Make manpower realistic

[Bullfrog]

Manpower in the HoI series has always pertained to the maximum number of fighting units, and as such, has overlooked the essential element of military logistics. In HoI 2 for example, the USA can routinely collect ~3000 manpower by December 1941. Considering the army of that nation in WW2 maxed out at 91 divisions (of which 89 were maintained), there is a problem with HoI 2's translation of national manpower to available combat divisions.
I understand that HoI3 will have a new concept or two, but one that should be considered for implementation is that combat capable divisions need men behind the front line to support and supply them.
In the US Army, at least half of the personnel were non-divisional. The Army's ground forces made up the combat units, while millions made up the 'services forces.' This meant that the 12 million man army was actually translatable to ~3 million men in HoI 2 terms. Since it is entirely possible to make hundreds of divisions as the US in HoI 2, I hope that the next installment will address the issue of undue combatant manpower for many nations, especially the allied ones. For another example, Britain had 50 divisions in WW2, but in HoI 2 they routinely make well over 100.
Also Japan, which fielded 51 divisions in 1941, routinely has 170-200 upon their DOW of the USA in HoI 2. Hmm, no wonder they steamroll China every time.
My point is that manpower needs to be corrected to model not only mobilization, but logistical constraints. It would also be awesome if manpower was available in various forms and qualities, rather than a generic number. Thanks.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Actually the problem is that the armed forces don't need to replace manpower due to discharges - the only way people leave the military in the game is in a body bag. Which doesn't make sense, but there doesn't seem to be any good way to model it.

Realistically, in peacetime, most countries would have replaced most of their non-commissioned personnel within 3-4 years.

Vicky sort of modeled that by having a cap on manpower.

 

[Bullfrog]

Actually the problem is that the armed forces don't need to replace manpower due to discharges - the only way people leave the military in the game is in a body bag. Which doesn't make sense, but there doesn't seem to be any good way to model it.

Realistically, in peacetime, most countries would have replaced most of their non-commissioned personnel within 3-4 years.

Vicky sort of modeled that by having a cap on manpower.

True but that is in addition to non-divisional support. A good way to model that 'turnover' would be to lower national manpower gains ever so slightly per fielded division.

 

[unmerged(13113)]

Nein! Offer choices!

Like so many things ... the easy solution is just to make thing(s) like this an option!. Just have a nice check box list full of things like this to let the player customize the game form the get go. I like playing both types of games. Sometimes I like to have limitations on the countries I choose such as manpower, but other times I really like to play some ahistorical games and such. Don't mandate one type over the other, just make something like this an option for the player to go with or ignore.

 

[truth is life]

What I think ought to be done with manpower, for exactly the reasons you specified, is put a soft cap on the number of divisions fieldable by a given nation. To simulate the routine turnover of personnel, adding more divisions to your army would slightly decrease the amount of manpower gained per day, as Bullfrog suggested. In addition, once your manpower regeneration rate fell beneath a certain fraction of the base rate (say 50%), you would start getting industrial penalties, to simulate how the very large fraction of your population which is now in uniform.

 

[unmerged(44926)]

I like the idea of lowering manpower gain slightly with each new division recruited, but it might get awkward when it comes to reinforcements. Most nations found ways to increase the number of men under arms as the war went on, even as losses took their toll.

I would kinda like to see a static manpower pool which can only be increased by successive waves of drafts, each of which increases your pool by a set amount multiplied by the total "population" of the nation. I like the idea that the manpower pool represents the total number of men available to be drafted at any time. That's the limit and you won't be able to scrape together a new division if you wait a month or two. The period of the game is short enough that population growth can be more or less ignored, so the static nature of the pool assumes that as many men come of age as are retired. (I know that's not correct, but it would be hell to implement population growth.) Democracies will be unable to increase the available draft pool during peace time, and increasing the draft pool to it's maximum levels lowers the quality of units as older and less fit men are incorporated into the army, and might potentially effect production and research efficiency as well. Technology improvements could increase the pool in single bunches as well, as men are freeded from agricultural labour or factory work through mechanization. This would also allow huge but undeveloped nations like China and India to have their available military manpower severy restricted, but potentially unlockable.

 

[Damocles]

I like the idea of lowering manpower gain slightly with each new division recruited, but it might get awkward when it comes to reinforcements. Most nations found ways to increase the number of men under arms as the war went on, even as losses took their toll.

I would kinda like to see a static manpower pool which can only be increased by successive waves of drafts, each of which increases your pool by a set amount multiplied by the total "population" of the nation. I like the idea that the manpower pool represents the total number of men available to be drafted at any time. That's the limit and you won't be able to scrape together a new division if you wait a month or two. The period of the game is short enough that population growth can be more or less ignored, so the static nature of the pool assumes that as many men come of age as are retired. (I know that's not correct, but it would be hell to implement population growth.) Democracies will be unable to increase the available draft pool during peace time, and increasing the draft pool to it's maximum levels lowers the quality of units as older and less fit men are incorporated into the army, and might potentially effect production and research efficiency as well. Technology improvements could increase the pool in single bunches as well, as men are freeded from agricultural labour or factory work through mechanization. This would also allow huge but undeveloped nations like China and India to have their available military manpower severy restricted, but potentially unlockable.

I like this idea.

 

[Enzo]

I fully back up OP's idea. Basically, I think there is three things to differentiate when we talk of manpower :

- Maximum mp a country can field, (a soft cap solution as described here is fine).
- Differentiate mp pool for land, air and naval. There should be less mp for naval or air than for land, as I guess there is less candidate in a given country for naval or air.
- Logistic, logistic and also logistic

I guess the USA could have field 180 ID if they have to operate on their home land but if they have to operate abroad then mp has to be diverted to logistic purpose (what has better than me explained Bulfrog). In the last dev diary, Johan has explained that bringing supply to the front will cost supply and people, but he doesn't explicitly state that it will cost mp from mp pool, so I'm unsure. Even, it's probably the easiest solution to abstract the mp cost like this. There is certainly some issue I can't think of.

What I would like :
My ID cost 12 mp to build and need 10 supplies to operate. If I'm at 100km from my supply depot, it will cost let say 0,1 supply and 0,1 mp tax to bring the supply to my unit. If I'm at 1000 km it will cost 1 supply and 1 mp, and 10.000 km 10 supplies and mp. Which globally oblige the USA to have 50% of their mp diverted to logistic, if they want to operate 10.000 km away from their base. The goal is to find the correct equation between distance and cost.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Considering the army of that nation in WW2 maxed out at 91 divisions (of which 89 were maintained), there is a problem with HoI 2's translation of national manpower to available combat divisions.

I find this list quite interesting to study when it comes to manpower used and relative strenghts in WW2:

Wikipedia: Casualties_by_branch_of_service

With 7.86 million (11.26 - 3.4) serving in the US army counting 15k per division they would be able to field an army of 524 divisions if the numers where put straight into HoI. The real numer of 90 divisions really show the logistic impact since only 17% of the army could be organized in active fighting units. Its hard to grasp how massive this logistic constraint really is. Out of six US army personal in WW2 five were carrying supplies or behind the combat lines in other support duties.

Also remember that further manpower would be needed for convoys. To fully man the liberty class convoy ships would have needed 10 divisions worth of manpower.

Studying these numbers I agree fully with what people say here about logistical constraints.

 

[Stingray]

Keep in mind that the US in WW2 made logistics a bigger focus than all other involved (perhaps because they could afford it). basing the discussion on the US alone would give a slanted view.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Keep in mind that the US in WW2 made logistics a bigger focus than all other involved (perhaps because they could afford it). basing the discussion on the US alone would give a slanted view.

That is true. But i think we are just using them as an example of how something must be done about it. Logistics tax is a great first step, but we still have to see ways for logistics to make a dent in manpower.

I don't think we are basing the discussion on US when the suggestions so far is revoloving around 50-100% extra manpower to handle logistics when the US had 500% extra mp for logistics and rear support.

This is a major part of what finally defeated all three axis, overstreched logistics draining both manpower and supplies from combat duties.

 

[Razor]

I support the Bullfrog idea especially since it to some degree takes into account the "economical" cost for the nation to field a division. There were reasons why nations, even on the winning side, were on the dire strait at the end of war and there were reasons why they had to demobilize when peace arrived. Waging war and fielding great forces puts a heavy load on the nation. Let that load be visible in the game.

 

[Enzo]

I guess we can apply the model to any country. Obviously, Germany would have a lower % of mp diverted to logistic, as they fight closest to their base than the US, may be something like 30% instead of 50% ? This is the point to solve, what's the exact proportion between distance and mp/supply tax needed to bring supply. Not easy.

 

[oddman]

I guess we can apply the model to any country. Obviously, Germany would have a lower % of mp diverted to logistic, as they fight closest to their base than the US, may be something like 30% instead of 50% ? This is the point to solve, what's the exact proportion between distance and mp/supply tax needed to bring supply. Not easy.

But it certainly is great that they're looking into it.

 

[unmerged(48753)]

I like the idea of lowering manpower gain slightly with each new division recruited, but it might get awkward when it comes to reinforcements. Most nations found ways to increase the number of men under arms as the war went on, even as losses took their toll.

I would kinda like to see a static manpower pool which can only be increased by successive waves of drafts, each of which increases your pool by a set amount multiplied by the total "population" of the nation. I like the idea that the manpower pool represents the total number of men available to be drafted at any time. That's the limit and you won't be able to scrape together a new division if you wait a month or two. The period of the game is short enough that population growth can be more or less ignored, so the static nature of the pool assumes that as many men come of age as are retired. (I know that's not correct, but it would be hell to implement population growth.) Democracies will be unable to increase the available draft pool during peace time, and increasing the draft pool to it's maximum levels lowers the quality of units as older and less fit men are incorporated into the army, and might potentially effect production and research efficiency as well. Technology improvements could increase the pool in single bunches as well, as men are freeded from agricultural labour or factory work through mechanization. This would also allow huge but undeveloped nations like China and India to have their available military manpower severy restricted, but potentially unlockable.

Very good.

 

[Bullfrog]

I guess we can apply the model to any country. Obviously, Germany would have a lower % of mp diverted to logistic, as they fight closest to their base than the US, may be something like 30% instead of 50% ? This is the point to solve, what's the exact proportion between distance and mp/supply tax needed to bring supply. Not easy.

yes, for the USSR and Germany, 23-25% is about right. For the US though, it is around 200%.

To me it seems like a doctrinal issue, as well as having to be modified for distance and various techs. But I would say as a general default that the number should not be lower than 20%.

So for example, the USSR has 5000 manpower total...of which 25% is needed as logistic support, which means it has 3750 manpower available for division construction. In game this would be probably shown like TC, where for each division there is a certain "weight" which ties up a portion of the available manpower left, or the logistic lines themselves would need to take manpower out of the pool...

 

[Alex_brunius]

So for example, the USSR has 5000 manpower total...of which 25% is needed as logistic support, which means it has 3750 manpower available for division construction. In game this would be probably shown like TC, where for each division there is a certain "weight" which ties up a portion of the available manpower left, or the logistic lines themselves would need to take manpower out of the pool...

Wouldn't the best way be to solve this like they solved supply tax? I mean making the manpower cost dynamic. Each time a province push/move supplies an amount of manpower needs to be temporary allocated to a "logistics pool". The more supplies (divisions) abroad and the longer distance, the higher manpower cost.

Manpower from this pool could possibly also be lost when enemies do logistics strike.

 

[Bullfrog]

Wouldn't the best way be to solve this like they solved supply tax? I mean making the manpower cost dynamic. Each time a province push/move supplies an amount of manpower needs to be temporary allocated to a "logistics pool". The more supplies (divisions) abroad and the longer distance, the higher manpower cost.

Manpower from this pool could possibly also be lost when enemies do logistics strike.

Yeah that sounds fine. But I would not want to see too massive of a loss just by logistic strikes, or the AI could be bled to death without ever fighting.

 

[Alex_brunius]

That assumes they won't know how to send up FTR/INT, but I agree. It might be a bad idea to lose MP from logistic strikes since they can target bridges, roads, rails aswell.

 

[unmerged(42324)]

What about a ledger to make the difference in manpower used by different countries dynamic. so you dont have to play with softcoded numbers. US would be on the far side of the ledger with 200% and a nation which didnt use so much manpower for logistics on the other end.

Obviously the more manpower you use for logistics the better morale ( troops happy that they could eat as much chocolate as they wanted ),better combat performance (maybe you should get a lower combat effectivnes since all your troops get diabetis from all the chocolate their eating:rofl .

On the other side of the ledger would then be the benfit of fielding a higher % of you manpower in fighting divisions.

A bit of topic, but ive heard stories from friends who been in the norwegian army, that during nato exercises in norway american troops have hot dinner flown inn with helicopter to remote positions.