Manpower attrition

[bitmode]

I found some older threads about this topic (e.g. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/does-attrition-cause-manpower-loss.947329/) and the only argument against manpower attrition there was the impact on training exercises.
Couldn't this be solved by having manpower losses only kicking in at higher attrition levels?

 

[Dalwin]

The compromise I would like to see is an exemption for manpower being lost to attrition during peacetime and specifically for training exercises even after having gone to war. I know that fatal training accidents did happen but I think their infrequency made them a trivial source of casualties. On the other hand, manpower losses due to other sources of attrition were anything but insignificant. Some of the obvious standouts are Russian winters and difficulties with heat and supply in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

I would like to see most types of attrition also cost manpower. One downside to this, perhaps, would be increasing the need to make some adjustments to the current calculation for unit veterancy. I think this already makes it too hard for most units to ever get more than one notch above "trained".

Another item that I would like to see hand in hand with this is to make it more difficult for nations to qualify for applying the more extreme conscription laws. I think nations are too easily allowed to resort to these and I think the penalties for doing so are too light.

 

[bERt0r]

Isnt it possible to just block it for training or does every source of attrition have to be treated the same? Although i could live with your no manpower attrition in peacetime solution cause it makes kind of sence. Soldiers stationed in winter in mountain terrain would probably get some slack instead of letting them freeze to death.

 

[Pro_Consul]

I am not sure it would be absolutely necessary to completely eliminate manpower losses from peacetime training, but if not then they should certainly be capped very, very low.

One minor note here: deaths aren't the only way to lose military manpower. A crippled limb, lost eyesight, or other type of accidental injury can make someone unfit for military duty without coming anywhere close to killing them. And those types of things do happen quite a bit, especially in armies which do live fire and other types of field training frequently or extensively. But even then I don't imagine they rose to level of being a noticeable drain on a nation's supply of able-bodied draft candidates.

 

[Dalwin]

I am not sure it would be absolutely necessary to completely eliminate manpower losses from peacetime training, but if not then they should certainly be capped very, very low.

One minor note here: deaths aren't the only way to lose military manpower. A crippled limb, lost eyesight, or other type of accidental injury can make someone unfit for military duty without coming anywhere close to killing them. And those types of things do happen quite a bit, especially in armies which do live fire and other types of field training frequently or extensively. But even then I don't imagine they rose to level of being a noticeable drain on a nation's supply of able-bodied draft candidates.

One of the reasons that I say training should not cause manpower loss has nothing to do with the historical reality of training. It also does not dispute the fact that you are absolutely correct that many things short of death should constitute a casualty, especially when talking about diseases and some of the other debilitating conditions in the tropics.

My reason for exempting training is much simpler than that and relies completely on the fact that we are discussing a game mechanic. There are two benefits from training. One is to generate army experience, but the other is to generate experience (some say veterancy) for the specific units involved. Since the mechanism for losing said veterancy is to take casualties and then replace the losses with green troops, how does one take the only reliable method of raising green troops to trained status or those to regular status and introduce casualties into it such that it is working directly against itself?

 

[bitmode]

introduce casualties into it such that it is working directly against itself

If say three or four casualties occur during the training of a 10,000 men division this effect wouldn't be noticeable.

 

[Dalwin]

If say three or four casualties occur during the training of a 10,000 men division this effect wouldn't be noticeable.

Such a casualty rate would be so unnoticeable as to not be worth including in the game. You would have the engine wasting computing cycles on completely trivial calculations. I already said in my first post in the thread that the training casualties would be such a low number as to not be worth representing. It think it is undeniable from a computing point of view that not calculating training losses to manpower would run (even if only slightly) faster than doing those computations and recording the results.

 

[Pro_Consul]

My reason for exempting training is much simpler than that and relies completely on the fact that we are discussing a game mechanic.

That was what I meant when I was saying that it might not be totally necessary to remove, but if left in should be capped very, very low. I see I didn't express this clearly, though. I don't know if the engine can, without tricky modification, be made to distinguish between one kind of attrition and another, so as to be able to exempt one from manpower losses. I would prefer that it did, that peacetime training activities caused no MP loss, but if not then I would be satisfied if they are least reduced the MP loss to a much lower level. Not sure if that is any easier to do, but I think it is the minimum that should be done.

Since the mechanism for losing said veterancy is to take casualties and then replace the losses with green troops, how does one take the only reliable method of raising green troops to trained status or those to regular status and introduce casualties into it such that it is working directly against itself?

I think the solution to this problem is to just reduce the loss of unit experience due to casualties. i think it would be both a better balanced mechanic and more in accord with history if units didn't suffer near as much reduction of experience level. Seriously, units in the war that suffered relatively high casualty rates became some of the most veteran, formidable formations of the war. In truth I think the game is missing its aim here in two ways: undervaluing the experience value of heavy combat and over-penalizing units for replacing lost personnel. But I think it would be unbalancing to buff the experience gain rate, so I would prefer they just addressed the latter point by reducing the penalty for replacing losses.

 

[Dalwin]

I think the solution to this problem is to just reduce the loss of unit experience due to casualties. i think it would be both a better balanced mechanic and more in accord with history if units didn't suffer near as much reduction of experience level. Seriously, units in the war that suffered relatively high casualty rates became some of the most veteran, formidable formations of the war. In truth I think the game is missing its aim here in two ways: undervaluing the experience value of heavy combat and over-penalizing units for replacing lost personnel. But I think it would be unbalancing to buff the experience gain rate, so I would prefer they just addressed the latter point by reducing the penalty for replacing losses.

There was an entire thread dedicated to that topic not so many weeks ago. The overwhelming consensus was that it was wrong for replacement to always be treated as if they had absolutely zero training. There were at least 3 or 4 different suggestions for methods to alter this, though naturally my suggestion was the best one.

 

[Pro_Consul]

There were at least 3 or 4 different suggestions for methods to alter this, though naturally my suggestion was the best one.

Bah. I was involved in that thread I believe, and my suggestion was definitely better...though I think you and I suggested the same thing...

 

[bERt0r]

There was an entire thread dedicated to that topic not so many weeks ago. The overwhelming consensus was that it was wrong for replacement to always be treated as if they had absolutely zero training. There were at least 3 or 4 different suggestions for methods to alter this, though naturally my suggestion was the best one.

Afaik the consensus was that replacement Xp should depend on conscription law.

 

[Dalwin]

Bah. I was involved in that thread I believe, and my suggestion was definitely better...though I think you and I suggested the same thing...

Yeah I think, IIRC, we both had only slight variance on a similar theme. The centerpiece was tying replacement experience to conscription law.

The only significant argument against such methods involved not wanting to favor some of the high population countries. I agree that states like Nationalist China or even the USSR should not be getting the most experienced replacements, especially in the second half of the war. I think such nations could be balanced using national spirits.

 

[KiwiNoob]

Bump. Was just thinking the same thing.