manpower definition flaw

[IsaacCAT]

Many posts have been written about manpower state on the game. This post is to denounce a flaw in the manpower definition and implementation on game. This comes after an exercise of establishing a simple rule to calculate manpower for a given population in order to understand it.

From the definition of the Imperator Wiki, Manpower is a pool of ready-to-fight people who are drawn from POPs that is used when recruiting new army cohorts and replenishing attrition or combat losses.

The flaw is the lack of one important and obvious use: the replacement of retiring soldiers (due to age or other reasons).

Let's develop it:

Your total population (POPs) is made of men and women of different ages. The game calculates growth of your population using some questionable mechanics that are not the subject of this post and this takes into account the following concepts:

• POP growth = Existing POPs + born POPs - Died POPs

Each POP is a unit of population with men and women that provides manpower, i.e., the young men that are recruited in your armies. But manpower is not like POPs that have a reproduction rate. Soldiers cannot reproduce themselves, i.e., manpower is a pool of ready-to-fight people who have a caducity date. However on game, if there is no attrition or battles deaths, armies do not replace their soldiers, thus we have de facto immortal soldiers (except for attrition or death in battle).

Manpower recovery speed of 20 years to replenish the pool is fine as an abstraction of the balance of population having children and grow them to be ready for soldiers minus the grown up men that are no longer able to be soldiers. But every month, generated manpower should decrease in order to replace the soldiers that retire.

For example:

Year	Population	Manpower	Armies	Soldiers that retire (**)
0	100 men and women	20 men + 2 men (*)	0 soldiers
1	100 men and women	22 men + 2 men (*) - 10 soldiers drafted	10 soldiers
2	100 men and women	14 men + 2 men (*) - 1 retired soldiers	10 soldiers	-1 soldiers
3	100 men and women	15 men + 2 men (*) - 1 retired soldier	10 soldiers	-1 soldiers

(*) The increase of manpower is the balance between the grown ups minus the men were ready to be conscripted but got too old. The game simulates this balance equal to 1/240 max manpower + modifiers. In the table we have used 40 to calculate this balance.

(**) the game does not takes into account the soldiers that retire of service because they are too old, or maimed, deserters, dead of old age, or whatever reason. That should be simulated and draw from the manpower pool every month as attrition or deaths do now. The rate of soldiers to retire should be 10-20 years of service, thus each soldier/sailor will have to be replaced at least every 1/120 month.

If I have it wrong, please do not hesitate to correct me. With the new system in 2.0 it will have the same problem, as manpower will still be generated from POPs, and when levies or legions are raised, no retired soldiers will be calculated, nor subtracted from the manpower pool.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Unless this manpower modifier for levies and later legions teased in 2.0 is for every month and not a one-off:

EDITED: this was already spotted by @Herennius here:

More Twitter Teasers

From Arheo Twitter. Seems like foundry can only be built 1 in each city? Or maybe a small building overhaul? Looks good overall. I wish that the UI will tell us the benefits of having these modifiers though, like what 10% extra output will gain...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Decius]

I would really like to hear the opinion of a dev on this topic. On the one hand it would provide realism, but it wouldn't really add much from a gameplay perspective. If manpower is to easy to gain, you can rebalance the gain and/or add manpower costs (e.g. ship crews needed for fleets, manpower needed for colonization - idea is from the bronze age mod).

So the question is, is it worth the effort for the devs to implement this? How difficult is it to balance?

 

[Decius]

Unless this manpower modifier for levies and later legions is for every month and not a one-off:

View attachment 671492

I think it's monthly, because tax and research points are also on a monthly basis. Legions don't cost monthly manpower and research points, but are more expensive in money - especially don't costing research points is one advantage from legions in comparison to levies.

 

[IsaacCAT]

I would really like to hear the opinion of a dev on this topic. On the one hand it would provide realism, but it wouldn't really add much from a gameplay perspective. If manpower is to easy to gain, you can rebalance the gain and/or add manpower costs (e.g. ship crews needed for fleets, manpower needed for colonization - idea is from the bronze age mod).

So the question is, is it worth the effort for the devs to implement this? How difficult is it to balance?

I think it's monthly, because tax and research points are also on a monthly basis. Legions don't cost monthly manpower and research points, but are more expensive in money.

Then they have already implemented it, with the teaser picture monthly manpower minus number.

It is not only about realism, it is about game play, you cannot have immortal soldiers. It would be favoring a conservative game play too much. If you do not loose soldiers, you can have more armies by creating legions with soldiers ad infinitum.

 

[Decius]

Then they have already implemented it, with the teaser picture monthly manpower minus number.

So I guess problem solved But probably legions won't have this monthly cost - afaik.

It is not only about realism, it is about game play, you cannot have immortal soldiers. It would be favoring a conservative game play too much. If you do not loose soldiers, you can have more armies by creating legions with soldiers ad infinitum.

But wouldn't a higher monthly gain than loss lead to almost the same issue - in the best case just delaying it, which can also be achieved by balancing? Therefore I said it's more a realism aspect as it can be achieved without adding a factor to the calculation, but changing the existing ones and adding manpower costs to existing features.

 

[IsaacCAT]

So I guess problem solved

Not until 2.0 release

But wouldn't a higher monthly gain than loss lead to almost the same issue - in the best case just delaying it, which can also be achieved by balancing? Therefore I said it's more a realism aspect.

Not always balancing is enough. Mechanics are there to explain the world and they are interlinked. You can have realism or not, but the underlying mechanic has to exist in order to describe your world. In other words, retiring soldiers only happen when you have armies, if you do not have armies you do not have this problem. If you try to solve this by reducing the increase of manpower you are creating another problem with the players that do not have armies and need that manpower increase to stand up again and fight.

 

[Decius]

Not until 2.0 release

That's logical, why should they release an update before 2.0 that adresses solely this issue? As I added above, it may not affect legions afaik.

Not always balancing is enough. Mechanics are there to explain the world and they are interlinked. You can have realism or not, but the underlying mechanic has to exist in order to describe your world. In other words, retiring soldiers only happen when you have armies, if you do not have armies you do not have this problem. If you try to solve this by reducing the increase of manpower you are creating another problem with the players that do not have armies and need that manpower increase to stand up again and fight.

But isn't manpower the topic, we are talking about? It doesn't matter if you have retiring soldiers or not. You have men at a age to serve in the military. When they get too old/die they are no longer available and younger men coming to age to serve increase manpower = natural manpower loss/growth per month. It doesn't matter if they retire/die in the military or as civilian. So I don't see my realism aspect argument wrong - it adds realism, but not really a gameplay aspect, as it still can be achieved with the current calculation - even if there would be very minor differences.

Edit: Highlighted my main reason, why it wouldn't really change something more than realism and could be achieved with balance tweaks. And I didn't say it shouldn't be implemented therefore - with the exception, if a dev would say it's not worth the effort it takes to implement it just for realism.

 

[IsaacCAT]

but not really a gameplay aspect, as it still can be achieved with the current calculation - even if there would be very minor differences.

From my example, the game play difference:

Year	Population	Manpower with soldiers retired	Manpower without soldiers retiring	Armies	Soldiers that retire (**)
0	100 men and women	20 men + 2 men (*)	20 men + 2 men (*)	0 soldiers
1	100 men and women	22 men + 2 men (*) - 10 soldiers drafted	22 men + 2 men (*) - 10 soldiers drafted	10 soldiers
2	100 men and women	14 men + 2 men (*) - 1 retired soldiers	14 men + 2 men (*)	10 soldiers	-1 soldiers
3	100 men and women	15 men + 2 men (*) - 1 retired soldier	16 men + 2 men (*)	10 soldiers	-1 soldiers
4	100 men and women	16 men + 2 men (*) -2 retired soldiers - 10 drafted soldiers	16 men + 2 men (*) - 10 drafted soldiers	20 soldiers	-2 soldiers
5	100 men and women	6 men + 2 men (*) - 2 retired soldiers	8 men + 2 men (*)	20 soldiers	-2 soldiers
6	100 men and women	6 men + 2 men (*) - 2 retired soldiers	10 men + 2 men (*)	20 soldiers	-2 soldiers
7	100 men and women	6 men + 2 men (*) - 2 retired soldiers	12 men + 2 men (*)	20 soldiers	-2 soldiers
8	100 men and women	6 men + 2 men (*) - 2 retired soldiers	14 men + 2 men (*)	20 soldiers	-2 soldiers
9	100 men and women	6 men + 2 men (*) - 2 retired soldiers	16 men + 2 men (*)	20 soldiers	-2 soldiers

After 10 years, with the existing method, player has 16 men in manpower pool and growing because is under the max limit. With retiring soldiers it has 6 men available and not growing anymore. Huge difference.

Comparing two players, if one player does not draft armies, will have more manpower than another player that has raised its armies, even if he has no loses. Without the retiring soldiers mechanism you cannot have this outcome with the existing system.

If we extend the timeline further, it will have a limit on how many armies you can have standing. With the existing system, you can have infinite armies because you keep producing manpower.

EDITED: simplified and corrected example numbers.

 

[Decius]

From my example, the game play difference:

Year	Population	Manpower with soldiers retired	Manpower without soldiers retiring	Armies	Soldiers that retire (**)
0	100 men and women	20 men + 2 men (*)	20 men + 2 men (*)	0 soldiers
1	100 men and women	22 men + 2 men (*) - 10 soldiers drafted	22 men + 2 men (*) - 10 soldiers drafted	10 soldiers
2	100 men and women	14 men + 2 men (*) - 1 retired soldiers	14 men + 2 men (*)	10 soldiers	-1 soldiers
3	100 men and women	15 men + 2 men (*) - 1 retired soldier	16 men + 2 men (*)	10 soldiers	-1 soldiers
4	100 men and women	16 men + 2 men (*) -1.6 retired soldiers - 6 drafted soldiers	16 men + 2 men (*) - 6 drafted soldiers	16 soldiers	-1.6 soldiers
5	100 men and women	10.4 men + 2 men (*) -1.6 retired soldiers	12 men + 2 men (*)	16 soldiers	-1.6 soldiers
6	100 men and women	10.8 men + 2 men (*) -1.6 retired soldiers	14 men + 2 men (*)	16 soldiers	-1.6 soldiers
7	100 men and women	11.2 men + 2 men (*) -1.6 retired soldiers	16 men + 2 men (*)	16 soldiers	-1.6 soldiers
8	100 men and women	11.6 men + 2 men (*) -1.6 retired soldiers	18 men + 2 men (*)	16 soldiers	-1.6 soldiers
9	100 men and women	12 men + 2 men (*) -1.6 retired soldiers	20 men + 2 men (*)	16 soldiers	-1.6 soldiers

After 10 years, with the existing method, player has 22 men in manpower pool, with retiring soldiers it has 12.04 men available. Huge difference.

Comparing two players, if one player does not draft armies, will have more manpower than another player that has raised its armies, even if he has no loses. Without the retiring soldiers mechanism you cannot have this outcome with the existing system.

If we extend the timeline further, it will have a limit of how many armies you can have standing. With the existing system, you can have infinite armies.

So are you just losing manpower, if soldiers retire? (in peace, if no attrition is happening)
Why is there no manpower loss from civilian men getting too old/die, but soldiers do age? So this is solely to nerf legions with 2.0 and put them more in line with levies? I thought, you want a more realistic aging feature, affecting manpower and soldiers and not solely soldiers. That's why I brought up the realism argument.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Why is there no manpower loss from men getting too old/die, but soldiers do age?

The manpower has a max limit depending on POPs and it is already an abstraction of the balance between growing children and retiring old men.

 

[Decius]

The manpower has a max limit depending on POPs and it is already an abstraction of the balance between growing children and retiring old men.

I read too much into it. I thought you want also something like too old/dying civilian men = loss of manpower. Because having an aging feature for soldiers, but not for manpower (civilian men) would be inconsistent. In that case it's rather a nerf (gameplay change) for legions after 2.0 than solely a realism aspect.

 

[Iosue Yu]

Hm...

Well retirement for soldiers weren't a thing because soldiers were not career soldiers.

There were only fresh green soldiers who were young and basic. And there were veterans who were assigned to Triarii or Evocati, being the better soldiers than the freshmen.

To be honest I don't get how manpower and levy work together. So it's like you're mustering 600 guys but you only put 500 into active services and 100 for reserves? Then you should be gaining manpower by levying.

The country should have 0 Manpower at peace time. When you levy, you levy up one unit with a few men as reserves. When active men have died in your units, you replenish from your reserves.

But I'll try to first read what they've designed before giving suggestions. Right now we still just have a few screenshots and 2 to 3 keywords without descriptions.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Well retirement for soldiers weren't a thing because soldiers were not career soldiers.

Then dying of old age, that it is not in game right now.

The country should have 0 Manpower at peace time. When you levy, you levy up one unit with a few men as reserves. When active men have died in your units, you replenish from your reserves.

Manpower = reserves. Please, read manpower definition.

 

[Iosue Yu]

Then dying of old age, that it is not in game right now.


Manpower = reserves. Please, read manpower definition.

Why do you even have reserves at peace time?

And if you have reserves at peace time, why do you levy your population instead of using the Reserves?

 

[Decius]

Why do you even have reserves at peace time?

I think reserves in terms of men able to serve in the military.

 

[IsaacCAT]

And if you have reserves at peace time, why do you levy your population instead of using the Reserves?

Population = manpower = reserves

your manpower is the fraction of your population ready to serve.

 

[CaptinObvious]

While I think that this is a bit of a moot issue since things are going to change a lot in 2.0, and we will have to get our hands on it first, but...

I agree, manpower acts as a bit of a farmed resource, manufactured by pops, and banked at the national fodder reserve (NFR for short) and only tapped once needed, that is, once you raise a cohort, it is free manpower

IMO, a cohort (forts as well) should cost 1k (or 500, for 2.0) manpower, and subtract that much from the cap, so if your cap is 20k, that is also your max number of cohorts, or well, 40 for 2.0, this should also go for forts, right now they are free from an MP cost perspective, but they shouldn't be so, unless we want to go with a system where fort garrison is actual cohorts (micro nightmare), forts should also cost 1k (500 for 2.0?) plus the request MP upkeep for a regular cohort

 

[IsaacCAT]

While I think that this is a bit of a moot issue since things are going to change a lot in 2.0, and we will have to get our hands on it first, but...

I agree, manpower acts as a bit of a farmed resource, manufactured by pops, and banked at the national fodder reserve (NFR for short) and only tapped once needed, that is, once you raise a cohort, it is free manpower

IMO, a cohort (forts as well) should cost 1k (or 500, for 2.0) manpower, and subtract that much from the cap, so if your cap is 20k, that is also your max number of cohorts, or well, 40 for 2.0, this should also go for forts, right now they are free from an MP cost perspective, but they shouldn't be so, unless we want to go with a system where fort garrison is actual cohorts (micro nightmare), forts should also cost 1k (500 for 2.0?) plus the request MP upkeep for a regular cohort

Forts should cost you manpower to build and to maintain. Also Fleets, sailors are men able to serve. How much men for ship and how many years will they serve? I dunno. But put this on the game, please.

About subtracting from the cap, I do not agree. The cap is function of total POPs, and it is right that your men ready to serve is a product of your POPs.

The manpower recover rate of 1/240 total max represents families reaching its average number of 2 members able to serve (2 men of 5 family members). When some of your sons are drafted, the family decides to have more children to increase again its numbers to what they can afford to pay for. The drafted members are payed by the government/army and do not use family resources, that can be used by another member.

I will link mobilization age to national laws or decisions linked to increase/decrease this cap. Another factor could be the economic situation.

• A family of 5 members, on average may have 2 members able to serve. If you decrease the minimum age to serve, you can have on average 3 members at the same time.
• Families from Nobles to Citizens classes will have increased sizes, with families of 6-7 with an average of 3 members able to serve as it is an economic decision to increase the family size. Maybe we could tie some goods to increase manpower cap instead of pop happiness.

Fertility rate should be related to POP growth and not to manpower.

 

[Iosue Yu]

I can't be the only one who finds farmed manpower problematic. Where do the people go? They all stay and wait in some barrack until they are called to reinforce? What do they do in peace time? Remember manpower is not a part of a Pop, but what a Pop produces. It's as if all Pops are women with self-fertilisation mechanisms and they just stay home and produce men to fight in the war.

I don't really have a good metaphor. But what exactly do they do? Not training, not producing anything, not contributing to the economy. They just sit there because they are themselves products. Products made specifically for teleportation and filling up empty ranks without being trained, equipped (no extra cost to reinforce) or paid.

And it gets even more amusing when you need to be Nobles to get enlisted as Cavalry, but fallen Nobles get reinforced by what Citizens and Freemen have already produced.

That's why I think it'd be better to design it the other way around that you simply have a minimal reserve of manpower. They represent the vigils, policemen, guards and city garrison. Perhaps 1000 for each city. And then when you raise an army, you also get some manpower for reinforcing. Then if you really need reinforcement, you can sacrifice a Pop and change them into 500 men.

Or course, I'd also prefer manpower gets separated into the 5 different Pop types to reinforce different units. By default Slaves don't have a corresponding unit but some Cultures using Slave armies may use them as reserves.

This way, the manpower mechanics would not be too complex. The players can still enjoy teleportation reinforcement. And the system actually represents something.