Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

BASIC FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL or WHAT IS C.O.R.E.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
The same logic would say that a division should have 2-4, or even 10 times as much MP to simulate the logistics tail that a combat division needs to operate. Armies don't account for the RAMFs.
Click to expand...


The way I see it:

One MP = 750 men. This has been stated clearly numerous times by Max I and when it comes to HoI Max I and Vulture are as good authorities as Johan.

For an infantry division 10x750=7500 men, however it's also been clearly stated that HoI divisions are built on the German model of 15.000 men. In other words, only 50% of the men in the division are modelled in-game and the rest is abstracted.

The reason for this is IMHO that a division under normal circumstances has a high proportion of support units but combat losses are primarily among the teeth of the unit (riflemen and direct fire support weapon crews). If the full manpower cost was counted then in most cases casualties would be overstated, thus exacerbating the already existing problem of daily loss rates being too high.


For ships, the manpower cost should IMHO closely match historical crew numbers as they are effectively in the "teeth".


In the end there's a number of non-moddable factors such as provincial AA manpower, industrial manpower etc and I suggest that a certain flexibility in the approach is needed.
 
Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
The same logic would say that a division should have 2-4, or even 10 times as much MP to simulate the logistics tail that a combat division needs to operate. Armies don't account for the RAMFs.
Click to expand...

A valid point. I would be interested to see an analysis of the most logistically-corpulent military force in the war, the US armed forces, at 1/1/45: total numbers in army, and percentage of those assigned to combat divisions and direct combat support units and air squadrons. Then total numbers in the fleet, and percentage of those serving on board an armed vessel.

jkk
 
Re: A Word to Manpower and ships

Originally posted by Szun

Anyone can't share some knowledge on this with me ? :D
Click to expand...

Here are my thoughts on the matter. This is mainly a penalty for small countries. With that premise in mind, the commisioning of a large capital ship should be a decision that isn't taken lightly. Although the number of people isn't as massive as an infantry division, there are about 2000-3000 people on board a battleship. Using the number of 7500 that Steel mentioned, that would be about right for 2 battleships to equal 1 division. I do think that the hit should be a little bit larger because of the specialized logistics of naval ships. I can teach anyone to pump gas into a tank, but the skills involved in loading or pumping fuel are specialized skills not even considering underway replenishment. So although a battleship diesn't necessarily have twice the personnel that a cruiser or destroyer flotilla has, it does have considerably more upkeep. Unlike army units, naval units are self repairing. This means that there must be support personnel assigned for that purpose, unlike army units where supply and manpower have to be spent to be brought up to full strength. I hope this rambling helps you understand why I made the manpower cost a little higher than it was historically. MDow
 
The way that I view MP, as in the MP mod, is it doesn't really matter what the value of one MP point is, but rather what you can get with what numbers of MP in comparison to the types of units that the nation mobilized.

If, as it is in HoI's case, rear area troops are not modelled, then you have to calculate MP based on the fact that these people are not modelled. This basically throws national mobilization numbers out the window, as they no longer matter. This results in cuts of 25-75% of percieved mobilization of forces. For example, if Canada mobilized 800 000 people historcially, that does not mean that they should get 1070 MP, as this would allow Canada to raise over 100 Divisions, vs the 12 historic division/division-sized units that were raised. Realistically, even with 1 MP=750, Canada should only have about 300-400 total MP from 1936-1947. Belgium also mobilized 800 000, but had 22 Divisions. However, Canada used more of their MP for things other than frontline troops.

What matters is numbers of units raised.

Technically Germany and the US mobilized about the same number of people into their militaries. However, while the US raised about 150 Division, Germany raised over 300. Realistically, in HoI terms, Germany should have twice the MP than the US. Why? Some nations used their MP differently. The United States had extremely lavish rear area troops, while especially in the later years, Germany had a much higher frontline troop ratio.

Thinking back to France in 1940, I remember reading about the post Dunkirk evacuations that over 100 000 British soldiers remained in the rest of France after Dunkirk and had to be evacuated. These were signalmen, workers, RAF personell, etc. In HoI, these 100 000 don't really exist.

---------

I was thinking about having ship MP represent on-shore people as well, BUT, what happens when the ship sinks? It is like the shorebase crew all decide that they cannot live without their vessel and jump into the ocean to join it.

Battleship MP should be around 2, but total national MP should be drastically reduced in just about every case.
 
hmm I didnt want to start a discution , I just wanted a explaination :D
The MP as it is is fine with me considering U can also conquer fleets with no MP costs
In my current game (o.61) I got 5 BBs 8 LCAs 3 CAs 2DDs from the fleets stationed in brest when my 3 tanks ran into the province..( Imagine me smileing :D ) I think that was about 70% of the French fleet total.
Since I saved 5x5 8x2 3x3 2x1 MPs I would have spent building similar ships, I dont mind spending 5 MP for a BB instead of 2.

All your posts above make sense either way and I see the troubles U are in to distribute the right amount needed for troops and ships to balance it out.

Thx

Szun
 
Last edited:
Added definition

General consensus on definition of 1 MP seems it equals 750 men. I have therefore recorded that change in the Framework, in the definitions section. We still need a better figure for worth of 1 IC in CORE. Current spread of values is not very helpful.

Zerli
 
Manpower definition

As per Steel's post, I have recorded that 1 MP = 750 men in the Framework. I've also noted that the assumed ratio of combat troops to support troops is 1:1.

The next thing I'd like to determine more precisely is the value of 1 IC, in contemporary currency. For example, if we determine 1 IC to be worth exactly 25,000 1938 US$, then we have a baseline for IC totals, which, together with resources, form the basis of the whole simulation.

I am of the opinion that detailed tinkering with high-level values, such as weapon technologies, AI research priorities, etc, is better done after we have set the economic engine in stone. Basically, we should refrain from putting lots of work in fine-tuning the entire engine based on current economic model.

In this area, I am basically holding my breath to see more of Mithel's work. With his changes and the stuff from MathGuy, we should be able to model the economy more accurately for 0.7. Then we get to have fun tweaking tech and AI again.... ;-)

Anyway, value of 1 IC. Suggestions, preferably based on historical sources, would be appreciated. Remember, I am just a secretary. You important people decide what the value is, and I will dutifully record it for the hordes...

Zerli
 
Re: Added definition

Originally posted by Zerli
General consensus on definition of 1 MP seems it equals 750 men. I have therefore recorded that change in the Framework, in the definitions section. We still need a better figure for worth of 1 IC in CORE. Current spread of values is not very helpful.

Zerli
Click to expand...


While absolute values have a certain appeal, I'm increasingly in favour of having some elasticity in our definitions. In other words, one MP could be set to 750 to 1000 men and as long as consistency is maintained for any given nation the entire range can be used.

I believe this will fit well with the work currently being done by McNaughton and it will avoid forcing a lot of rework on those event scripters who assumed 1000 was the best definition :)

The same thing goes for resource definitions, of course.

Treat the definitions with some flexibility and document any assumptions in comments in the events file. That way people who violently disagree can easily tweak C.O.R.E. to their preferences.
 
Re: Manpower definition

Originally posted by Zerli
As per Steel's post, I have recorded that 1 MP = 750 men in the Framework. I've also noted that the assumed ratio of combat troops to support troops is 1:1.

The next thing I'd like to determine more precisely is the value of 1 IC, in contemporary currency. For example, if we determine 1 IC to be worth exactly 25,000 1938 US$, then we have a baseline for IC totals, which, together with resources, form the basis of the whole simulation.

I am of the opinion that detailed tinkering with high-level values, such as weapon technologies, AI research priorities, etc, is better done after we have set the economic engine in stone. Basically, we should refrain from putting lots of work in fine-tuning the entire engine based on current economic model.

In this area, I am basically holding my breath to see more of Mithel's work. With his changes and the stuff from MathGuy, we should be able to model the economy more accurately for 0.7. Then we get to have fun tweaking tech and AI again.... ;-)

Anyway, value of 1 IC. Suggestions, preferably based on historical sources, would be appreciated. Remember, I am just a secretary. You important people decide what the value is, and I will dutifully record it for the hordes...

Zerli
Click to expand...

I am actually doing some major tinkering with some of the Major nation's tech trees. I don't think that we are way off for the economic size of the major nations, nor is the game far off in the costs of tech (except perhaps that the game overestimates the IC cost for theoretical technology).

Also, nations used IC differently. The US government did not have access to all industry to develop military technologies, as most of this industry (99% of it) was dedicated to consumer goods. Also, since the US was in a recession, I don't think that they should be at top IC levels in 1936.

I still say that the value of a MP doesn't matter, since each nation used MP differently, and that realistically some nations had more MP in HoI terms than others, which does not match historic mobilization. Basically, to me, if you get similar numbers, and a similar feel of combat and progression of war as historically then that is what you are after, even if Germany gest 2x the MP than the USA, or that the Industry in the US is cut in half.

Also, IC does not necessarily have to represent GDP. If Italy has to little IC to do what it needs to do in HoI, and the US has too much industry and gets way ahead, then maybe basing everything off of the REALISTIC model of the world does not work within the HOI model of the world. No matter how much we tinker with cost and time of technologies, we will still see some minor nations shortchanged.

We can define things based on history until 0.7 is out, and still encounter problems. I say we assign values to represent what works. If Italy needs 150 IC at the beginning, and the US needs just 300 IC, then I say change it. If we need to increase MP for some nations, and decrease it for others, then do it. We must decide wether or not we want to try and implement a realistic model into an unrealistic system, or use this unrealistic system to create a realistic outcome.
 
@McNaughton:

I think you've hit on some key points there.

The "tooth to tail ratio" varied a lot between nations. To an extent this translated into combat power, but only to an extent. Also, nations differed in how much combat power was concentrated in divisions as opposed to independent brigades, regiments & battalions. To model this correctly while maintaining the flavor from historical division names, you need to set manpower so that the historical number of divisions (but not a lot more than that) created at the historical times or circumstances. You then need to use tech (such as mutually-exclusive doctrine techs) to account for the other factors like "tooth to tail ratio" & independent smaller units. The result would look like each country having a roughly historical OOB of divisions, and the correct relative combat power of the various entire national armies is maintained. This would mean that both what an MP point represents and what exacly a division represents would "float". My opinion, of course...

Similarly the economic issue upon which you hit. Communist governments truely do control the entire output of their industry, just like the HOI model. Fascist governments pretty much do as well, dictating to the captains of industry as to what to produce and how much to sell it for, while letting them continue to reap profits. A market economy leaves this to supply & demand, and the government is only one source of demand, and only to the extent of its budget (a pretty low % of GDP in the US before WWII). Without altering the HOI engine, modelling this would best be done by the high consumer goods requirement in peacetime. If this is hard-coded, though, then changing it in a mod has to be done by taking & giving IC with events representing changes in government spending (reduced IC really means reduced tax revenues, and vice versa).

Another twist - in a market economy the industrial techs will be researched privately. A way to model that through events might be giving the market economy nations some random events presenting a choice of "free" industrial techs (assuming the choice was implimented through tax policies & the like, but the R&D cost was born by private industry).
 
Originally posted by Steel
SykoNurse kindly moved the manpower discussion from this thread to the Framework thread. Let's keep this thread on-topic for the naval mod :)
Click to expand...
Barnacle Bill was posting while I split off, moved and merged the other posts to this thread. He sent me a PM about it, fixed now. :)
 
Last edited:
Hmm...

I see that some people prefer flexibility to hard numbers. IMHO, we don't lose that flexibility if we set a hard value. All MP translates to is a conversion factor. Whether we set it at 750, 1000, 963, or any other number, does not limit us in any way when setting manpower figures. The only thing this setting a hard value does is allows us to easily compare the various manpower figures to each other, in HoI terms. The far more important issue is determining frontline-to-support troop ratios for countries, and defining what mobilized numbers really mean. Another benefit of a hard-set MP value is the ability to calculate the impact of events on manpower pools based on a single formula. This allows for uniformity - a loss of 100,000 potential recruits in flooding in China should have an equivalent game effect as losing 100,000 potential Red Army soldiers due to gulags.

If we have the mobilized numbers for a country, and a solid definition of what they mean, we can translate that into initial MP figures. We then compare the country's division size and organization to game standard (15,000 men, 3 regiments), and adjust manpower up or down, to form the right number of divisions that the country historically formed. For those countries that had no formal divisional organizations, we can guesstimate the right numbers.

In this way we get a manpower pool that mimics historical figures, and still produces the historical number of divisions for each country. McNaughton's figures need only be revised where divisional organization and size differed from game standard by a lot (Italy, US, USSR, Japan).

I hold the same opinion in regards to IC. Defining what 1 IC, with an a priori definition, merely provides a useful baseline to compare different HoI IC totals. We can still choose to give Italy XXX IC, regardless of what number we get when dividing Italy's GDP with value of 1 IC.

At this point, I think it would be useful to compile a list of numbers for each country, including historical number of soldiers used in WWII, number of divisions raised, organizational structure and average division size, and estimated total unused reserves. With this list, we can then calculate manpower pools and growth in a transparent, easily understood way.

Anyway, as might befit those that become self-appointed notekeepers, I like my definitions well-defined... :)

Zerli
 
Economic Data Sources

While reading the framework section on the site I noticed that the team is trying to simulate IC growth to match economic data where available. Being in a graduate economics program and dealing mainly with macroeconomics I deal with the data a lot. Here are a few sources that may help find the GDP needed.

http://www.eco.rug.nl/~Maddison/

This contains Angus Maddison's GDP for the OECD countries. The time series runs from 1870 to 1995. This will cover the major beligerents. Also some smaller European countries. With the expection of Japan and the US nothing outside of Europe though.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/

Beureau of Economic Anlaysis (US only) . GDP by components. It may be hard to find historical data here but it should be here.

www.economy.com/freelunch

Tons of data .

http://www.worldbank.org/research/growth/wber95ef.htm

The only data set I have ever seen on the USSR. Then again I have not looked extensively for it before.

http://ddcn.prowebis.com/browse_country.asp

Links to data on many countries I am not sure how far the data goes back though.

Hope this helps
 
Thank you :) In the future, please post in an existing thread (such as the framework thread) rather than creating a new thread. This helps us keep discussion on related topics together and it makes it easier to follow discussions.
 
Re: Economic Data Sources

Originally posted by tristam509
While reading the framework section on the site I noticed that the team is trying to simulate IC growth to match economic data where available. Being in a graduate economics program and dealing mainly with macroeconomics I deal with the data a lot. Here are a few sources that may help find the GDP needed.

http://www.eco.rug.nl/~Maddison/

This contains Angus Maddison's GDP for the OECD countries. The time series runs from 1870 to 1995. This will cover the major beligerents. Also some smaller European countries. With the expection of Japan and the US nothing outside of Europe though.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/

Beureau of Economic Anlaysis (US only) . GDP by components. It may be hard to find historical data here but it should be here.

www.economy.com/freelunch

Tons of data .

http://www.worldbank.org/research/growth/wber95ef.htm

The only data set I have ever seen on the USSR. Then again I have not looked extensively for it before.

http://ddcn.prowebis.com/browse_country.asp

Links to data on many countries I am not sure how far the data goes back though.

Hope this helps
Click to expand...

merged
 
Italy built Bad Infantry

That isnt correct entirely :D
Actulay the Italan troops werent bad.. they were badly equipt and had bad leadership but the troops themselfs werent that bad as they showed in Afrika under Rommel.
In gametirms U are right tho...

just had to say it to be 'politicly correct'

edit: consumer goods are hardcoded by paradox afaik
 
Last edited:
So why should I choose this?

What are the big diffrences between CORE and basic HoI?
More events, I know. But stuff like technology, manpowers etc. how have they changed?

I mean C.O.R.E doesn't exactly "say" as much as Improved Grand Campaign for EU1 does...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back