Increasing Man Power from Conquered Lands

[Opanashc]

I can understand why.

Warning - high chance of asthma attack!

 

[War Emblem]

Well I took the British Raj and that does give a huge boost of MP. I went from 770K to 1.3 million. Oddly, ,when they surrendered, I 'lost' 150,000 MP. Maybe there is more resistance after the surrender and you get less MP? It is October of 47 and I have to say, this game might need a War Exhaustion meter. I highly doubt some of these nations would still be fighting into year 8 of a war. For example - NZ has lost 375K men. That's a massive amount! South Africa 300K. Australia has lost 900K. As some point there has to be a breaking point. Even the American's can't be too thrilled about 2.5 million losses - especially because they joined the war they weren't attacked. Would isolationist America put up with that amount of losses? As it stands now the Axis is 78% of the war to victory over the Allies but the only real way to beat them is invade America. This should not be the only way to end the war. Which Axis country even goes to war if they know in 39 the only end is invading America? It's a fun game but if I have to take China, Australia and the US too as Svea RIke it feels less like Grand Strategy and more like Risk. Some sort of War Exhaustion might be in order.

Another factor worth considering - your MP should probably go up the longer you occupy a country (and the partisans go down). England is almost a mini-game in itself with the partisans and constant UK and US invasions. None of the Axis have carriers so we can no longer prevent landings. The Allies have 3 one or two hex footholds (by Plymouth again, by Newcastle and near Scappa Flow but I have them hemmed in by Land Forts and even when they land a bunch of divisions in one of the hexes they can't break through. There was one fairly thrilling one near Plymouth where they encircled a couple of my divisions and almost broke out but I managed to push them back. Still - at some point they have to accept a peace deal it would seem. After 8 years of war I think everyone is pretty much exhausted.

 

[spartansociety]

Well I took the British Raj and that does give a huge boost of MP. I went from 770K to 1.3 million. Oddly, ,when they surrendered, I 'lost' 150,000 MP. Maybe there is more resistance after the surrender and you get less MP? It is October of 47 and I have to say, this game might need a War Exhaustion meter. I highly doubt some of these nations would still be fighting into year 8 of a war. For example - NZ has lost 375K men. That's a massive amount! South Africa 300K. Australia has lost 900K. As some point there has to be a breaking point. Even the American's can't be too thrilled about 2.5 million losses - especially because they joined the war they weren't attacked. Would isolationist America put up with that amount of losses? As it stands now the Axis is 78% of the war to victory over the Allies but the only real way to beat them is invade America. This should not be the only way to end the war. Which Axis country even goes to war if they know in 39 the only end is invading America? It's a fun game but if I have to take China, Australia and the US too as Svea RIke it feels less like Grand Strategy and more like Risk. Some sort of War Exhaustion might be in order.

Another factor worth considering - your MP should probably go up the longer you occupy a country (and the partisans go down). England is almost a mini-game in itself with the partisans and constant UK and US invasions. None of the Axis have carriers so we can no longer prevent landings. The Allies have 3 one or two hex footholds (by Plymouth again, by Newcastle and near Scappa Flow but I have them hemmed in by Land Forts and even when they land a bunch of divisions in one of the hexes they can't break through. There was one fairly thrilling one near Plymouth where they encircled a couple of my divisions and almost broke out but I managed to push them back. Still - at some point they have to accept a peace deal it would seem. After 8 years of war I think everyone is pretty much exhausted.

Meh, it's a Paradox game. When you decide you have won, quit and start a new game.

 

[lrbaumard]

The best thing to do with minors is make a few armies of highly trained, elite specialised units that will be stronger than 90% of the divisions you're fighting.
I'm talking armor + SP AA, TD, ART + mechanized etc.
With this i managed a WC with Fascist Australia. Taking soviet union certainly helped my MP though. screenshots availble for anyone interested

It would be nice if manpower from occupied territory (i.e. taken in peace deal as opposed to during war) ticked up slowly each month to reflect integration (does it already?)

 

[War Emblem]

It's not the point of armies. I am doing just fine with armies having conquered Scandinavia, UK, India, the Middle East, Turkey, Egypt and the Primary force in Russia. It's the sheer extent of it all and the inability to get the war to a conclusion until every last man is stomped out.

 

[Galleblære]

It would make sense to me that norwegians and danish people would be more likely to work under a swedish occupation than say a french one.

Same with canadians under australian occupation rather than say, german.

iirc germany did recruit a lot of support even from occupied nations.

Ha! I'd rather serve in The Congo than fight for some Swedish or Danish overlord.

 

[EmeraldCougar]

Draftee amount from non-core should be more fexible.

- Add, for example, possibility to exchange political points - on increasing % of manpower from non-core.
- Or add possibility to exchange factories effectiveness from occuped countries - to increase % of manpower from non-core.

 

[Sir Garnet]

It would make sense to me that norwegians and danish people would be more likely to work under a swedish occupation than say a french one.

Same with canadians under australian occupation rather than say, german.

iirc germany did recruit a lot of support even from occupied nations.

Given the past antipathy among the Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians, I"d think in the 1940s an unsnowworthy French governate might rule more easily.

Today, of course, it is hoped all three may rally together under the banner of pan-Scandinavian video gaming to face the turmoil of Nextxit.

 

[Klausewitz]

I go out on a limp here and say that the 'best' occupier is one that is close enough to share common social cues, taboos and general outlook (religion, etc.) but far enough removed to be no part of the local tapestry of betrayal, feuds and long-term rivalry.

 

[krios41]

I don't have the men to send into that meat grinder.

My solution to the meat grinder (and it has worked every time so far)
Construct forts
decalre war
do nothing for 5 years

Their manpower should be nearing 0 now, happy conquest

 

[EmeraldCougar]

This is some kind of offer:

Add possibility to choose separate % of draftee for each separate region.
For example. I can set 5 % for industrial regions, and 15 % for some rural regions that do not matter for me and produce nothing for front.

 

[Secret Master]

I go out on a limp here and say that the 'best' occupier is one that is close enough to share common social cues, taboos and general outlook (religion, etc.) but far enough removed to be no part of the local tapestry of betrayal, feuds and long-term rivalry.

So, the orcs are not going to do well when they defeat Gondor and Rohan? Makes sense to me.

 

[War Emblem]

I would like to see some stratification on man power and the need to allocate people to the war front and to industry. If everyone is on the front then who is making the tanks? There should really be 3 categories of man power:

1. Combat Soldiers
2. Support Soldiers
3. Industrial workers

While you may have difficulty recruiting combat soldiers form occupied countries you could recruit support soldiers (logistics, garrison etc basically all the things the National Guard does) and industrial workers. Recruiting industrial workers does not have to be a negative thing - for instance what if a rural region with no jobs was conquered and suddenly there were good paying job opportunities in industrial cities making fighter planes. The people from the conquered region might very well like the sudden opportunities they have to make money they could previously not.

 

[Sir Garnet]

The pool of workers is vastly larger and more elastic than military manpower, but there are always specialized skills where experience is important and personnel are in short supply due to military needs. These get the attention.

The game already represents inefficiencies and lost productivity in various areas as a country draws more heavily on its manpower.

Access to conquered country manpower is already covered, and the alternative of puppetry provides a viable alternative if it fits a conqueror's needs.