Population goes down/grows?

[Adonnus]

Does population go down as you take heavier military losses? Also, is there population growth (1936 from 1948 is a small period granted, but it would be nice to see it growing if for no other reason that immersion, which is of course important in any historical game. The population of Australia grew by a decent amount from 6.8 to 7.4 from '36 to '46. The population of the USA increased by about 20 million, I think.)

 

[Axe99]

I'm pretty sure that Podcat confirmed that there was population growth, although I'm not sure how much. Agree it's good for immersion and important more generally. If you think about the key military-aged population being between 16 and 36, you'd actually cycle through a third-ish (depending on the population pyramid, growth, and what-have-you) of that between 1936-48.

 

[Raptor83]

Podcat IIRC said, that population of states is static.

 

[jamesd]

I think Podcat confirmed we will not see population growth in states, but manpower recruitment would see a slight increase over the period of the game.

 

[Adonnus]

I think Podcat confirmed we will not see population growth in states, but manpower recruitment would see a slight increase over the period of the game.

A shame. Hopefully it can be added in a patch or something.

 

[vicerory]

The people born from 1936 - 1945 will have no influence on WWII, so I don't see why this game should account for them tbh.

 

[Adonnus]

The people born from 1936 - 1945 will have no influence on WWII, so I don't see why this game should account for them tbh.

Immersion

 

[Denkt]

You do get monthly manpower growth like in previous HOI but population in states don't change.

 

[George Parr]

Immersion

Immersion of what exactly?
The game has a very specific timeframe. None of the people born during the game have any chance whatsoever of getting involved in the war, they would all be young children. In fact, you can pretty much extend that to the entire 30s. Seeing how the overall population is completely irrelevant in every way, there is little reason to spend time on something like that. It has no impact on manpower or production, or anything else for that matter. The slight increase to the people who are available per draft-class that some nations may have had - which is connected to the birth-rates of the late 10s and entire 20s - gets incorporated through the manpower.

There are plenty of issues that are far more important than that. There are also things that are far more connected to the war that won't make it into the game, so if it comes to adding immersion those things should be way ahead of something that does nothing for the game.

 

[General Baker]

The people born from 1936 - 1945 will have no influence on WWII, so I don't see why this game should account for them tbh.

... so what about people coming of age between 1936-45? That's a decade of people becoming, and passing, the age of 16...

 

[Adonnus]

Immersion of what exactly?
The game has a very specific timeframe. None of the people born during the game have any chance whatsoever of getting involved in the war, they would all be young children. In fact, you can pretty much extend that to the entire 30s. Seeing how the overall population is completely irrelevant in every way, there is little reason to spend time on something like that. It has no impact on manpower or production, or anything else for that matter. The slight increase to the people who are available per draft-class that some nations may have had - which is connected to the birth-rates of the late 10s and entire 20s - gets incorporated through the manpower.

There are plenty of issues that are far more important than that. There are also things that are far more connected to the war that won't make it into the game, so if it comes to adding immersion those things should be way ahead of something that does nothing for the game.

It's not about what it does for the game or not. It happened in real life. And without it being represented in the game, immersion is lowered. Sure it's not that important but I'd like to see it in eventually. When you are playing a WW2 history game, do you want to be reminded at every turn that it's a game or do you want it to depict reality as accurately as possible? It's a nice little feature and you'll find that many games pay attention to detail for this reason without it having a strict gameplay purpose.

 

[Zaku]

... so what about people coming of age between 1936-45? That's a decade of people becoming, and passing, the age of 16...

Those people are simulated with the small increase of manpower over time.

 

[vicerory]

Immersion

I'm all for immersion, but population growth doesn't add much of it in a game that is about warfare. If you wanna talk accurate people numbers, changing the division strength/manpower would add a lot more immersion than an unnoticeable number somewhere in the background (HOI only counts 'bayonet' strength, so divisions are about half as big as they're actually supposed to be).

 

[Adonnus]

I'm all for immersion, but population growth doesn't add much of it in a game that is about warfare. If you wanna talk accurate people numbers, changing the division strength/manpower would add a lot more immersion than an unnoticeable number somewhere in the background (HOI only counts 'bayonet' strength, so divisions are about half as big as they're actually supposed to be).

Warfare equals soldiers dying? Wouldn't it be amazing to see a desperate nation, pushed to its last limits, have an ever shrinking number of population in each state? That's the immersion that I'm talking about: that little population number is a window into the desperation of the country.

 

[Sweed Raver]

The people born from 1936 - 1945 will have no influence on WWII, so I don't see why this game should account for them tbh.

Agreed. However, the game could take into account increases in workforce. In the time span 1936-1945, people born 1918-1927 will become adults, and thus be available for both conscription and workforce. That means that if you want to model these changes in population, it would be more accurate to model the historical growth before the game starts, as well as migration during the game. That would potentially make the game needlessly complex however, and a more simple model (which I believe they already have implemented) is through events and modifiers instead.

 

[Evan05]

The people born from 1936 - 1945 will have no influence on WWII, so I don't see why this game should account for them tbh.

There will no doubt be mods that extend the timeline of the game further. It would be nice for populations increase then remain static.

 

[Zaku]

Warfare equals soldiers dying? Wouldn't it be amazing to see a desperate nation, pushed to its last limits, have an ever shrinking number of population in each state? That's the immersion that I'm talking about: that little population number is a window into the desperation of the country.

Realistic simulation of the civilian population was always a sensitive spot in the HOI series for obvious reasons.

 

[Jacopiere]

The people born from 1936 - 1945 will have no influence on WWII, so I don't see why this game should account for them tbh.

Indeed, but ppl born in 1920-1930 will grow up and fight...

 

[Adonnus]

Realistic simulation of the civilian population was always a sensitive spot in the HOI series for obvious reasons.

Technically they would be military population, in the same way as soldier POPs were represented in Victoria.

 

[Zaku]

Technically they would be military population, in the same way as soldier POPs were represented in Victoria.

Military population is manpower, and manpower is already dynamic.