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..
Quite agree. AoD MP is a difficult abstraction, however the game calculates it. But to be clear, my attitude is - whatever the MP (including zero MP for the some of my Allies that I currently militarily control) that is the challenge of AoD (working with limited MP) and one of the reasons why it makes such a great strategy game.
The main problems are that province MP does not change in wartime (neither should it, IMHO)….
Well, this is the other topic - what is wrong with AoD MP calculations? How can one discuss that without relating to the historical? So I will attempt to address your new point - you think MP should not change during wartime. I suggest "wartime" is the greatest cause of historical army manpower increase, and AoD MP should change with wartime. That only makes sense as regards countries instilling a draft, increasing the draft when wars go badly, and ending up with all able persons fighting to forestall defeat (Germany in the last year of WWII is an excellent example).
But look at your link (which is excellent also, Thank You) and look at North Korea. Unbelievable but true. Nearly 40% of the population is actively in the army. Why? Because they are in a formal state of war with South Korea and the greatest superpower the world has ever seen. (Ceasefire is a state of war). In short, they are in a national emergency. But would they have this army size if not also for their leaders and their policies? Certainly they do not have the GNP traditionally needed to create such an army, but because of policies, state of emergency and nationalism they do. If not limited by GNP (IC) or population then wartime is the greatest reason to increase army size (increase MP). Never does a country’s population limit its army size (population being so much greater) except in the most extreme cases of a country that has nearly lost the war and is on its very last legs.
Pang brought up “mobilization” which is the next important consideration. AoD MP should represent mobilization. And when countries go to war, they increase their mobilization.
The manpower distribution on map must in essence only represent population that each year reaches drafting age of ~18 years around the year 1940.
I’m not sure if you mean “must in essence” to make the game work or the calculations fit (in which case I’m fine with it) or you really mean that is the correct way to handle MP (in which case I totally disagree).
I repeat – population size has nothing to do with army size counted as a percentage of population (not discussing total army size now) except in the most extreme cases (N. Korea and Germany losing WWII). Army size is determined only by GNP, country policies as how big to construct an army, how much extra draft to instill to enlarge army, and ability to mobilize. As ability to mobilize is considerably less than population size, population size cannot be the limiting factor.
Population does eventually play a limiting role, and eventually countries with huge populations can build huge armies (China is an excellent example – now discussing total army size). But – if you are discussing mobilization (and what is the Reinforcements Slider other than mobilization?) then, IMO, it is a fallacy to base the MP available on provincial population. It can be a factor used in the calculation but should not be the main thing to base MP upon). It is probably a correct starting point which – ideally – would be modified by IC, ministers, policies, mobilization efficiency, degree of nationalism, and country emergency. Declaring war is reason for some MP increase, but nothing like national emergency. So maybe, as country VP declines, MP should increase?
To be clear, mobilization is not determined by “population that each year reaches drafting age” but rather by country deciding what percentage of that draft age population they will send out letters saying “you are drafted”. Furthermore, a dictator can most easily change the available army manpower by lowering draft age (look at some African armies that recruit children), increasing time served in army, and cancelling leaves. In fact the Allies did that. When they started losing too many bomber crews they just increased the minimum missions required. In no way, was the restriction “available provincial population”. And on the other end, manpower can be most easily increased by simply disregarding what AoD calls “ageing”. Germany did that.
The other point is that MP is partly the manpower to do provincial projects. Again, population size does not determine that but country policies do which state how much time every person must devote to civic duties and mostly how large a civil work pool a country cares to assemble based mostly on GNP (pay for salaries). And other countries use ingenious methods for addressing low population but needing both high army and civil work force. Israel is a perfect example with low population but relatively large army by everybody needing to serve several years in the army, and/or work on a kibutz to grow food. And because of simple policy, they doubled that for many of the people by simply having some of the army work also on kibutz.
It is precisely because of the many complicated factors that affect mobilization that I stated “AoD has a huge challenge here”. Basically, I think it has done a pretty good job, countries with nearly zero MP should be tweaked to up their MP, but the majors and their current MP makes for exciting and challenging game play.
Anyway, interesting thread, but I’ll be leaving to put up next installment in other thread. I think I do that better than defending subsistence farmers! No hard feelings I hope, Autolykos. Nice day, all.
