Things that make you go hmmm....

[kezardinjnr]

It's NOT easy to fix.

I agree with you, but as the OP stated in this post:

I for example never take PI into consideration at all, i simply say..hey wouldnt this be cool and discuss it with you guys.

Thus the difficulty level of implementing changes is for others to worry about :ninja:

Again all nations have an available manpower pool (say 16 to 45 years old), and there are no factors that can modify that.

Which would mean that, in the game, India *should* have a manpower pool roughly equivalent to the USSR, USA and Germany combined.

In reality, the Indian Army numbered around 2,500,000 men in WW2.

 

[21oliver]

Ok first for Alex...when i said half (now try and stay with me....), when your playing Germany in HOI3 vanilla at least and the Anschluss fires.....As Germany most often you have at that moment between 500-1000 manpower available depending upon your builds, and the game "hands" you another 500 manpower. That means that while unmobilized the Austrian population boost is between 1/3 to 1/2 (they give you 500, you had 500-1000) of your overall manpower pool, when the numbers as i have quoted above, in actuality Austrians made up roughly 1/15th of the German Armed forces). So meaning the Anschluss should probably have boosted Germany's Manpower by 50-100, not 500 and it would have been closer to the actual numbers.

Kez your either not following or your confusing the issues. The available pool of manpower ratios gives you the MAXIMUM military pool you can draw on. The reference to Austria is that they are far exceeding the maximum historical numbers. In regards to your reference above, you are correct India should have a larger manpower pool then those nations, but then in order to be historical we would have to take in account all that goes into actually taking and individual and forming them into a soldier. Likely India could never even equip nor train to the basic levels that many soldiers. Look at the Soviet Unions actual manpower pool in WWII and what they actually used. LACK of manpower isnt the question here, its the EXCEEDING of manpower thats the problem. The fact is that it is to the extreme, not a slight little buff to assist with overall game play. Ive seen PBM games where you have large pools of manpower to draw on, but perhaps you cant equip or train them, Paradox hasnt decided to go that route.

When most minor nations in HOI3 are severely restricted by unrealistic manpower pools and growth, Germany gets bumped (250,500 and 300) just from the first few events. IF you tell me it has to be this way to "balance" the game, i ask again why was the game so "unbalanced" that you needed to go to this extreme?

 

[happyman40]

I think he meant, that every country has x population ready for service in principle (gender & age, say), and that this unchangable (by and large) number should be used as a base for everything related to manpower. So that if austria can not on its own raise what germany gains by the anschluss, the reason for that should be a change of some modifier applied to austria´s population - not some flat number (or at least a number that could be plausibly explained by something like this outside the game, if it´s not by the game itself). He is asking for consistency - good call, i say.

thats it in a nutshell. And as far as "easiest" my point is that the info is available, manpower issues are not the issues that a game company should be struggling with when making a pc game. And for funny people like Alex, there would be no need to remod the info...if it was done CORRECTLY the first time! And ill repeat again from a earlier post, all you guys who like to jump on the anti manpower issue bandwagons, pretty much all the mods that everyone loves has altered most of the manpower! so THEY (hint alex...) felt that there was some issues that needed correcting.

All joking aside, if you have to come up with something to balance something else, that means you messed up the prior, go back and fix it, dont worry about messing something else up in order to "balance" it.

The game doesn't attempt to represent exact numbers so trying to argue that the game is unrealistic because it doesn't extrapolate exactly is a rather pointless exercise.

The 2nd point I was making is that you make black and white statements to make your point that are not in fact accurate themselves oliver. As I said - there were many factors that would have and did affect available manpower. One could easily argue that both the morale boosting effect of unification and the ensuing confidence the regime gained from annexing Austria in the face of international treaties could have, and would have, contributed to an increase in the abilty of germany to field more troops; it would have affected all of germany not just Austrians.

There ya go - plausible explanation - makes some kind of sense - unpause game and keep playing. Germany needed another 500 MP to balance the game - PI gave germany an event - "whala!!!" problem fixed and game works better. Why the hell would they redesign the whole game just to figure out a way to make a game that doesn't try to represent exact numbers- somewhow look more like it's representing exact numbers when all it needed was to give Germany some more MP?

Did certain ministers really increase attack re-inforcment chance or reduce rate industry practical build knowledge of light cruisers was lost? Of course not. "It's a Game". It's fun, who cares if the numbers don't add up excactly - the point is it works pretty damn well and all in all it's fairly well balanced in an advanced paper-rock-scissors kind of way. Is it too much to ask to just play the game have fun and turn a blind eye to the odd hard to explain detail here and there?

I think you should focuss your energies and campaign on something that really needs fixing in the game - food!!!

 

[21oliver]

lol happy!!!!!! food? hm later. All im saying is if they want to give it to Germany why not abstract it in a way thats not so obviously false. Or havent you read the umpteenth times i said wouldnt it be better just to bump them with higher monthly increases or in more frequent and better Ready to fight events then in a way so blatantly off???? Im not saying dont give it to them if you absolutely have to, but try and find a way thats better. Even with the points you make, and i agree it isnt all black and white, and you can add a bazillion modifiers, but in the end its still way way too much. 50-100 manpower from the Anschluss would be proper. Probably none from the RHine, as it ws re-militarized, not re-occupied, Treaty of munich i havent checked the numbers.

Were just different, you guys will argue like i said about the most complex issues in a game where you dont really need to be complex. To me the most important issue probably in designing any war game is to get the numbers right, or at least close. Thats where you start. Sure they can and likely will be off, 5%, 10%, 15%???? but were talking alot here.

But hey if your happy! im happy, er happy

 

[comsubpac]

lol happy!!!!!! food? hm later. All im saying is if they want to give it to Germany why not abstract it in a way thats not so obviously false. Or havent you read the umpteenth times i said wouldnt it be better just to bump them with higher monthly increases or in more frequent and better Ready to fight events then in a way so blatantly off???? Im not saying dont give it to them if you absolutely have to, but try and find a way thats better. Even with the points you make, and i agree it isnt all black and white, and you can add a bazillion modifiers, but in the end its still way way too much. 50-100 manpower from the Anschluss would be proper. Probably none from the RHine, as it ws re-militarized, not re-occupied, Treaty of munich i havent checked the numbers.

Were just different, you guys will argue like i said about the most complex issues in a game where you dont really need to be complex. To me the most important issue probably in designing any war game is to get the numbers right, or at least close. Thats where you start. Sure they can and likely will be off, 5%, 10%, 15%???? but were talking alot here.

But hey if your happy! im happy, er happy

as explained several times: the game is balanced in a way that you get roughly historical outcomes when the AI plays against the AI (that is at least the goal...). yes, germany does get manpower via event. if that is historical or not doesn't matter since it is just a game.
now you are saying germany should still get manpower but in a different way? why? manpower is manpower it doesn't matter how you get it. just adding it is the fastest, easiest, safest way and the player can understand what happens. sure, you could add modifiers and other events do so but what would you gain that way? you would still get a bunch of manpower only that handling it over modifiers is far more complicated and harder to balance.
why change something that works and replace it with something that does the same but more complicated? historically the whole manpower thing doesn't make any sense, so if you think germany gets to much manpower just don't use it or remove it from the event. it takes just 30 seconds.

 

[21oliver]

When i have an issue with the game, its with the game, whether i can mod it or not is irrelevant. My point is it would (at least to me) be more palatable to give Germany the manpower in another way (or event) that doesnt smack of being totally off the wall unhistorical. Now while i dont expect 100% accuracy like in any semi-historical game i dont expect flying saucers here either. It could have easily been done like many things, abstracted in quietly rather then beating us over the head.

Its funny how being even remotely historical is only a factor to some people on this forum when theyre making their own points, other issues its not important. You have discussed many times the intricate nature of the game and its mechanics and now its oh well people are idiots and this is easy who cares what it looks like....

I guess it would be easy to have the US declare war on Germany and Italy because of Pearl Harbor, this way they could get all the Axis in one shot why not do that? Us less intelligent would apreciate it, as it would be simpler and who really cares for historical accuracy in any form anyway right?

 

[21oliver]

This is an interesting line (below) i thought id play around with czechoslovakia for a bit...

At 1936 start they have 74 manpower with a +0.6 monthly increase. They need 188 manpower to mobilize the reserves. ummm, yeah ok.

 

[unmerged(170611)]

I don't have a problem with Germany gaining manpower through the early events, especially the Rhineland event. I think those gains represent the political will of Germany to increase the size of their Army once they realized the Treaty of Versailles was not going to be enforced. Maybe it's not a perfect way to do it but it's not out of line either.

 

[21oliver]

Under Hitler Germany was getting the maximum out of their population at all times, including conscription. There would be no event that could increase it. At least not for Germany's sake, it wasnt like the populace had much choice throughout Hitler's Regime. The Rhineland actually by all accounts was re-militarized, not re-occupied. Meaning, Germans were already there, and likely already being conscripted into the Army, so no manpower buff should come from that. But my main point was Austria in HOI3 begins with like a 50+ manpower pool, and doubtful would ever see 500 manpower no matter what the circumstances or benefits fall their way, and yet Germany gets 500 manpower immediately from the Anschluss. It is not only not factual but its ridiculous. My point being if you need to give Germany the manpower for game sake, dont do it in a way thats so obviously false. Why not just increase the length, frequency and effectiveness of the Lets Fight events? How about giving Germany a higher monthly increase rate (they did have programs to induce people to raise families)? Or something along that nature, something thats game generated and not historical and not likely to be second guessed.

Most Minors are wrongly abused in HOI3 by the manpower system (look up to previous post on Czech) and yet Germany keeps getting handed (250 for Rhine, 500 for Anschluss, 300 for Treaty of Munich etc....) hundreds, and yet in ways that are simply wrong. There are better ways.

Some people dont care about any level of historical accuracy and prefer sandbox play so it wouldnt bother them. We all know that no game is even going to be close to 100% because of the difficulties involved in designing a game to represent such a complex period. And in some cases there is no alternative then to do things a certain way, in this case i believe there are simple alternatives that accomplish the same result.

 

[Jazumir]

This is an interesting line (below) i thought id play around with czechoslovakia for a bit...

At 1936 start they have 74 manpower with a +0.6 monthly increase. They need 188 manpower to mobilize the reserves. ummm, yeah ok.

See, what i dont get is, why they just didnt simply have a system, whereby the czechs would have that 188 manpower from the get go, or could at least (instantly) get it via laws and when attacked (via multiplication what they have in total), and do without the monthly gain.
I think the czech have their units at 25% at game start, right? That would mean that they have 188/3 = 62.6 MP in the units. Plus the 74 outside that makes 136.6 MP. A montly increase by 0.6 means 7.2 per year and 21.6 in three. That´s 158.2 in 1939. Their fully mobilzed army size is 62.6+188 = 250.6. Assuming no law changes, ~100MP are missing in 1939 in order to mobilize. If you do enact laws, only the montly gain changes, which is almost neglectable.
So you need 250MP for the czech army. The sensible thing to do, is to set czech raw-MP to 250 at gamestart, by drawing that number directly from the provinces (no flow, just stocks), modify it according to laws (say putting it at 25%) and deduce what already is in the units (also 25%), which leaves 0 at gamestart, but when the law changes (both could actually be the same law), both percentages raise, so that when you have to mobilize, you also get access to your whole manpower pool, and thus can mobilize. Laws could set a range for mobilization and the exact percentage within that range could be determined by neutrality. Have each province´s MP change once per year according to tech or whatnot and the MP that´s already there.
Obviously MPs from colonies should get modified - if Delhi is british and has 100 raw MP, the british only get, say 20 of it. How about colonial laws?

 

[Kovax]

There are several other aspects of the game that were "patched" after the fact, rather than being set up properly in the first place. Take Diplomatic Relations, for expample. The faction leaders start out at 0 relations with virtually the entire world, while the unaligned countries are almost all at 75 relations with each other. That totally ignores "trivial details" like Mao's Communists being at war with Chaing's Nationalists (75 relations and allies in the game), or Hungary's and Romania's little feud over the borders which kept over 50% of the Hungarian army on the Romanian border throughout the war despite both being in the Axis, the long-term alliances or friendships between countries with common histories or historical adversaries (HU and POL historically had strong dynastic ties between earlier monarchs, and had assisted each other in the past), etc. If starting relations between the various aligned and unaligned countries were anywhere near accurate, Paradox probably wouldn't have had to do so much blatant scripting to make it come out even vaguely historical.

If set up properly, about 90% of the events should fall into place with only a few "prods" from specific incidents, or unusual cases (like the M-R Pact) that defied the expected outcomes.

Again, if Manpower were properly arranged in the first place, with Industry as well as the military drawing on the labor pool, and both available surpluses and the growth rates reflecting reality, you'd probably see less NEED for unfathomably stupid events to balance the game. You could have events or laws to cover the ACTUAL things that affected available manpower, such as a national crisis (most likely due to the outbreak of war) causing higher enlistment, the decision to put women in the workforce freeing a lot of manpower over time, or the use of subject populations to free some of the Industrial manpower for military conscription. Industrial Techs could reduce the need for manpower in Industry, again freeing some Manpower for recruitment. Having an event dump an additonal 500 manpower into the pool after the fact "because they need it for play balance" is "anti-historical", and just bad game design.

Rather than fix the underlying flaws with the bad initial data, the game mechanics are being monkeyed around with in order to force a "historical" result from a false starting point. Then we wonder why nothing else seems to behave properly.....

 

[Wallienator]

Just to be saying, but would atleast some Germans be like: Hitler makes us strong again, so we join his military to help him?, That would explain atleast some more MP.

 

[21oliver]

THERE IS NO MORE MANPOWER TO GET, thats the point. A Nations available manpower pool is all healthy males between a set amount of ages (say 16-45). Whether its Hitler or no leader at all, the maximum manpower is the same across the board.

Both Jaz and Wall are on the money.

 

[happyman40]

THERE IS NO MORE MANPOWER TO GET, thats the point. A Nations available manpower pool is all healthy males between a set amount of ages (say 16-45). Whether its Hitler or no leader at all, the maximum manpower is the same across the board.

Both Jaz and Wall are on the money.

"EEEEEEHHHHHHH!!!!!!" - incorrect. There are so many holes in that statement.

Before going further - Maybe - for purposes gaining understanding could you clarify that you either do or don't understand the following - because most of the debate really hinges on these assumptions.

I am assuming you understand "Population is not the same as MP"

So when you say "MP doesn't change" do you mean Population?

If so I agree and you need read no further.


On the other hand - if you're saying MP equals population (I'm using population to mean the previosuly defined - males 16-45 sense) then you're missing some vital understanding about the realities.

So - for the MP=Population debate - read on.....

Your predeliction for making sweeping black and white observations to make your points is initially amusing, but mostly now it's just annoying. Wallienator makes a valid point; much akin to the valid one I made, regarding a bigger picture that you continue to fail to acknowledge.


So, in "Black-and-white land" either of two perspectives is most plausible -

A) For the affirmative - Oliver - "MP is a static number that every country has imediate access to; that other than population increases, is not affected by anything else".

B) For the Negative, and Common sense - Happyman "MP is drawn from the population; the number and rate of which is determined by many factors"

I would like suggest that should B) have any validility A) is automatically incorrect. Or, To put it another way - you would have to disprove every suggested factor that could possibly affect MP for A) to be correct.


For example - if there was a conscription law i think there would be some factors affecting the percentages of men that would be available. I'm just making this up but intuition tells me National pride would have an affect on whether men would think about avoiding their duty or deserting - yes? Cultural views on conscription and administration of it - eg if you imposed conscription in mongolia would the rate of enrollment for service be different than say a western developed country? I would also assume ethnically and polically divided countries would also find it harder to galvanise the population to action? It doesn't take much scratching of the surface of the POP-to-MP question to see that population of 16-45 year olds alone is not a terribly accurate measurement of a nations ability to field troops.

 

[James_Manring]

I have read this whole thread and have come to a couple of conclusions.

1. There are way too many people on here that feel they have to play the contrarian to 21oliver no matter how logical his point. This point is not an argument and requires no reply. You won't get a response from me as that kind of banter is against the rules. He was wrong to bait you in the OP, but you are just as much in violation to reply in a way that is designed to inflame others. This needs to stop so we can have an open, honest, and friendly conversation that becomes productive. Criticism needs to be constructive and polite.

2. The manpower from events is grossly over-exaggerated for game-play reasons. Defending this by simply saying it was done for that reason and continually arguing that point is counter-productive for yourself and for anyone reading this thread. The ideas floating should be about how to make the manpower situation work better with more logical events and modifiers, not about who can win an argument.

3. The manpower from events runs out by 1942/43 anyways. This is not helped anymore by direct MP increase events that occurred 5 or 6 years in the past. The answer is not to add several more manpower events. The manpower events need to make sense as to why they are happening, e.g. absorption of Austria and application of NSDAP authoritarian law structure. How about an event about forming a unitary government, "replacing the federal state governments with appointed Nazi governments", as occurred in Prussia and Bavaria? That would eliminate the ability of the local governments to resist conscription as much as possible. That could be a good excuse to add the modifier I suggest in the next section.

4. The manpower from event should be reduced and the manpower growth rate from conscription should be increased. This would allow the manpower to build more naturally while giving a boost of maybe 500 total from all of the events together at most. It would also ensure that Germany has more staying power in the late game. As it stands now they have a hard time holding on even if they are successful due to running out of men to adequately field enough divisions against the Soviets well before they run out of men for reinforcements in battle. The answer should NOT be to make Austria and Rhineland give more men, but in-fact less, and have the Nazi Laws make up for the difference by slowly forcing more men into the military. Logically, it makes sense and could be easily balanced to give the same manpower Army build-up between 1936-1939. Perhaps it could even have a bonus modifier to recruitment rate if NOT = { year = 1940 } to help with the initial build-up from applying new laws to unionized lands. The bonus modifier then runs out to show that the Nazis have already exhausted the available unemployed and easily conscripted males and now has to work on the less desirable, already employed workers, and newly of age males.

 

[happyman40]

1. There are way too many people on here that feel they have to play the contrarian to 21oliver no matter how logical his point.

or there are a lot of people that don't see things the same as oliver that are expressing a contrary opinion or point of view. Expressing opinions in a public forum is unlikely to protect one from alternative view points

2. The manpower from events is grossly overexaggerated for gameplay reasons.

"Gameplay reasons" sounds like an insult in this context. What does gameplay actually mean anyway? It's very easy to throw one line quips around like that is all you need to explain something. Fact is the game is far more complex and has been designed by people with far more knowledge and understanding about the subject matter than most people. Maybe the 500 MP is just an arbitrary figure pulled out of the air OR maybe there are some very rational considerations that resulted in that number being used? Who actually knows? You? Oliver? Me? Only the designers know for sure. Given the thought that has gone into the rest of the game, the chances of random, no-deliberate numbers being added here and there is damn pretty slim!

3. The manpower from events runs out by 1942/43 anyways.

That depends on what nation you're playing and whole lot of other events and is again able to be understood in a general overview of how society / political landscapes changed over the period.

4. The manpower from event should be reduced and the manpower gained from conscription should be increased. This would allow the manpower to build more naturally while giving a boost of maybe 500 total from all of the events together at most. It would also ensure that Germany has more staying power in the late game. As it stands now they have a hard time holding on even if they are successful due to running out of men to adequately field enough divisions against the Soviets well before they run out of men for reinforcements in battle. The answer should NOT be to make Austria and Rhineland give more men, but less and have the Nazi Laws make up for the difference by slowly forcing more men into the military. Logically, it makes sense and could be easily balanced to give the same manpower Army build-up between 1936-1939. Perhaps it could even have a bonus modifier to recruitment rate if NOT = { year = 1940 }. The bonus modifier then runs out to show that the Nazis have already exhausted the available unemployed and easily conscripted males and now has to work on the less desirable, already employed workers, and newly of age males.

Why? Events are designed to add flavour and historical texture to the game - it makes perfect sense for landmark events to make significant changes. There would be a lot of good reasons why having 500 MP before that event would be bad for game balance reasons and Good for game balance reasons afterwards that equally is plausible and makes historical sense.

Having a pool of MP allows you to put units in build queue now. This is a very different mechanic to an increase over time. Germany needs to be able to field a significant force of troops after Anchluss - prior to this and the Rhineland events Germany was fearful of Allied intervention that would have been incited by a growing German Military - makes perfect sense that the player then gets 500 more MP to then build units that previously, for game play reasons shouldn't have been allowed.

In this context, gameplay = more realistic instead of an insult.

 

[James_Manring]

Game play means the process of the game running. It is a term that DEVs would be familiar with, not an insult. You taking that position and expressing it is trying to start a fight and contrary to forum rules. Not that I am perfect or a stickler for rules, but in this case they are here to prevent needless bickering.

You say it depends on the nation as a whole. I do believe this thread is to talk about Germany as described in the original post. The research can be done by anyone that can read. That does not mean that you were in the room with the DEVs as they wrote the game, but it does mean that anyone can contribute in ideas. I know that I can read and I can contribute. Don't try and bait me. I am not being rude to you.

I respect contrary opinions, but there is a difference between expressing them and beating a dead horse with them. Taking an inflammatory position for the sake of being contrary is quite a different beast.

 

[happyman40]

What you are saying is that there is a point where expressing an opinion on a topic ceases to be a simple expression and becomes a needless drivel?

 

[James_Manring]

What you are saying is that there is a point where expressing an opinion on a topic ceases to be a simple expression and becomes a needless drivel?

Correct, and I am not pointing that directly at you... but at everyone so that we can look at what everyone is saying and realize this could be much more cooperative and fun discussion.

I am not saying that the expiry of Versailles, and build up of troops doesn't make sense. The numbers being so high don't make sense. It should be something like 150 MP instead of 500 MP for the Anschluss, have a larger default growth rate to MP, have a modifier that on average will boost MP growth to make up for the missing 350 MP before 1940. That would allow the GER player to build units in the queue, have more MP in the later game, and quell anyone's thoughts that "Wow, that seems like too much MP logically from one event."

With that idea everyone wins. Everyone's position is taken into account, and all perspectives are looked at. If more positions come about and points of view then they need to be discussed. That is how we learn and grow something as massive as this game.

-There is a base manpower like oliver21 says, but it should not be reached until around 1948 or so if the war is still going strong to show that all available men of age have gone off to die and now we are fighting with old people, very young people, and cripples throwing their wheelchairs.

-Until that point the MP should be something more like what you said where, "MP is drawn from the population; the number and rate of which is determined by many factors". I say that because there will still be unemployed young people of fighting age and a plethora of them working in the industries until a very late war. You made very good points about laws being different under Nazis and that is very much part of my argument too.

 

[happyman40]

I think I understand somewhat where you are coming from - the intention of most of my posts is, in australian slang - "play the ball not the man". I admit I can occaisionally slip in a bodyline ball but Oliver knows that deep down I really love him and I am rather partial to his annoying drivel than most other poeple's

Back to the topic and your observation - In my experience - threads tend to be either oppositional or co-operative to the extent that people are inclind to accept other people's perspectives. While ever there is an unbending position it tends to attract combat.

Personally, I see value in most perspectives and view world in shades of grey; narrow minded or blinkered perspectives tend to evoke a desire to educate - if you get my drift. In relation to Oliver my intuition is he enjoys creating debates and dead horse flogging is one of his specialties - which is a fair part of the reason why he may get a bit of extra curry from some that know his subject preferences.