last reserves of German manpower, should the war have dragged on.

Your idea of a year end reduction sounds fair. Mobilisation reducing it is logical but seems to make the losses too harsh, if we are reducing their manpower every December.

I cannot reconcile the reductions in monthly MP with the fact that these represent people coming of age. However from a gameplay viewpoint, I just cannot see how a state can churn out the same number of bodies every year, especially if losses on the front are horrific.

 

[Shadow Knight]

Well the problem is that population is not really done in such a way as to take into account more detailed population data. Since the game time in standard HOI is twelve years, and TGW accounts only a ten year period all those soldiers dying on the front may not be reproducing, but even if they were the short time period would not take in account the increase (or decrease in population) because it would take 18 years for them to become available. All those monthly MP (the coming of age guys) are already born, they just need to mature. If the game period was twenty years or longer, yeah I could see your point, but since it is not thems the breaks.

 

[unmerged(16045)]

I have the impression that manpower for Italy is too low. I started having serious problems after but an year of war, to the point that I couldn't build any new divisions and I stopped to 52-53... I'd say this to be wanted an effect, but Austria and Germany in the same period seemed not to have such a problem, having huges armies (Germany had more than 150 divisions).

 

[unmerged(16045)]

...By the way, Italy had more than 150 infantry divisions in 1918.

 

[Shadow Knight]

and how many of them were at full strength, and were deployed at the same time?

 

[Allenby]

...By the way, Italy had more than 150 infantry divisions in 1918.

Are you sure? According to the widely acclaimed, yet uninspiring World War I Databook, Italy formed seventy-two infantry divisions and four cavalry divisions throughout the entire conflict...

 

[unmerged(16045)]

and how many of them were at full strength, and were deployed at the same time?

The 150 divisions were deployed alltogether during the battle of Vittorio Veneto (November 1918). I don't know their organics, but even if they were down to 70%, it is always considerably more manpower than that of TGW.

 

[StephenT]

The allied forces on the Italian Front on 23 October 1918 comprised:
51 Italian divisions
3 British divisions
2 French divisions
1 Czech division
7,720 guns
600 aircraft.

Italy had 2,274,000 men under arms at the Armistice - almost the same as Austria-Hungary, rather less than France, and half the strength of the German army.

 

[unmerged(16045)]

The allied forces on the Italian Front on 23 October 1918 comprised:
51 Italian divisions
3 British divisions
2 French divisions
1 Czech division
7,720 guns
600 aircraft.

Italy had 2,274,000 men under arms at the Armistice - almost the same as Austria-Hungary, rather less than France, and half the strength of the German army.

Ooops! o My memory faulted! I checked my sources and, yes, 51 divisions is correct, not 150. Then the manpower currently adopted is adeguate.
Sorry for my mistake.

 

[Shadow Knight]

That's okay Hurin it happens to the best of us.

 

[Shadow Knight]

I just noticed this, but why does Shanghai not have any MP? It should have some.

 

[ptan54]

Damn straight it should. 5?

 

[Shadow Knight]

Damn straight it should. 5?

That's what I was thinking, but your more of an expert on China than I am.

 

[Allenby]

Are we agreed on having a US manpower event, similar to the one Belgium has?

This will ensure that, by the time it's 1917, the United States doesn't have an army of 60 million men ready to sit in Albany province doing nearly bugger all.

However, Patch has concluded that a sensible German player would attack the United States in 1914 if it had extensive manpower restrictions, and I know of at least one person who plays the mod as Germany and always does that very thing.

Therefore, I think a compromise might be reasonable, whereby the US is capable of building some extra units, but not to an extent where their army gets too large.

Additionally, does anyone think it reasonable that we simulate the AI event in normal HOI where Southampton province is given to the US (to simulate the buildup before Overlord), except for giving a French province to the US, if it is thought that the US AI will use it to facilitate the AEF?

 

[Shadow Knight]

We can only try it and see how it works out.

 

[Allenby]

Good. Someone volunteer and code it then.