Manpower in 1.5

[billcorr]

Manpower for factories (?)

I thought in HOI3 days that it would be good to have 4 manpower pools. The first initial untrained manpower, then one each for trained army, air force and navy manpower. There should then be the option to raid the untrained, air force and navy pools for making ground troops as well, but only poorly trained and equipped militia or garrison type units in an emergency.

In addition to the proposed 4 manpower pools, would a 5th manpower pool be a bridge too far?

Requiring manpower for factories might help counterbalance the building of too many factories, or force some tough decisions.

Just a thought. ​

 

[davidc929]

Manpower for factories (?)



In addition to the proposed 4 manpower pools, would a 5th manpower pool be a bridge too far?

Requiring manpower for factories might help counterbalance the building of too many factories, or force some tough decisions.

Just a thought. ​

It could doI though I'd assume that the general pool would cover that. Perhaps the recruitment laws would determine what proportion of your general manpower pool begins to be trained for the army, etc. Increasing this law could decrease production efficiency (and perhaps resource gathering efficiency?) to represent less workers being available.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

That's only true if you go directly from limited conscription to all adults serve. If you follow the more normal process of going up each conscription law, to minimize the penalties, it works out pretty reasonable. Limited (2.5) to extensive 5.0% 9 months. 5% to 10% 18 months and 10%-20% 36 months. Assuming that you shift to extensive sometime in 1939. That basically says you'll spend most of the war mobilizing manpower which seems perfectly realistic to me.

That's what I thought at first, but it fails at the edge cases like small countries, and in historical reality that it doesn’t actually take that long to muster soldiers in real life, when a war is on.

The time it takes to equip and ready the forces is already baked into the unit build and training time. So we are talking about the process of calling in and selecting who is fit to serve before putting some of them into training camps. Some tiny countries were able to do this in weeks!, and the effect speed is presently independent of country size, or any other factor really.

I only played Italy so far so I didn’t see this. They had an inefficient system of, well, everything, in real life. Not being able to do things fast was an issue with the Mussolini’s regime... I thought it was a great thing at first until I read through why it was making the game suck for a lot of people.

 

[billcorr]

in historical reality that it doesn’t actually take that long to muster soldiers in real life, when a war is on.

...brings to mind Haile Selassie's famous call to arms during the Abyssinian Crisis.

But for the life of me, I can't find the document on the internet.

The short of it:

When Italy invaded Ethiopia, the Ethiopian emperor issued a proclamation calling all military aged men to report for duty.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Do we know how long it took them to process? Edit to become available for service I mean?

 

[billcorr]

Do we know how long it took them to process?

Haile Selassie issued the mobilization order on 3 October 1935.

By Christmas*, 1935, the Ethiopians launched an offensive against the Italians.

So, perhaps 90 days?

---------------------

*My vote for the most vivid excerpt about the Christmas Offensive from the Wikipedia article:

[The Italian Commander] Criniti ultimately ordered his surrounded Eritreans to fix bayonets and charge the Ethiopians in front of them. The Eritreans created a breach and were able to escape; however, during the breakout, Criniti lost fully half of his force on the battlefield.

[either that quote or the one about the Ethiopians disabling Italian light tanks (tankettes?) with boulders, a la Ewoks versus the Empire during the battle of Endor ]

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I am noticing all the fast musters relate to either getting attacked or being imminently threatened. There might be a nice conditional there.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am noticing all the fast musters relate to either getting attacked or being imminently threatened. There might be a nice conditional there.

Even most offensive musters are < 1 year if we're talking about reality. That said defenders would logically be significantly faster.

 

[krios41]

Recently i played a country with a generic focus tree again...
I had forgotton how ridiculous the fascist path is...
9.5% recruitable population with limited conscription? yes please. It makes me wish i could swap out certain (DLC) focus tree parts for this. *Cough* any country with barely any manpower.

 

[UltimaGecko]

Since I don't think the devs have the time to put in the effort of specializing each nation's conscription mechanics, any rule will likely have to be generalized. Units already have training time (which gets extended with higher manpower laws), so we can safely assume that the manpower trickle is being used to represent calling the population to register, performing physicals, doing all sorts of bureaucratic things with employment, and maybe some backend army logistical setup.

From that standpoint, it seems like the war support implementation is a bit borked. (For example, high war support should be more than +3% to the speed of manpower gain; that's like all the Americans flocking to sign up and dodging age limits and medical disqualifications.) Small countries need to be able to draw on manpower quickly, and countries in defensive wars have historically called up troops quicker. Ideally there'd be a bit of a sliding scale based on total population and infrastructure, but I feel like that'd be much more difficult to implement.

My basic recommendation:

Aim to provide the manpower from the current conscription law in a given timeframe (instead of a flat % per day, the % of manpower varies by law and is adjusted by various bonuses and maluses). Make the default 12 months at 50% war support (e.g. no war support bonus or malus). Halve the time at 100% war support (6 months), double the time at 0% war support (24 months). Add another multiplier from stability, where 0% stability provides no bonus (12 months) and 100% stability cuts a quarter of the time (9 months). Add another multiplier for defensive wars that halves the time (6 months).

Under the best circumstances with 100% war support, 100% stability, defensive war:
1.5 months to pull in all manpower from the current conscription law (e.g. Switzerland, Ethiopia, Sweden).

Normal circumstances with 75% war support, 75% stability, offensive war:
~10 months to pull in all manpower from current conscription law (e.g. Germany)

Under the worst circumstances with 0% war support, 0% stability, offensive war:
24 months to pull in all manpower from the current conscription law (e.g. Italy).

Note that defensive/offensive war also affects war support, so this can be a huge swing. I was thinking stability might be better for halving and defensive war for the 25% bonus, but this differentiates war support and stability better (and if the government lacks support, it's still easy for the government to conscript pretty easily).

 

[FrancescoT]

@davidc929 direct link to an external site with a forum is not allowed. Please remove it from your post asap or I'll have to remove it.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Having a trickle or stream suggests the penalties of the manpower law kick in over time as well.

There is also demobilization and remobilization - sending troops home until recalled depending on the threat situation as was mentioned above.

"Arming Against Hitler" is about how France planned for a German war. While I was most interested in the discussion of comparative doctrine, it also discussed mobilization, where lack of funds and equipment for peacetime exercises peacetime meant that the troops once they were in position were far less prepared and equipped than the plans and doctrine assumed, and commonly had little or no experience with the equipment they were supposed to use - particularly new items. The Germans have to love fractured French government.

Another note on mobilization in the French case - a war condition France was not prepared for was the Phoney War. Troops steeled to fight for France during mobilization were keyed up for combat, - a likely drive into Germany while it was busy with Poland, or something. But the rot set in as is common with troops kept idle but under tension in uncertainty and command neglect for extended periods of time. When Poland lost quickly, it seemed like the war was effectively over and opinion in most countries was that a peace would ensue with Germany making gains, and everyone could go home. Instead, half a year of idleness corroded French morale. rot and disaffection set in, with the impression the tedium on the frontiers was pointless in the face of the "Phoney War" that people in general believed would end with Poland gone and peace. In an alternate state of affairs . . .

 

[Dimi88]

The new manpower system is really shit ^^

 

[seldon]

From that standpoint, it seems like the war support implementation is a bit borked. (For example, high war support should be more than +3% to the speed of manpower gain; that's like all the Americans flocking to sign up and dodging age limits and medical disqualifications.) Small countries need to be able to draw on manpower quickly, and countries in defensive wars have historically called up troops quicker. Ideally there'd be a bit of a sliding scale based on total population and infrastructure, but I feel like that'd be much more difficult to implement.

My basic recommendation:

Aim to provide the manpower from the current conscription law in a given timeframe (instead of a flat % per day, the % of manpower varies by law and is adjusted by various bonuses and maluses). Make the default 12 months at 50% war support (e.g. no war support bonus or malus). Halve the time at 100% war support (6 months), double the time at 0% war support (24 months). Add another multiplier from stability, where 0% stability provides no bonus (12 months) and 100% stability cuts a quarter of the time (9 months). Add another multiplier for defensive wars that halves the time (6 months).

Under the best circumstances with 100% war support, 100% stability, defensive war:
1.5 months to pull in all manpower from the current conscription law (e.g. Switzerland, Ethiopia, Sweden).

Normal circumstances with 75% war support, 75% stability, offensive war:
~10 months to pull in all manpower from current conscription law (e.g. Germany)

Under the worst circumstances with 0% war support, 0% stability, offensive war:
24 months to pull in all manpower from the current conscription law (e.g. Italy).

Note that defensive/offensive war also affects war support, so this can be a huge swing. I was thinking stability might be better for halving and defensive war for the 25% bonus, but this differentiates war support and stability better (and if the government lacks support, it's still easy for the government to conscript pretty easily).

I'm not really convinced that current system is particularly broken (although I'll admit I haven't played with a small country.) I do agree that defensive wars should give you a bonus to mobilization speed and so should a more stable government. But I think your mobilization times are about twice or maybe 3 time too fast.

It is important to not confuse the fast deployment of a moderate number of troops, with mobilization. The reason that Russia and Ethiopia deploy the troops quickly was the troops the deployed green (very green) troops.

In the Civil War the north didn't reach "service by requirement 10%) in 4 years 2 million troops out of 31 million population. The same is true in WWII 11 million out 130 million also in 4 years. In an offensive war, Vietnam the US didn't even get the 5% extensive conscription level in 8 years. 9.2 million out of 200 million. (2/3 of Vietnam era vets were volunteers)

In the case of Germany even though they enacted all adults serve laws in 1941, and bottom of the barrel laws in 1944 only 16% of German served in the armed services. 13 million out of 80 million. Using your suggested speeds would have given the Germans and additional 3-5 million troops in by the end of 1942, I don't think that's realistic

It is easy to issue orders, decree or even pass laws, Stalin and Hitler issued a bunch of unrealistic ones. The hard thing is to develop the infrastructure to make sure the laws/ are carried out.

For any war you have 3 groups of men. The patriotic volunteers, the majority who will do as they are told, and a sizeable minority who resist dying for their country. After the first couple of years you run out of the volunteer other than a new crop of 17 or 18 year-olds. I think it is generous that Paradox makes mobilize stay the same speed during the war.

 

[Eh up me duck]

That basically says you'll spend most of the war mobilizing manpower which seems perfectly realistic to me.

I don't think it's very realistic.

Both the UK and the USA mobilised 10% of their population in a very short amount of time.

 

[seldon]

I can't really tell much from the UK chart. But looking at the US chart from 1940 to 1942 the US mobilized 6% of their population and an additional 2.5% over the next two years.

In HOI IV you mobilize. .009% per day which works out to be 3.285% per year. Which is slightly faster than your chart shows for the first two years. Now Gen. Marshall made a deliberate decision to slow down mobilization after 1943, but there is no reason to suspect it could go much faster than 3%/per year.

In terms of game play you can go from 2.5% of the population to 10% in the course of 27 months. If you need the additional 10% that will take an additional 3 years and you have to plan ahead and change the subscription laws sooner rather than later. I've never personally needed more than 10%, and with most countries, I can stick to extensive conscription plus Focus tree or land doctrine bonuses.

 

[Karaya 1]

I can't really tell much from the UK chart. But looking at the US chart from 1940 to 1942 the US mobilized 6% of their population and an additional 2.5% over the next two years.

In HOI IV you mobilize. .009% per day which works out to be 3.285% per year. Which is slightly faster than your chart shows for the first two years. Now Gen. Marshall made a deliberate decision to slow down mobilization after 1943, but there is no reason to suspect it could go much faster than 3%/per year.

In terms of game play you can go from 2.5% of the population to 10% in the course of 27 months. If you need the additional 10% that will take an additional 3 years and you have to plan ahead and change the subscription laws sooner rather than later. I've never personally needed more than 10%, and with most countries, I can stick to extensive conscription plus Focus tree or land doctrine bonuses.

That all would make perfect sense if the game would be different. It only covers round about 10 years or so, with wars sometimes taking millions of losses in a very short amount of time. And the main problem with the new system is that the AI cant handle it. They change laws too late and then stay more or less on 0 for months.

 

[seldon]

That all would make perfect sense if the game would be different. It only covers round about 10 years or so, with wars sometimes taking millions of losses in a very short amount of time. And the main problem with the new system is that the AI cant handle it. They change laws too late and then stay more or less on 0 for months.

I'm have not played enough of 1.5 to see how the AI handles it. I suspect you are right, and I'm hoping it is something that either Paradox or more likely the Expert AI mod addresses. I'm perfectly ok with the AI cheating in situations like this, even getting manpower all at once.

I was reacting to players complaining about it and the more I look at it while you could make the system more complicated, at first approximation, it is very close to the historical rates. So if players run out of manpower, because their soldiers are dying faster than they can be replaced. I'd say welcome to the reality of running a nation in a long war.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In terms of game play you can go from 2.5% of the population to 10% in the course of 27 months. If you need the additional 10% that will take an additional 3 years and you have to plan ahead and change the subscription laws sooner rather than later.

Why not also tell players to adjust by expending negative energy to open a worm hole? That's similarly possible according to the game rules as "planning ahead and changing conscription laws sooner than the first possible moment allowed".

You're not factoring the game's training time in the stated numbers either.

 

[fabius]

I like the trickle as a player.

But yeah the AI needs some code for it