I don't know, I was able to raise an enormous number of infantry divisions in my last UK game. How were UK demographics compared to France IRL?
-
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.
Maybe script an event to create such a revolt should the Indian sun-continent be empty of garrisons. A puppet India in 'vanilla' AoD may also be a good solution, especially if the UK AI has problems holding India. It would also be able to make use of the substantial manpower in the area.
A divisions is worth more then 150 money. I think a puppet India would be a much better solution.
For the UK (excluding NI and Scotland for some reason) it's population in 1931 was 40 million, in 1951 it was 43.8million. There was no census taken in 1941 for obvious reasons. (source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18854073)
Found this too. It says the UK's population in 1938 was 47.5million and France's was 42million.
Last edited:
Yes, a division costs about twice that in IC-days, but I reasoned it might be a little cheaper to raise Indian troops rather than ones on first world wages. Since you can only get one division a month that way there isn't too much abuse potential.
If India was a puppet nation, but not in the Allies, and highly Isolationist, there is no way to military control it and have it fight wars for you unless someone else DoWs them first?
I think the event is needed because if it is a puppet state, UK cannot benefit from India's manpower at all. The game has worked around this by adding extra manpower to the British Isles, problem is that if UK looses India or falls out with them in a big way, they now have more MP than they really should.
If India was a puppet nation, but not in the Allies, and highly Isolationist, there is no way to military control it and have it fight wars for you unless someone else DoWs them first?
I think the event is needed because if it is a puppet state, UK cannot benefit from India's manpower at all. The game has worked around this by adding extra manpower to the British Isles, problem is that if UK looses India or falls out with them in a big way, they now have more MP than they really should.
India adds quite some resoures and ic to the UK. If UK has 2 tech slots less this has some effect.
For me this is a good reason for a puppet India. The Allies would benefit from the Indian manpower once the war has started (whereas it wouldn't have if the UK directly owned India), which is off-balanced by the UK having less tech teams.
The whole subsistence farmer thing isn't consistently followed anyway - China's manpower as far as I can tell makes no such adjustments.
Very true. I was personally miffed by the use of the phrase " subsistence famer" since it only expresses an inaccurate view of Asia, definitely Indonesia and generally life. I would call the farmers of Indonesia mostly "abundance farmers" and think I know having travelled there. How can anyone think that because one is a farmer (meaning firstly quite a large family) that there would not be extremely strong feelings of nationalism including many of the boys working on the farm volunteering to join the army?
"Subsistence farming" is a life style that only means that the work of farming is done on small plots of land and the goal is simply to produce what is needed for the family. It infers nothing further. It is no different - as regards an army - than the more "western 1st world family" where the principle family head works at a 9-5 job with the goal of feeding his family. Further, subsistence farming is only part of that family's full lifestyle, and really is not a reflection on the rest of their life styles.
In actuality, a country with a high percentage of subsistence farmers will in fact have a proportionally much higher percentage of "fit and draftable" young men that can leave the family farm and quickly enter an army. This fact (huge population of fit and very draftable young men available) actually enhances a country's ability to raise immense drafted armies. Examples go back to Napoleon Bonaparte, the American colonists fighting the English, the American Civil war, and currently to the huge draft army like, as you mention, China has. However, all ASEAN nations (includes modern Indonesia) also have the ability to quickly raise huge drafted armies compared to their relatively small size. But this has nothing to do with a high proportion of subsistence farming in most of those countries but only to do with very young population demographics (over 50% of Philippines is under the age of 21), a very large total population, and intense feelings of nationalism.
AoD does have some strange rational for figuring out reality applied to a mostly fictional game.
AFAICT no developer has defended the current manpower distribution through the idea of "subsistence farmers", I think only Autolykos has brought up the idea.
I hope so!
By and large - the main factor in very large armies is very large population combined with militaristic outlook. However, GNP is the next main factor, and the first factor for most modern nations. However, the above can be secondary in times of need - if nationalism is high.
By and large - the main factor in very large armies is very large population combined with militaristic outlook. However, GNP is the next main factor, and the first factor for most modern nations. However, the above can be secondary in times of need - if nationalism is high.
Last edited:
I think it would kind of be interesting if someone went over and completely redid on map manpower 'by-the-numbers' for the whole world and we could actually see what happens.
And I might not have explained my point clearly enough. I used "subsistence farming" to basically mean poor farming efficiency, with most of the population working on farms 24/7 just to have enough to eat. I have no idea if that's the case in Indonesia in the 40s (probably not, I do agree with Indonesia having some MP), but it may well be the case in some African countries. Still, my point is that population won't translate 1:1 into manpower, as agricultural development and infrastructure play a major role there. Demographics might also be important, hard to tell what's the limiting factor in which communities. But I'd guess food supply is more critical in less developed countries, while demographics is more critical in industrial countries.
And I did not make my point loud enough that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Where on earth do you get the notion that "subsistence farming" = “poor farming efficiency, with most of the population working on farms 24/7 just to have enough to eat.”
Maybe from a contortion of definition that “to subsist” = “to exist”? And let’s just throw in “poor efficiency” to fully round out your ignorance of the extreme bountifulness of family farmers classified as “subsistence farming” while reaping huge harvests of pesticide free produce using organic methods!
Further, FYI, while "subsistence farming" does mean “a family growing what is needed for their family” how does your further limited view of life assume that a family only needs food? Subsistence farmers grow such an immense bounty of harvest that they trade, barter, or sell produce and buy things so that all their many kids are not running around bare ass naked, their beautiful daughters partake in the higher forms of civilization like classes in dance, music and crafts; while their mostly very strong boys pick up well paid trades that add to the family income – and every one of the children (with few exceptions) graduates high school while many progress to universities. And nowhere in Asia that I know of (don't know about the Communist world) is there such a thing as "free education". But subsistence farmers in Asia not only prevent their children from "starving nearly to death" as you seem close to imply, but pay millions in their local currency to buy every one of those kids an education as far as they can - with every book, pencil, school uniform (they all must wear school uniforms) and basic tuition fee paid by the parents. Education is not a "state given privilege" as you probably think from your indicated limited knowledge of only Western Countries, but paid for - in Asia - greatly thru the incomes of "subsistence farming". The only thing most Asian democracies supply is a lower cost alternative of "Public School" but many farmers might also be sending their children to the much higher cost "private school" alternatives.
Your views of "subsistence farming" are so warped from reality that I can only imagine in your sad state of limited knowledge you must be confusing things with “pockets of AIDs-riddled Africa”, “flood prone Bangladesh”, and “other calamities like the Japan Tsunami, typhoons in the Philippines, and earthquakes in China” or "areas of extreme poverty (because of no farming) like the urban slums of Neza-Chalco-Itza, Karachi or Mumbai" which your local TV news probably devotes most of its time to so you might obtain a skewed world view. Try switching channels to learn about the “other real world.” Better still... get a pot, a bit of earth, and plant a tomato or lettuce seed... and see what happens if you just water and tend to it lovingly each day and let the sun shine upon it.
Last edited:
Calm down, no need to insult me. English is not my native language, and I probably used the term in the wrong way. I'm sorry if I somehow hurt your personal/national sensitivities that way and I apologize for that.
I never said anything about how things in Asia are currently, as (your impression here is correct) I have no idea about that. I only talked about a hypothetical situation in which large populations would not result in large amounts of draftable manpower, to avoid the mistake of translating those 1:1, which would probably be just as wrong as the current situation.
I never said anything about how things in Asia are currently, as (your impression here is correct) I have no idea about that. I only talked about a hypothetical situation in which large populations would not result in large amounts of draftable manpower, to avoid the mistake of translating those 1:1, which would probably be just as wrong as the current situation.
Well, you've probably just insulted every subsistence farmer in the world!
I think that is a very weak excuse to not get on the Internet and learn what you are talking about - especially after the obvious objection I raised in earlier post. Your new, even worse statement in your Post #31 is nothing but "continuing a state of ignorant bliss."
Fine, apology accepted. But so you know, you did not offend my personal/national sensitivities. I'm not a subsistence farmer (but do envy their lifestyle). No, I was just miffed by your very incorrect statement applied to something I have great respect for.
Maybe you should do some research about what facts affect "army size" so you can post more accurate info. Maybe try to find examples to support your hypothesis. It simply is AoD that results in zero MP in Indonesia, IMO.
I did not really mean to insult you either. More like “educate.” Sorry if I offended your personal sensitivities… and apologize for that. Can I claim “It is just the English language” since English is not my native tongue either?
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
Let's chalk it up to a misunderstanding. Peace?
You also wanted sources, so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops
Just sort that list by total soldiers per 1000 inhabitants, and you'll see industrial and industrializing countries at the top, post-industrial countries somewhere in the middle, and undeveloped countries at the bottom. There are a few exceptions (like Switzerland, Japan and Iceland), but these have historical/political reasons. That should prove my point that MP is not only a function of population, and should probably not be represented that way in the game.
You also wanted sources, so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops
Just sort that list by total soldiers per 1000 inhabitants, and you'll see industrial and industrializing countries at the top, post-industrial countries somewhere in the middle, and undeveloped countries at the bottom. There are a few exceptions (like Switzerland, Japan and Iceland), but these have historical/political reasons. That should prove my point that MP is not only a function of population, and should probably not be represented that way in the game.
See it positive: Since we are talking about the late 1930 they are "all" dead by now. And how much do you know about this for AoD relevant timeframe? What counts is how much manpower can be mobilized within a reasonable short timeframe. This is both for military service and for all these buildings that require manpower in AoD.
Sure, that's fine. Peace.
But here you are again mixing two very different things - size of army as per your research AND country population.
As it can be assumed that the army sizes you show are all not in a state of war, the first 2 important factors - emegency and nationalsim don't count.
Basically, you have shown "standing armies" or drafted armies that are currently in existence. As population of most countries is a thousand times greater than its army size, population has very small effect in peacetime. Rather, it is the 3rd factor I mentioned earlier - Gross Domestic Product - that determines what size (and quality) of army any country can afford to keep. MP has nearly zero effect during peacetime because any country has an over abundance of population compared to the few in the army.
The point you are trying to make is regarding the percentage of MP that is available for the army - and further applying to AoD game mechanics as regards reinforcements. If a country had no population other than its army (everybody is in the army) could there be any further MP? Of course not. So where does the MP for an army come from? From the country population, of course!
And the bigger the population, is there not a bigger and better choice of draftees?
Of course, the MP available is also detemined by feelings of nationalism. It helps greatly if most people volunteer.
Basically, I think AoD's MP calculations may be using a similiarily flawed approach when considering the game MP availability. But AoD is based on a historic time of utmost stresses upon various countries. It is trying to balance between the greater population Russia had to draw up more numbers of soldiers versus Germany's smaller population that saw the draft in the final year being altered fron "age 17-70". But even with that, Germany's MP was most limited - even if you could have had every German man, women and child fighting. So Germany's population in WW2 definitely affected the army's size (game MP).
Note that Hitler instilled "Mother Cross medals" for every pregnant woman that gave birth in a desperate attempt to raise Germany's population because he needed MP for the Wehrmacht.
Army size is determined by many different factors. Polulation is important, as is country wealth (GNP), nationalism and time of emergency. However, it may be expecting a lot for AoD to succesfully try to balance all that.
Speaking real life is one thing. Making it work in game quite another.
The only thing I object to is any AoD country having zero MP when it has IC. Any country with population would have some ability to raise some size of army. It might not because of low nationalism. And without wealth it probably could not (other than freedom fighters).
I don't know the details how AoD calculates MP, but think IC should also be considered. And there should not be something like "zero MP".
Basically, correct MP allotement is a most difficult thing to do because it flip flops depending on what is the first limiting factor. If out of population, you are out of MP. If out of wealth you are probably out of more MP for army unless people volunteer and bring their own guns. If you have political problems - even with large wealth and great polulation - you may not achieve raising any army. There have been other factors that have caused some country's armies to decline historically even though not at war.
Well no, I don't see saying those things about subsistence farners - dead or alive - as positive.
What I know I explained above - that correctly balancing MP for AoD is a most difficult task.
You are most right as to what counts regarding AoD MP - mobilization in a relatively short time. Clearly, there is nearly no country in the world (except Germany, SU, France and maybe Britain during WW2) that would have been limited by population. Germany was very limited by population - totally limited. So setting its MP according to its 1930s population is correct. But SU was less limited by population. And setting its higher MP on its greater population is therefore also largely correct - if, in fact, that is being done or is part of the MP calculation. However, in both cases, the population is only part of the story. GNP is very important, but that game aspect is already covered by IC - abilty to construct. Of course, if no more MP one can't construct for that limiting reason. Still, I think MP should also consider IC. Maybe it does.
The problem with gane shows up more in other countries that have no MP, yet they had available polulation, enough GNP, strong nationalism and were in an emergency. So, why they got no MP? As I said before, "Low MP is one thing... no MP quite another." But I'm actually not sure if any AoD country at anytime actually has zero MP growth? The fact that there's a 0 on top bar is not the whole story.
BTW, you got your post in just I was working on my #37.
Last edited:
All the points you make here are correct (or at least hard/impossible to challenge). But we're not talking about some ideal game, but about how to distribute MP in AoD, which is a gross simplification of the real world. The main problems are that province MP does not change in wartime (neither should it, IMHO), and that there's no fractional MP.
I think the changes to available MP by nationalism, mobilisation, etc. should be handled by minister/idea effects and not by province MP.
I can agree with you that any province with IC and a significant amount of population should also have MP - albeit for slightly different reasons: People working in factories that contribute to IC have their basic needs supplied by someone else, so they can also be sustained when in the army.
Maybe we should also clarify what the different numbers actually mean, to make sure we're even talking about the same thing. Otherwise, this will probably go on for ages without any useful results. My understanding is this:
- Assigned MP (MP paid for divisions, installations, etc): The size of the active military, in thousands.
- Unassigned MP (the stat shown at the top of the screen): The size of the reserve military, in thousands.
- Province MP (the stat shown at the province): The amount of fresh recruits you can theoretically(!) raise, train and supply from this province each year*
- Minister/Idea effects on MP: What fraction of the theoretically available MP actually does military service and becomes reservists
* I'm not sure about the units of measurement here. It probably has some kind of fudge factor to yield plausible MP numbers.
I think the changes to available MP by nationalism, mobilisation, etc. should be handled by minister/idea effects and not by province MP.
I can agree with you that any province with IC and a significant amount of population should also have MP - albeit for slightly different reasons: People working in factories that contribute to IC have their basic needs supplied by someone else, so they can also be sustained when in the army.
Maybe we should also clarify what the different numbers actually mean, to make sure we're even talking about the same thing. Otherwise, this will probably go on for ages without any useful results. My understanding is this:
- Assigned MP (MP paid for divisions, installations, etc): The size of the active military, in thousands.
- Unassigned MP (the stat shown at the top of the screen): The size of the reserve military, in thousands.
- Province MP (the stat shown at the province): The amount of fresh recruits you can theoretically(!) raise, train and supply from this province each year*
- Minister/Idea effects on MP: What fraction of the theoretically available MP actually does military service and becomes reservists
* I'm not sure about the units of measurement here. It probably has some kind of fudge factor to yield plausible MP numbers.
The manpower distribution on map must in essence only represent population that each year reaches drafting age of ~18 years around the year 1940. At the moment there are countries with no manpower gain but manpower loss due to aging of manpower in province buildings like infra and factories.
This is manpower assigned to factories etc.
This is manpower assigned to factories etc.