World Manpower disposition

[unmerged(55640)]

Populations in game-There is not any defined criterium in game but looking on map only criterium which impose itself is that one manpower on world map represent 1 000 000 people.So i am for redifining values of manpower through world-game on this level just negatate millions of peoples-china,persia.. while other countries recive too much population.Most of the european nations have increased population so i dont expept they will be for this but i appell on all to fix this injustice.Africa is in the worst situation.
Everybody who have suggestions of manpower increase or descrease of some countries(preferably by province specifications of manpower disposition-descrease Sofia,increse x chinise province).At some point I will try by implementing your suggestions to mod files for population.

 

[unmerged(81141)]

Populations in game-There is not any defined criterium in game but looking on map only criterium which impose itself is that one manpower on world map represent 1 000 000 people.So i am for redifining values of manpower through world-game on this level just negatate millions of peoples-china,persia.. while other countries recive too much population.Most of the european nations have increased population so i dont expept they will be for this but i appell on all to fix this injustice.Africa is in the worst situation.
Everybody who have suggestions of manpower increase or descrease of some countries(preferably by province specifications of manpower disposition-descrease Sofia,increse x chinise province).At some point I will try by implementing your suggestions to mod files for population.

Good idea.

 

[blue emu]

You seem to be suggesting that each factor of Manpower in-game represents a certain number of people. This is not correct.

It represents a certain number of people that can be put in the Army.

A low-tech country with poor overland communications (road, rail, etc) will always have a lower in-game Manpower per-capita than an industrialized country which has a good road and rail net... because the low-tech country needs to keep a much greater percentage of its population working on the farms, in order to keep its people fed.

Not only is the level of agriculture more primitive (no scientific farming techniques, no fertilizers, no persticides), but the poor road-net for distribution of harvested foodstuffs requires that the food be produced everywhere in the country, rather than in a few large agricultural belts.

In short... this "injustice" that you deplore is neither the result of oversight, chauvinism nor malice... it is intentional, and entirely realistic.

Good idea.

No... bad idea.

 

[unmerged(81141)]

You seem to be suggesting that each factor of Manpower in-game represents a certain number of people. This is not correct.

It represents a certain number of people that can be put in the Army.

A low-tech country with poor overland communications (road, rail, etc) will always have a lower in-game Manpower per-capita than an industrialized country which has a good road and rail net... because the low-tech country needs to keep a much greater percentage of its population working on the farms, in order to keep its people fed.

Not only is the level of agriculture more primitive (no scientific farming techniques, no fertilizers, no persticides), but the poor road-net for distribution of harvested foodstuffs requires that the food be produced everywhere in the country, rather than in a few large agricultural belts.

In short... this "injustice" that you deplore is neither the result of oversight, chauvinism nor malice... it is intentional, and entirely realistic.

No... bad idea.

Not necessairely. For example, when Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia in August 1914, about 98% of men reported for mobilization, volunteerely. And about 50% of male population died during war. So the manpower factor is relative also to morale, not only to country's economy.

 

[blue emu]

... For example, when Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia in August 1914, about 98% of men reported for mobilization...

260,000... later raised to 400,000... out of a population of 4 1/2 million.

It is certainly true, however, that out of all the belligerent powers in World War I, Serbia put the greatest percentage of its population into uniform.

France was second.

Have you compared the following three statistics for various nations: size of the country's armed forces in WW-2, total national population, national GDP-per-capita?

You will find a very strong correlation between those three stats.

A high-tech country can almost always put a larger effective armed force, per capita, into the field than a low-tech country.

There may be occasional exceptions... but this game is based on general rules, not on exceptional cases.

Remember the British Cruiser HMS Curacao... sunk by a Transport ship? Should the game allow Transport ships to ram and sink major warships... just because we can point to an exceptional case where that happened?

 

[unmerged(81141)]

That is the problem with AI. It cannot simulate real people decisions.

 

[Draigh]

That is the problem with AI. It cannot simulate real people decisions.

This isn't about AI decisions.


However, I would not mind seeing some reform of the way manpower works now. As it is, MP growth rate is constant throughout the years. A Victoria-like system might work better, where manpower is based upon the country's population (of course, we don't have such a thing in HOI) and might be modified by economic and technological ratings. Also, manpower doesn't just "grow" on the trees, but it's a number that can be called upon. Wasted manpower is lost forever and doesn't just "come back". I believe some mods have implemented something to resemble this, more specifically they reduced manpower growth to almost nil and added significant manpower through events.

 

[unmerged(81141)]

USSR was not such an industrial power, but they mobilized milions of soldiers. The manpower growth does not depend on industrial development. Defence of the country is a constitutional duty of every citizen. If a country is in state of direct war danger, it starts mobilization. And I am sure that governments of Norway, France, Greece, Yugoslavia did not think about agriculture while half of their countries had fallen under German attacks. Their priority was to liberate themselves, not to cultivate lands. I think that manpower growth should increase proportionaly to province looses of a country, as they mobilize more and more troops. On the other hand, they could see that they cannot win, and they surrender.

 

[unmerged(55640)]

Have you compared the following three statistics for various nations: size of the country's armed forces in WW-2, total national population, national GDP-per-capita?

Yugoslavia intended mobilisation of 1,2 million operative and 500 000 reserve army in 1941-10% of population-thats aproximate percent of poulation each county can put in field.Yugoslavia was not indusrial country but could put over milion in field as you see.At end of war with almost no industry yug claimed 800 000 men in military units.
In game it says for manpower it says-it represent total number of man reaching military service age for year as i remember-so you are not in right in cource game is officially defining as far as i get it.(i may be wrong)
You have a point and i agreed to certain level-unindustrilised country cannot put much men in field because it cannot arm them etc...but it can mobilise and reinforce units when soldiers are killed,mia and their weapons free to use by others.

Ill give examples in game-i am for instance persia i attack soviet union when germans are advancing and take some ic province-i have for example 40 ic and i ran out of manpower for new divisions-why when i can produce enough arms for new soldiers?.But no-i can mobilize people as iraq which have far lesser population in reality.For italy i want to give some african country equipment and supply to form their army but its pointless because africa is almost free of manpower.

This will not hurt game balance as china with much greater population will not be able to do anything more to japan than now-it simply cannot produce more units as ic is limited.Same for persia,african countries etc.
IC determines military strenght not manpower.

If you are worried about level of development and income of recruts why not give some penalties-like for example china have 80% or something penalty for manpower as it have not modern agriculture or something.Certanly better than reducing population.Than by develoment of tech or ic this penalty can be reduced.Or some other sistem like victoria that was mentioned above.

 

[Draigh]

USSR was not such an industrial power, but they mobilized milions of soldiers. The manpower growth does not depend on industrial development.

The USSR managed to outproduce the Germans during the course of the war. They were certainly not an unindustrialised country. Also, in a largely agrarian society with bad infrastructure, it is difficult to enforce mobilisation. Many farmers would be unwilling to abandon their lands to go fight a war, and mobilisation officers would be unable to reach every distant village to recruit. Moreover, if a country's industry is nearly unexistant, there is no way they can arm their draftees, so then the amount of manpower is a moot point.

However, I think that the USSR is a bad example on this, as it was a pretty extraordinary case. I don't think any other European power at that time would have continued the war when faced with such horrific losses.

In game it says for manpower it says-it represent total number of man reaching military service age for year as i remember-so you are not in right in cource game is officially defining as far as i get it.(i may be wrong)

In that case the definition in game is wrong, since logically for every man (give or take a few) reaching servicable age, there would be another one becoming too old, thus the manpower number would be stable rather than growing.

IC determines military strenght not manpower.

As most minor nations, yes. As most major nations, not at all. If a German or UK player wants, he can happily burn through his manpower early in the war, and then all the IC in the world can't help you anymore.

If you are worried about level of development and income of recruts why not give some penalties-like for example china have 80% or something penalty for manpower as it have not modern agriculture or something.

More or less. This is already done a little by the drafted army slider, reducing organisation for all troops. If the Victoria system like I described above would be used, then drafted army could be another modifier to the total manpower available.

 

[unmerged(81141)]

I will answer to your post trough my previous ones.

 

[unmerged(55640)]

As most minor nations, yes. As most major nations, not at all. If a German or UK player wants, he can happily burn through his manpower early in the war, and then all the IC in the world can't help you anymore

I was also struck by this exception but i thought it irrelevant to subject because their manpower is represented good more or less through number of million peoples they had at time.I am worried for nations(people) which millions are not represented in game.
2nd-Uk or ge through releasing new liberal or fachist nation (with modified manpower) and giving equipment to form new armies could help their exshausted manpower potential

In that case the definition in game is wrong, since logically for every man (give or take a few) reaching servicable age, there would be another one becoming too old, thus the manpower number would be stable rather than growing.

True peoples are not growing on tree as you said and total manpower is not accumulative-you have a point.But i have one word in defense-high reproduction levels in those times-several men reach service one becomes too old.Raising manpower though events sound historical and more precise but it is too complex i think.

More or less. This is already done a little by the drafted army slider, reducing organisation for all troops. If the Victoria system like I described above would be used, then drafted army could be another modifier to the total manpower available.

That slider would be logic (as it isnt on present state) if it would give better bonuses to proffesionals and dramatic effects to income of manpower-10% or less income than regular.Now that slider strongly favorise professionals although description of slider say that liberals want cheap drafted armies (cheap in words they are not constantly paying huge proffesional army in times of war and peace) i dont see why are they cheap.The gearing bonus is just not enough to represent benefits of drafted armies.
I would propose slider which would give higher bonuses on military scale(better land doctrine research,battle event bonuses...) for profs but dramaticly less manpower and higher upkeep-while drafting would lower org,mor bonuses in favor for larger number of conscripts and less upkeep.

However, I think that the USSR is a bad example on this, as it was a pretty extraordinary case. I don't think any other European power at that time would have continued the war when faced with such horrific losses.

Yugoslavia would i am sure(at least serbian part),poland would.Paraguay would like in gran chaco war against all neighbours .All nations(thats maybe problem for africa with no or litle national concience in that time) with strong feeling of insecurity of their fate would fight to the last.Nacist ideology of extinction of other people would drive those people to sacrifice everything they can against invaders if they could stay in the field and keep their freedom.

A low-tech country with poor overland communications (road, rail, etc) will always have a lower in-game Manpower per-capita than an industrialized country which has a good road and rail net... because the low-tech country needs to keep a much greater percentage of its population working on the farms, in order to keep its people fed.

Game allow this thing to change through research building ic and other things.You are denying playability to some countries (which can be released) based on strict historical timeline-thats not this game is for.If luxemburg can have divisions in field than africans will have divisions if i release them with italy give them equipment or improve their industry.Both of things are ahistorical but this game is for fun not just strictness to history timeline.

 

[{LD}Firestorm]

I was also struck by this exception but i thought it irrelevant to subject because their manpower is represented good more or less through number of million peoples they had at time.I am worried for nations(people) which millions are not represented in game.
2nd-Uk or ge through releasing new liberal or fachist nation (with modified manpower) and giving equipment to form new armies could help their exshausted manpower potential


True peoples are not growing on tree as you said and total manpower is not accumulative-you have a point.But i have one word in defense-high reproduction levels in those times-several men reach service one becomes too old.Raising manpower though events sound historical and more precise but it is too complex i think.


That slider would be logic (as it isnt on present state) if it would give better bonuses to proffesionals and dramatic effects to income of manpower-10% or less income than regular.Now that slider strongly favorise professionals although description of slider say that liberals want cheap drafted armies (cheap in words they are not constantly paying huge proffesional army in times of war and peace) i dont see why are they cheap.The gearing bonus is just not enough to represent benefits of drafted armies.
I would propose slider which would give higher bonuses on military scale(better land doctrine research,battle event bonuses...) for profs but dramaticly less manpower and higher upkeep-while drafting would lower org,mor bonuses in favor for larger number of conscripts and less upkeep.


Yugoslavia would i am sure(at least serbian part),poland would.Paraguay would like in gran chaco war against all neighbours .All nations(thats maybe problem for africa with no or litle national concience in that time) with strong feeling of insecurity of their fate would fight to the last.Nacist ideology of extinction of other people would drive those people to sacrifice everything they can against invaders if they could stay in the field and keep their freedom.


Game allow this thing to change through research building ic and other things.You are denying playability to some countries (which can be released) based on strict historical timeline-thats not this game is for.If luxemburg can have divisions in field than africans will have divisions if i release them with italy give them equipment or improve their industry.Both of things are ahistorical but this game is for fun not just strictness to history timeline.

No, the other nations would not have been able to pull it off, since in hoi2 we do not at all simulate extinctions, just occupation.

China I could think getting abit of a boost in manpower, but the rest is pretty good.

 

[unmerged(81141)]

I was also struck by this exception but i thought it irrelevant to subject because their manpower is represented good more or less through number of million peoples they had at time.I am worried for nations(people) which millions are not represented in game.
2nd-Uk or ge through releasing new liberal or fachist nation (with modified manpower) and giving equipment to form new armies could help their exshausted manpower potential


True peoples are not growing on tree as you said and total manpower is not accumulative-you have a point.But i have one word in defense-high reproduction levels in those times-several men reach service one becomes too old.Raising manpower though events sound historical and more precise but it is too complex i think.


That slider would be logic (as it isnt on present state) if it would give better bonuses to proffesionals and dramatic effects to income of manpower-10% or less income than regular.Now that slider strongly favorise professionals although description of slider say that liberals want cheap drafted armies (cheap in words they are not constantly paying huge proffesional army in times of war and peace) i dont see why are they cheap.The gearing bonus is just not enough to represent benefits of drafted armies.
I would propose slider which would give higher bonuses on military scale(better land doctrine research,battle event bonuses...) for profs but dramaticly less manpower and higher upkeep-while drafting would lower org,mor bonuses in favor for larger number of conscripts and less upkeep.


Yugoslavia would i am sure(at least serbian part),poland would.Paraguay would like in gran chaco war against all neighbours .All nations(thats maybe problem for africa with no or litle national concience in that time) with strong feeling of insecurity of their fate would fight to the last.Nacist ideology of extinction of other people would drive those people to sacrifice everything they can against invaders if they could stay in the field and keep their freedom.


Game allow this thing to change through research building ic and other things.You are denying playability to some countries (which can be released) based on strict historical timeline-thats not this game is for.If luxemburg can have divisions in field than africans will have divisions if i release them with italy give them equipment or improve their industry.Both of things are ahistorical but this game is for fun not just strictness to history timeline.

Good point.