Hearts of Iron IV - Dev Diary 13 - Conscription & Training

[Dinglehoff]

I'm not sure what the monthly manpower is supposed to represent. If it represents younger cohorts aging into the conscription range, wouldn't you also have cohorts aging out of the conscription range? I think you would need to model those aging out of the military to balance those getting too old for the workforce. Or is the idea that the popular distribution is pyramid-shaped, so those aging out are always fewer than those aging in?

I completely forgot about people aging out. The healthy population pyramid is narrow at the top because of deaths. Those deaths occur typically well after service age has been passed. To model that more accurately the country would need a base population from which to conscript a relatively consistent and stable number of people, which number would be adjustable based on the laws of that country. The base population could grow or shrink but the manpower pool wouldn't be expanding nonstop until the game ends.

 

[Axe99]

....Mechanisms on the flow of replacements to overseas airbases are important. We can't have UK rebasing 100 spitfires from England to Singapore when Japan invades Malaysia. They must come by convoy, in small numbers and take weeks to arrive.

Good thoughts on aces and air combat . I particularly like this thought - it was altogether too easy to get decent air cover to south-east asia as the UK in HoI3 once it looked like Japan was about to start causing trouble.

 

[Secret Master]

I'm not sure what the monthly manpower is supposed to represent. If it represents younger cohorts aging into the conscription range, wouldn't you also have cohorts aging out of the conscription range? I think you would need to model those aging out of the military to balance those getting too old for the workforce. Or is the idea that the popular distribution is pyramid-shaped, so those aging out are always fewer than those aging in?

HOI3 had "peacetime manpower rotation" that would deduct manpower from existing units while not at war. The assumption I've always held is that when the war fires up, all contracts are extended indefinitely. There is no "aging out" for a statistically relevant portion of military manpower in the time frame of the game.

Also, the number of people aging in should usually exceed those aging out.

But you are right that the old system of manpower led to bizarre things, like the countries just losing manpower if they refused to implement conscription early enough, even though the number of conscriptable people didn't change.

 

[Dinglehoff]

HOI3 had "peacetime manpower rotation" that would deduct manpower from existing units while not at war. The assumption I've always held is that when the war fires up, all contracts are extended indefinitely. There is no "aging out" for a statistically relevant portion of military manpower in the time frame of the game.

All the manpower has to age and the time frame of the game is not a sufficient hand wave excuse. Many men were service aged in WWI and in the interwar period. They will not live forever. If they age in, and stay alive, they age out; unless there is some setting for keeping old people in until they die from something besides combat and then you have to have something to model that. Like a division template with only 50-60 year old men allowed, with performance penalties and higher attrition losses.

Also, the number of people aging in should usually exceed those aging out.

Yes, that is what is supposed to happen. With aging out you see more modest manpower growth.

 

[Secret Master]

All the manpower has to age and the time frame of the game is not a sufficient hand wave excuse. Many men were service aged in WWI and in the interwar period. They will not live forever. If they age in, and stay alive, they age out; unless there is some setting for keeping old people in until they die from something besides combat and then you have to have something to model that. Like a division template with only 50-60 year old men allowed, with performance penalties and higher attrition losses.

Well, with peace time manpower rotation in a semi-historical game of HOI3, that means you get men aging out of service until 39. If the war lasts until 45, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that only a statistically irrelevant number of people age out. Do some age out? Sure, but we're not talking about enough to impact gameplay or so much manpower that the older people don't get civilian jobs to support the war effort, freeing up an equivalent amount of younger labor for conscription.

Yes, that is what is supposed to happen. With aging out you see more modest manpower growth.

Which is why HOI3 just abstracted it on a monthly basis.

 

[wolf1455]

Nice, I like.

 

[Delta107]

Enjoy your weekend everyone, and I'll see you with another diary in a month.

+

 

[wolf1455]

About experienced manpower from scrapped divisions. If the experiense on these guys cant be tracked can you merge 2 weak units and so save the experience?

 

[Centurion1973]

About experienced manpower from scrapped divisions. If the experiense on these guys cant be tracked can you merge 2 weak units and so save the experience?

I dont think so - unit composition is ruled by templates, so unlike HoI3 we wont be able to move individualdivision components from one division to another.

 

[Cardus]

1. The two mechanics having that relationship would be unrealistic. Expanding the draft from 18 to 16 years old, for example, would not have any impact on manpower recruitment for at least 16 years, because there are still the same number of 1-15 year old boys growing older each day. After the minimum service age number of years, the results of the policy change manifest themselves based on what happened to the soldiers during that time. If for example President Obama drafts me to go to fight in Ukraine, and I die, that does not stop my daughter, who is already alive, from being sent to fight Islamic radicals 13 years from now. Assuming Selective Service is expanded to include women.

I don't think so. Expanding the draft from 16 to 18 years old implies having all people aged between those two years in the manpower pool.

2. Increasing the population in the army should not automatically lower factory productivity because there is no guarantee those people even work in factories. Some areas had very high population but were not very industrialized. In those cases, the productivity loss does not make sense.

In reality what matters is whether the economy works at full potential or not. All countries involved in WWII had shortage of manpower (some countries as Germany more, some countries as UK less) with the USA being on the limit as the conscripts were exactly the maximum number of people that could be freed from job. One step more and the USA economy would have been impacted.

We had with podcat and others this kind of conversation some time ago where I shown the figures and some references. I sense that in this game something is reflected but there is no indicator/level for how busy the economy is. In other terms the same country may have zero men to spare for the army (without a loss of efficiency/production) or may have 2 million men not needed for actual production. In addition I have not clear if, in game, expanding the industry requires manpower (additional production can be obtained by employing more workers or/and improving efficiency). I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere.

EDIT

HOI3 had "peacetime manpower rotation" that would deduct manpower from existing units while not at war. The assumption I've always held is that when the war fires up, all contracts are extended indefinitely. There is no "aging out" for a statistically relevant portion of military manpower in the time frame of the game.

Also, the number of people aging in should usually exceed those aging out.

But you are right that the old system of manpower led to bizarre things, like the countries just losing manpower if they refused to implement conscription early enough, even though the number of conscriptable people didn't change.

Darkest Hours calculates the exact figures (based on historical statistics) of how many people can be drafted and, given the specific law, adds the balance between young people that become older (and can be drafted) and old people that become older and should be released from service. All of that takes into account the population's pyramid (this was done with a very old engine so hats off to the developers).

 

[potski]

Well, with peace time manpower rotation in a semi-historical game of HOI3, that means you get men aging out of service until 39. If the war lasts until 45, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that only a statistically irrelevant number of people age out. Do some age out? Sure, but we're not talking about enough to impact gameplay or so much manpower that the older people don't get civilian jobs to support the war effort, freeing up an equivalent amount of younger labor for conscription.

...

I agree, because I don't believe that if you were conscripted as part if a group of 20-21 year olds, for example, that you were allowed to leave when you got to 21.

They will not live forever. If they age in, and stay alive, they age out; unless there is some setting for keeping old people in until they die from something besides combat ...

The setting is: We Are At War. I think that would apply even in the democracies - if you were unlucky to be drafted early in the war you were in for the duration.

The only exception to my mind would be professionals who have been in the armed forces already beyond their say 40th birthday. Even then they are likely going to be given jobs away from direct combat roles if possible. If they are invalided out and age is a factor, then it doesn't need to be included separately from young people who leave because of wounds/trauma/disease.

Unless someone can provide an example of a country which did allow people just to pack their bags and leave when they got to a certain age, or years of service?

 

[Cardus]

I agree, because I don't believe that if you were conscripted as part if a group of 20-21 year olds, for example, that you were allowed to leave when you got to 21.

Why not? It depends on the drafting rule. For example USA soldiers in Vietnam were released when they passed the draft term.

 

[DocMorningstar]

Why not? It depends on the drafting rule. For example USA soldiers in Vietnam were released when they passed the draft term.

Point. But I think post WWII conscription is a whole 'nuther animal.

The vast majority of armies (such that I can't think of any doing it another way) during the war - when you were conscripted/enlisted, you were in for the duration. I am also fairly certain that noone 'retired out' - they were typically held for the good of the service, and if too old to serve in combat arms, moved to training or administrative positions.

That's why only the desperate nations did things like drop the conscription age - you got a bumper crop of sub-par recruits one year, but then you were stuck with the 'same old size' going forwards BUT a lower average recruit quality.

 

[Cardus]

Point. But I think post WWII conscription is a whole 'nuther animal.

I don't think so. You decide (if you are allowed) to enter in a war and you decide (if you are allowed) for how long people will serve. For the above mentioned decisions you need the power and some popular support otherwise you could run in some trouble (varying from being kicked out as happened to Churchill to putsch as happened to Mussolini and Hitler).

 

[Secret Master]

I don't think so. You decide (if you are allowed) to enter in a war and you decide (if you are allowed) for how long people will serve. For the above mentioned decisions you need the power and some popular support otherwise you could run in some trouble (varying from being kicked out as happened to Churchill to putsch as happened to Mussolini and Hitler).

All of the conscription orders I saw for WWII indicated that you were obligated to serve until the government decided otherwise. Now, I'm talking about policies once countries were in the war. The USA from 39 to Pearl Harbor was a different beast.

Now, I read somewhere that the Soviets at some points demobilized part of their manpower so they could boost production, but that was another case of serving until the government said otherwise. I have also read about some older men being retired out during the war, but in those cases there was usually either a health reason or a "You are an admiral/general who screwed up, so you are getting retired" situations.

And yes, there are cases where the population resisted conscription, but I see that in terms of dissent and national unity, not manpower itself. I can't think of a major combatant in WWII that did not at least TRY to maintain service by requirement.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Why not? It depends on the drafting rule. For example USA soldiers in Vietnam were released when they passed the draft term.

That is entirely different from WW2... Vietnamese war was more like large scale colonial war, not "European (style)war".

 

[Dinglehoff]

That is entirely different from WW2... Vietnamese war was more like large scale colonial war, not "European (style)war".

What is to prevent an AI or a user from setting Vietnam War style drafting rules during the WWII period, other than the game interface not allowing it? What is to prevent President FDR, Truman, or Eisenhower from deciding "you serve until they surrender, or you die" needs to be changed?

Regarding Vietnam; the style in which the war was fought was determined politically, not by military or geographic necessity. There is no colonial vs European style war template to apply to it.

 

[Cardus]

All of the conscription orders I saw for WWII indicated that you were obligated to serve until the government decided otherwise. Now, I'm talking about policies once countries were in the war. The USA from 39 to Pearl Harbor was a different beast.

Now, I read somewhere that the Soviets at some points demobilized part of their manpower so they could boost production, but that was another case of serving until the government said otherwise. I have also read about some older men being retired out during the war, but in those cases there was usually either a health reason or a "You are an admiral/general who screwed up, so you are getting retired" situations.

And yes, there are cases where the population resisted conscription, but I see that in terms of dissent and national unity, not manpower itself. I can't think of a major combatant in WWII that did not at least TRY to maintain service by requirement.

Sure, then the game should have just one law and it should be used only in case of TOTAL WAR. Limited wars as Italo-Ethiopian war or Soviet-Finnish war or Sino-Japanese war cannot be represented.

PS
In addition to your example I can tell that Italy mobilized and demobilized twice during WWII

 

[Secret Master]

Sure, then the game should have just one law and it should be used only in case of TOTAL WAR. Limited wars as Italo-Ethiopian war or Soviet-Finnish war or Sino-Japanese war cannot be represented.

Huh? You lost me here.

For smaller conflicts, you have conscription laws that do not mobilize manpower for ever and ever. For example, a Two Year Draft. Once your two years is up, you are done. You would have a higher "manpower rotation" (however in the Hell you would set that up in the current iteration of HOI) at lower laws. At the Service by Requirement level, there is no significant rotation of manpower out of the manpower pool. Now, this only works because the game is so short. We're talking at most twelve years, and probably closer to six. If the game was longer, demographics would demand something else.

What you do is have a certain political cost to associated with different conscription laws so that smaller wars are not abused AND so that political dissent is a factor. If there were real costs politically for indefinite contract extensions for conscripts, then it wouldn't be a simple choice.

PS
In addition to your example I can tell that Italy mobilized and demobilized twice during WWII

Duh, of course they did. They demobilized right before Mussolini turned around and said he wanted to invade Greece. The insanity of his plan rested on the problem of manpower for the upcoming harvest; the soldiers were demobilized specifically to ensure crops could be harvested.

 

[Cardus]

Huh? You lost me here.

For smaller conflicts, you have conscription laws that do not mobilize manpower for ever and ever. For example, a Two Year Draft. Once your two years is up, you are done. You would have a higher "manpower rotation" (however in the Hell you would set that up in the current iteration of HOI) at lower laws. At the Service by Requirement level, there is no significant rotation of manpower out of the manpower pool. Now, this only works because the game is so short. We're talking at most twelve years, and probably closer to six. If the game was longer, demographics would demand something else.

What you do is have a certain political cost to associated with different conscription laws so that smaller wars are not abused AND so that political dissent is a factor. If there were real costs politically for indefinite contract extensions for conscripts, then it wouldn't be a simple choice.

Duh, of course they did. They demobilized right before Mussolini turned around and said he wanted to invade Greece. The insanity of his plan rested on the problem of manpower for the upcoming harvest; the soldiers were demobilized specifically to ensure crops could be harvested.

Then you have several examples in which you may have different conscription laws for both: limited conflicts and WWII. Quod erat demonstrandum.