Reduce max-manpower value by up to standing army (and navy) value

[CanOmer]

I suggest that max manpower value should be reduced by up to size of the army and navy (Because in Eu4 navy uses manpower too.).

An example:
A is a country which has 100k max manpower. If it creates an army of 60k, its max manpower becomes 40k. Bigger army causes smaller reserves, am I right?

 

[Eh up me duck]

Manpower is manpower that's available, not the amount of actual men in a country. Historically countries have never run out of men to fight in wars, it's simply a trade off between manpower and the economy/the harvest, which is represented by War Exhaustion.

 

[Khelder]

The manpower means those men able to serve in the army and so i don´t think it should affect max manpower but more like how fast your manpower grows like if you have 60k army and max manpower of 100k then it should for example make the manpower grow rate be 40% of normal or something like that and be like the number of men who are keeping standing army at the same strenght and not going to the manpower which is men able to be recruited for new armies and to be but to line so that armies strenght grow back after it have been damaged.I don´t mean that that if you have 100k armies and 100k manpower cap your manpower would not grow back anymore but it would be slower.

 

[CanOmer]

Manpower is manpower that's available, not the amount of actual men in a country. Historically countries have never run out of men to fight in wars, it's simply a trade off between manpower and the economy/the harvest, which is represented by War Exhaustion.

Manpower is critical resource in Europa Universalis series. I think it should be balanced in this way. Think about a country with 40k manpower and 120k land force limit. It can have 120 army plus 40k reserves. And another country with 100k manpower and 60k land force limit. It can have 60k army plus 100k reserves. In the end, first country (40k mp) defeats second country (100k mp) easily. So, I think this has to be balanced by reducing max mp by standing army.

 

[Eh up me duck]

It had a higher forcelimit because it had higher base tax. Richer countries *should* be beating poorer countries.

 

[CanOmer]

The manpower means those men able to serve in the army and so i don´t think it should affect max manpower but more like how fast your manpower grows like if you have 60k army and max manpower of 100k then it should for example make the manpower grow rate be 40% of normal or something like that and be like the number of men who are keeping standing army at the same strenght and not going to the manpower which is men able to be recruited for new armies and to be but to line so that armies strenght grow back after it have been damaged.I don´t mean that that if you have 100k armies and 100k manpower cap your manpower would not grow back anymore but it would be slower.

It seems you have an alternative solution.

It had a higher forcelimit because it had higher base tax. Richer countries *should* be beating poorer countries.

IMO, there is nothing to do with richness or poorness. Netherlands has greater income than Turkey so its land forcelimit is greater than Turkey and its army is bigger. Turkey has bigger manpower but Netherlands can defeat Turkey with smaller manpower, because it is rich. Is this logical, or not?

 

[Avernite]

IMO, there is nothing to do with richness or poorness. Netherlands has greater income than Turkey so its land forcelimit is greater than Turkey and its army is bigger. Turkey has bigger manpower but Netherlands can defeat Turkey with smaller manpower, because it is rich. Is this logical, or not?

If you can hire enough foreigners, yes it is.

 

[CanOmer]

Turn back to topic please.

At first I thought; standing armies have monetary maintenance, why there is no manpower maintenance too, I asked myself. Some of the men retire because of old age, some of desert or die..etc. Armies should have manpower maintenance and large armies have large manpower maintenance. So, this issue would be balanced. One day later, I found more simple solution (first post) and I open this thread. But, It seems no one agreed with me.

What are your opinions about manpower maintenance of armies? I consider this because IMO countries with small manpower should not be able to create large armies without any trouble.

 

[gagenater]

They are and should be seperate. Manpower is how many men come of military age each year who are suitable for military service. Force limits are a measure of the infrastucture and wealth of the nation and it's ability to 'organically' support a standing military without extraordinary effort.

 

[CanOmer]

They are and should be seperate. Manpower is how many men come of military age each year who are suitable for military service. Force limits are a measure of the infrastucture and wealth of the nation and it's ability to 'organically' support a standing military without extraordinary effort.

I have to say again, this is off-topic. I don't say they are not different. My core idea is between max-manpower and army-size. Countries which are rich but have low manpower should not be able to create large army without any problem. Armies should have manpower maintenance or lower the max-manpower value to balance it.

 

[Fawr]

Makes sense.

Maxiumum manpower is the total number of people who can join your army (men aged 20-35), and any of them who are in the army aren't available to join.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

As I see it, for this kind of thing gameplay trumps realism. Would having armies subtract from manpower improve gameplay? I think it would. You could also scrap force limits with this, and have manpower be a more "organic" limiter.

 

[Xeorm]

Makes sense.

Maxiumum manpower is the total number of people who can join your army (men aged 20-35), and any of them who are in the army aren't available to join.

Manpower as it stands has been the reserves of people that one has available to join. There's little reason to combine the two into one value.

 

[1alexey]

Before somebody starts claiming about something making "sence", how about making a clear definition of what manpower actually is?

Because the way i see it, it is just a viechle allowing to create a situation where countries can reinforce fast due to pool of people readilly aviable, but then, the reinforcement speed dramatically drops due to the need to find man that are not readilly aviable, so manpower regain rate limits the reinforcement speed in lengthy war`s to realistic figures, effectivly forcing countries to finish wars sooner or later, since one side will gain an upper hand eventually due to different cassualty/mp regain ratios.

Adding the "max possible amount of people" the country can recruit is impossible without having a full set of pops, including age distribution, and impractical, due to all countries will go economically broke and starve/loose the ability to supply/pay armies way before they run out of man to arm.

As I see it, for this kind of thing gameplay trumps realism. Would having armies subtract from manpower improve gameplay? I think it would. You could also scrap force limits with this, and have manpower be a more "organic" limiter.

Armies already substract from manpower when building, and force limit is there to controll standing armies.

What you want to make, will just slow down the mid-late phases of big wars, due to manpower pool depleating faster, and the phase where manpower regain trumps the day comes in faster, and that is about it.