lol alex when i say easy, all i mean is the info is readily available. Ill give you an idea, back pre and early pc days i spent about 10 years in game design mostly WW2. I could have gotten you any manpower / population stats you wanted from any obscure little nation in the world, i had the info...but i spent years and years trying to find the data and what each item cost to produce.
Manpower should never be an issue, out of all the complex issues that go into making a WW2 game, manpower is likely the easiest issue of all.
As far as HOI3 goes all im saying if you have to abstract/bump something up etc to balance the game, just dont do it in a way that is so obviously wrong. I mean they give you 10% manpower bumps for two weeks with the We want to fight events....well make it for 2-3 months not two weeks, make it for 20-30% or more, do something like that, dont just say well this land has 1 million people but if you take it over well give you 10 million soldiers.... i mean cmon! lol
And i really think its unfair to start some nations with manpower issues so bad they either 1) cant mobilize at full strength or 2) you have to delete all your units and reform as militia to have a decent size representative army. Nearly all nations are able to mobilize armies representative of their size, if you need to penalize their quality, but dont stop them from forming.
Manpower currently not only represent men who can serve, but also their quality and usefulness (as can be seen by comparing 3000 militia cost in mp to 3000 paratroopers, or the fact that there is hardly any in Africa). It is also interlinked with a myriad of other game mechanics and game balance...
I dont disagree with this at all, but the original issue was how Germany could get 10x the manpower as Austria, out of Austrian citizens, while not mobilized, nor at war, immediately....There is no way to spin that other then its a bad thing.
I just showed you the actual numbers. IRL the Austrians made up about 1/15th of all soldiers in the Germany Military, ok so its a game its not perfect, you have to fudge a bit, fine i get that, a few % here and there...but how can they be 30-50% of my manpower in 1938, isnt that a bit much? from 1/15th to maybe half?
Ill go back to again, why not just start handing carriers and atom bombs in lend lease for "play balance"? instead of destroyers.
Enigma - I dont disagree with you but because Paradox has basically chosen to make all units equivalent, then modified by factors as opposed to making units of different nations representative on their own. They have chosen that route. Frankly each nation should have their own ratinigs (i know i know Alex, its a lot of work....but hell thats what they get paid for. Cant stand the heat they should run from the kitchen!), as opposed to 1 infantry brigade of mine is equal to 1 of yours. Just because we train or equip ourselves from similar year doesnt mean we are equal. Perhaps even bonuses in leadership to the Major powers, better militaries (in addition to the current bumps).
Im always amazed that people will cry and argue over the most minute technical non important issues (You know the penalty for crossing rivers is not accurate because blah blah blah), but things like Production, manpower, food, economics, training etc etc the actual meat that makes up the game, people can be like eh its ok...
I can take most if not all Balkan nations and conquer all the other balkan nations, without forming a new unit, nor using a HQ, and in the end i have my existing units intact. There isnt a problem there with manpower there? lol you guys know all the ins and outs of the game and its details far more then me, but i know ive taken Spain and Sweden and conquered half the world before, as well as South Africa and there isnt a manpower problem here?
Ok, its just me...