Population goes down/grows?

[Adonnus]

Military population is manpower, and manpower is already dynamic.

Are you sure that the manpower is taken away from the total population of the country represented in its states?

 

[Zaku]

Are you sure that the manpower is taken away from the total population of the country represented in its states?

Yes, manpower is a set percent of your population and it depends on your conscription laws.

 

[Adonnus]

Yes, manpower is a set percent of your population and it depends on your conscription laws.

That's not what I meant, I meant is the actual number of manpower taken away from the population of states when you view them, if not then my point still stands

 

[Zaku]

That's not what I meant, I meant is the actual number of manpower taken away from the population of states when you view them, if not then my point still stands

I think I don't understand you.

I'm not sure if this is what you ask, but: I think Johan once mentioned that MP is stored in the states, so if you lose a state you lose the manpower, so it is connected to the population that way.

If you want to know if the population of a state will be changing due to acts of war, then let me link you a part of the forum rules:

Note: Threads on military statistics that are non-game specific are not be started. Also, statistics will not be used as a backdoor to get around rules regarding slave labor, gulags, concentration camps, terror bombing of civilians / civilian casualties, and other forbidden topics.

Discussing civilian casualties is off the table, and the game will not include it.

 

[Adonnus]

I think I don't understand you.

I'm not sure if this is what you ask, but: I think Johan once mentioned that MP is stored in the states, so if you lose a state you lose the manpower, so it is connected to the population that way.

If you want to know if the population of a state will be changing due to acts of war, then let me link you a part of the forum rules:

Technically they would be military casualties subtracted from the total population of a state, not civilians as they are part of the manpower pool. IE a state has 1 mil people. Germany loses 4 million men at war. That state ends up with 900k people due to military losses. This would depend if military manpower is related to state population in that way.

Really this would just result in the battle losses you sustain, already represented, represented as a subtraction from one other area of the game, the population of a state.

 

[Surimi]

Technically they would be military casualties subtracted from the total population of a state, not civilians as they are part of the manpower pool. IE a state has 1 mil people. Germany loses 4 million men at war. That state ends up with 900k people due to military losses. This would depend if military manpower is related to state population in that way.

The problem with such a system is that it would inevitably be partial, and making it complete would require the exploration of aspects of the war which the team don't want to include or discuss.

Overall population is not hugely relevant to the continuation of the war, which is the focus of the game. Manpower already represents the body of the population which can actually be useful to the player, and given the short timeframe the game depicts birthrate should not really impact on manpower growth. Given that, what is the advantage of tracking changes in general population?

 

[Adonnus]

The problem with such a system is that it would inevitably be partial, and making it complete would require the exploration of aspects of the war which the team don't want to include or discuss.

Overall population is not hugely relevant to the continuation of the war, which is the focus of the game. Manpower already represents the body of the population which can actually be useful to the player, and given the short timeframe the game depicts birthrate should not really impact on manpower growth. Given that, what is the advantage of tracking changes in general population?

Like I already stated, it helps with immersion in the general narrative of the wars and the game. These changes occurred in the real world and its immersion breaking if they don't in game.

 

[browd]

Wait, you play a game where you are an omniscient ruler of a country, with perfect knowledge of future events and God-like control over your subordinates (including the ability to instantly teleport general officers around the map and to have your every order instantly communicated to, and precisely followed, by every unit in your domain), and the fact that a population counter (which would have no impact on actual game play anyway, for the reasons already stated) doesn't increment in some historical fashion is somehow immersion-breaking?

 

[ArcandSpark]

Technically they would be military casualties subtracted from the total population of a state, not civilians as they are part of the manpower pool. IE a state has 1 mil people. Germany loses 4 million men at war. That state ends up with 900k people due to military losses. This would depend if military manpower is related to state population in that way.

Really this would just result in the battle losses you sustain, already represented, represented as a subtraction from one other area of the game, the population of a state.

It would be easy to have that implemented but it would be realistic because of the time and effort it would take to get it right. Would populations flee battles? I like the idea but there are other important things to add to the game and the team is already strapped for time.

 

[aruon]

TBH i really don't care about the immersion aspect, but since timeline extension is guaranteed to happen with mods and even looks possible with how HOI 4 is set up, it'd be nice to be able to see a local population expand/contract with changing times and war. sure it may not be absolutely critical to WWII (though there are times where mass migration DID before 1946), but to not have the population change on its own while maintaining a population counter is somewhat counterintuitive and confusing. it's like asking why that one city in east prussia isn't still called Königsberg.

 

[vicerory]

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.

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

As another poster already pointed out: manpower growth is included in the manpower mechanics. So you will have an incease in manpower over the years due to people coming off age. The game just doesn't factor in new births during the period 1936-1945.

 

[Axe99]

Looks like I got confused, there is no population growth, but there is manpower growth (so, in effect, population growth for the population that affects the game, but not the number on the state info panel).

- there is no population growth, the game is focused mainly on a 10 year span and on war so there isnt much point.
- the recruitable pool of manpower does tick up a bit to indicate growth and people getting into recruitable age
Didnt we have a diary on exactly this a while back?

 

[Alexander Suvorov]

Are you sure that the manpower is taken away from the total population of the country represented in its states?

No, I don't think it is.

Wait, you play a game where you are an omniscient ruler of a country, with perfect knowledge of future events and God-like control over your subordinates (including the ability to instantly teleport general officers around the map and to have your every order instantly communicated to, and precisely followed, by every unit in your domain), and the fact that a population counter (which would have no impact on actual game play anyway, for the reasons already stated) doesn't increment in some historical fashion is somehow immersion-breaking?

The panel at the bottom shows the assignments of your generals, not their locations. I don't think the generals really are located anywhere on the map. probably all back at HQ with their feet up.

 

[Secret Master]

Just a friendly reminder that the game will not depict things like war crimes and genocide. We've been well behaved in this thread, but let's make sure we don't slip into a discussion of forbidden topics.

I don't want to close another thread today.

 

[xtfoster]

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.

Not this again...True, people born from 1936 will not be able to join the military (or work in the factories), but the people born after about 1926 will age into being able to join the military or workforce. Of course some of that population will age out of it.

 

[Adonnus]

Wait, you play a game where you are an omniscient ruler of a country, with perfect knowledge of future events and God-like control over your subordinates (including the ability to instantly teleport general officers around the map and to have your every order instantly communicated to, and precisely followed, by every unit in your domain), and the fact that a population counter (which would have no impact on actual game play anyway, for the reasons already stated) doesn't increment in some historical fashion is somehow immersion-breaking?

Yeah, I see your point but it's not really the same thing. One hand deals with control, the other deals with information. A better comparison would be: what if each tech team didn't have a name cause the devs couldn't be bothered to represent that part of history? The things you've mentioned are in the game and changed from reality for gameplay purposes, whereas as you've said, the population has no real gameplay purpose, so therefore there is no reason to change it from real life.

 

[Mutagen_Prime]

Can we not just accept that in HOI4 the population stats of provinces/states is more indicative of the manpower we can expect to extract over the 1936-1945 period and in no way a quantifiable representation of the actual population of those inherent areas?

 

[Adonnus]

Can we not just accept that in HOI4 the population stats of provinces/states is more indicative of the manpower we can expect to extract over the 1936-1945 period and in no way a quantifiable representation of the actual population of those inherent areas?

 

[Sweed Raver]

The two things I feel are not mentioned enough are:

• Migration: A lot of civilians migrated from warring countries to peaceful ones. Also, during this time, urbanization happened in many countries. This could be reflected through events and modifiers as well, but we do not as of yet have any confirmation on that.
• Increase in workforce: The maximum number of factories in a state is limited by the number of people living in it. Since migration might or might not be in the game, the available workforce in states might or might not change. For realism, it should, but for an easier model, it probably should not.

Here I assume that manpower and available workforce are two separate things. I would appreciate some clarification

 

[Laexio]

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