• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, there's a number for manpower, sure, but it doesn't mean there isn't a mobilization system. I hope for a mobilization system where you can enact partial, full or more mobilization. Each giving some manpower (peace manpower would be low and nearly non existent) but malus (to research, IC, etc).
 
Beyond a few tidbits we can glean from screenshots we don't know yet - I'd say that'll get a section (or it's own) DD at some stage in the future. Oh for PDS having the resources to have a full-time HoI4 DD team :).
 
Well, there's a number for manpower, sure, but it doesn't mean there isn't a mobilization system. I hope for a mobilization system where you can enact partial, full or more mobilization. Each giving some manpower (peace manpower would be low and nearly non existent) but malus (to research, IC, etc).

My whole problem with this is this manpower has to be "freed" up first. Part of the reason the USA was able to mobilize so much manpower was because they freed up millions of labors through farming and mining machines. If those 2 million tractors wouldn't have been built there would be several million less workers available for factories.

You can apply the same mechanics to USSR, which forced many farms into larger farms to make them more efficient, which also allowed them to use less manpower, freeing up manpower for the war.

Now Germany never did either of these, and was only able to utilize what small amount of labor was left free to mobilize.
 
My whole problem with this is this manpower has to be "freed" up first. Part of the reason the USA was able to mobilize so much manpower was because they freed up millions of labors through farming and mining machines. If those 2 million tractors wouldn't have been built there would be several million less workers available for factories.

You can apply the same mechanics to USSR, which forced many farms into larger farms to make them more efficient, which also allowed them to use less manpower, freeing up manpower for the war.

Now Germany never did either of these, and was only able to utilize what small amount of labor was left free to mobilize.

By the same token, the UK was able to free up manpower by relying on the imports of agricultural goods, rather than, like Germany, having to allocate much manpower to agricultural production.
 
That would be unfortunate. It's one of the least developed and lest realistic aspects of HOI.
Well, i should have said "probably fairly similar". They may have made an entirely new underlying system for calculating manpower. I meant the effect would be similar (IE, you have a manpower number as one of your "resources").
 
In EvsW you have population of your nation which is summarized from all regions of your country, each region has own population and workers limit and free workers which can work in factories. Your limit of forces recruits who can be called upon in the army is a few percent of your all population, in hoi3 it's unlimited number.
bd5ea89d3ddaa811c1cabdaa9df69838.jpg
 
One thing to keep in mind with the manpower numbers in game is that I don't think they are calculated initially from the available population of each country.

I beleve the number in game is reached by somthing similar to reverse engineering. Each country will need a certain amount of manpower to build to its historical force levels. Add in some adjustments for how heavy were the casualties for that nation and how badly tapped their manpower reserves were and you arrive at a figure. Now it is math to set the numbers in game to produce that figure.
 
One thing to keep in mind with the manpower numbers in game is that I don't think they are calculated initially from the available population of each country.

I beleve the number in game is reached by somthing similar to reverse engineering. Each country will need a certain amount of manpower to build to its historical force levels. Add in some adjustments for how heavy were the casualties for that nation and how badly tapped their manpower reserves were and you arrive at a figure. Now it is math to set the numbers in game to produce that figure.

correct, and iirc 1 manpower represents 1000 men in hearts of iron 3 I believe.
 
3000 men of a ARM brigade require 2.33 MP, while 3000 men of an INF brigade require 3.33 MP. Then there is 3000 of a MAR brigade and 4 MP.

Yeah the 1 to 1000 number is only a rough rule of thumb. There are various reasons why those numbers are not consistent across all types. I believe the biggest factor was to discourage wildly ahistorical force builds consisting almost exclusively of specialized or elite units. Others have said the main factor was to represent the varying number of support personal across different troop types.
 
My whole problem with this is this manpower has to be "freed" up first. Part of the reason the USA was able to mobilize so much manpower was because they freed up millions of labors through farming and mining machines. If those 2 million tractors wouldn't have been built there would be several million less workers available for factories.

You can apply the same mechanics to USSR, which forced many farms into larger farms to make them more efficient, which also allowed them to use less manpower, freeing up manpower for the war.

Now Germany never did either of these, and was only able to utilize what small amount of labor was left free to mobilize.
I don't see what it has to do with mobilization. A mobilization system would mean that the effects of using more manpower into the army would be felt in industry, dissent, etc. . What you're against is a direct proportion between population and available manpower, which has never been the case in hoi. The manpower resource we have in provinces is not meant to represent the whole population, but what can be used in the army. The issue is that enrolling that manpower has no adverse effects, which is why I hope for a mobilization system.
 
What game did these people play that say that the manpower was fine in HOI3???? Every multi player game I was in, was decided by either Germany or Russia running out of manpower generally before the start on 1943!
 
That isn´t the problem per se. The problem was that it wasn´t transparent and logical.

If you have 1 million able people to serve in the army and those people are dead, it makes sense that you can´t reinforce armies anymore. The problem was the number of people available and growth rate were fantastic and as said before, you couldn´t realocate people at the cost of eficiency to the industry and economy.
 
I don't see what it has to do with mobilization. A mobilization system would mean that the effects of using more manpower into the army would be felt in industry, dissent, etc. . What you're against is a direct proportion between population and available manpower, which has never been the case in hoi. The manpower resource we have in provinces is not meant to represent the whole population, but what can be used in the army. The issue is that enrolling that manpower has no adverse effects, which is why I hope for a mobilization system.

No is what I'm trying to say is the "manpower" available in HOI3 is represented by the historical manpower available to those countries without the ability to change that. If you are the one giving orders to industries and military you should be able to divert resources (such as USA, USSR, UK did) to free up manpower. Since we have industrial lines now, we should not have "agriculture techs" for manpower, but actual agriculture equipment as a consumer product. IF the US doesn't devote more resources to build agriculture equipment as they did historically, then they won't ever be able to create a 10 million man army because they would have never freed up that manpower with machines in the first place.

You can apply this across the world, China could raise a 100 million man army, but they could barely feed there own population as it was, so all manpower was devoted to farming.
USSR did it
UK did it
Germany did not

And that should be a ability to change not through laws or policies, but through actual production as it was done.
 
In my opinion, IC and Resource generation should cost Manpower. You can divert Manpower from your industries or mines and refineries to use for military service, but at an economic cost, or build up your industrial base with the result of less available recruits. Changes in technology and laws should affect the manpower requirements of that IC or Resource type, or have more modest effects across the board. A few of those laws could have far-reaching side-effects, as they did historically.

The manpower requirement in HOI3 didn't just represent the men at the front fighting, it included the "logistical tail" and supporting services. A Marine unit cost more in terms of support personnel than a regular Army unit, so the Manpower requirement was higher. The actual crews of Artillery or Armor units were relatively trivial in numbers, but the support and supply personnel required was significant. The numbers weren't historically "accurate" in the game, but the approximate balance does make some sense.