Should Superior Firepower and Grand Battleplan also have manpower bonus at their end?

[Zeprion]

The Mobile Warfare - Desperate defense path and Mass Assault - Mass Mobilization land doctrines paths provide 5% manpower at the end. This is a huge bonus, especially for non-major nations.

Giving them an unfair advantage over other land doctrine paths and overall less land doctrine options to the players, since 2 of them are clearly superior.

There are exceptions, Superior Firepower is a no-brainer when playing USA, but can you say the same thing about most minor nations who desperately need manpower?

This is why I propose to give a bonus of +5.00% manpower at the end of every land doctrine path, it will give a lot more variety in terms of tactics, since there won't be 2 paths greatly superior to others.

The argument can be made that nearing the end of its strategic study, the army has found effective ways to convince more of the population to join the army, with less general opposition.

Or if you want to keep the manpower superiority of the 2 specified paths, you can only give +3.00% manpower bonus to the other land doctrine path. A 2% difference is less gamebreaking than a 5% difference.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

The Mobile Warfare - Desperate defense path and Mass Assault - Mass Mobilization land doctrines paths provide 5% manpower at the end. This is a huge bonus, especially for non-major nations.

Giving them an unfair advantage over other land doctrine paths and overall less land doctrine options to the players, since 2 of them are clearly superior.

There are exceptions, Superior Firepower is a no-brainer when playing USA, but can you say the same thing about most minor nations who desperately need manpower?

This is why I propose to give a bonus of +5.00% manpower at the end of every land doctrine path, it will give a lot more variety in terms of tactics, since there won't be 2 paths greatly superior to others.

The argument can be made that nearing the end of its strategic study, the army has found effective ways to convince more of the population to join the army, with less general opposition.

Or if you want to keep the manpower superiority of the 2 specified paths, you can only give +3.00% manpower bonus to the other land doctrine path. A 2% difference is less gamebreaking than a 5% difference.

You could make a case for Grand Battleplan, but Superior Firepower by definition should not have a manpower boost.
The very description of SF is "This doctrine focuses on throwing shells, not men, at the enemy. Our manpower is precious, bullets are cheap" so this is supposed to be the doctrine that uses the least manpower possible.

 

[pvt.conners]

I'd argue the opposite-manpower bonuses should be divorced entirely from doctrines and perhaps even national spirits.
My reasoning is that this fresh manpower for the military is not reflected in a proportional decrease in industrial and logistic capabilities of the nation, unlike increasing conscription laws, which are very lenient as is. Remove the manpower boosts from doctrines.

 

[Jays298]

Well, is anyone actually going to use desperate defense? Or to put it another way, by that point, the war is usually lost. Manpower alone isn't going to prop up armies that can't hold the line. I'd say it's a red herring.

I could see the mass assault one getting a bonus to manpower. Because that's the whole idea of the doctrine.

Plus the other doctrines have their benefits and if these bonuses are at the very end of the research chain then they probably won't have much impact due to them coming so late.

Minor nations are too powerful (unless they are allied and then too much of a liability). But I don't think manpower matters until it's too late.

 

[brantodb01]

yeah, I feel every doctrine should have a manpower vs buffs option

 

[TheMeInTeam]

SF is fine and a dominant single player option, even for minors (which I mostly play). You get the most salient benefits early on and they're consistently useful, in contrast to something like GB where you lose entrenchment when org cycling or planning bonus when the game's execution of orders doesn't work properly.

Mass assault takes longer to get going, mobile warfare needs real industry for its stuff to be competitive/meaningful.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Both of the manpower boosts in doctrines should be removed. That's what the mobilization laws are for. Unique circumstances (like the inclusion of women or minorities in the military) are better handled through focuses or decisions.

The Mass Mobilization People's Army should give you a mobilization law bump ... to "service by requirement". Human Wave Offensive should have its options moved or removed, eliminating the Human Wave Offensive step.

Mobile Warfare Volkssturm should be replaced with Volksgrenadier, with a new division template dropping here. Non-Discriminatory Conscription should be removed.

 

[DukofDeth]

The Desperate Defense branch should only be available to a nation losing a war. The bonuses would then make up for the loss of some core terrritory.

 

[DicRoNero]

Yeah, they should remove manpower injects from doctrines.

Also, when they do rework the doctrines, they need to introduce ammo (and its production) in order to make SF both realistic and interesting with its tradeoffs. "Throw shells" - which shells?

Before anyone says: "nah, that's too many items to produce". Well, it can be simplified to the point of fuel - IRL you don't use the same one for tanks, planes and ships.

 

[DukofDeth]

I agree - we should be keeping track of ammo, though production should be mostly abstract, though we could have some techs to improve ammo production. However, any more techs and we'll need more research slots.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Also, when they do rework the doctrines, they need to introduce ammo (and its production) in order to make SF both realistic and interesting with its tradeoffs. "Throw shells" - which shells?

Why introduce "ammo"? Couldn't you get the same effect by just increasing supply consumption?

Not arguing if supply should cost us. Just that ammunition is already covered by supply.

 

[brantodb01]

Yeah, they should remove manpower injects from doctrines.

Also, when they do rework the doctrines, they need to introduce ammo (and its production) in order to make SF both realistic and interesting with its tradeoffs. "Throw shells" - which shells?

Before anyone says: "nah, that's too many items to produce". Well, it can be simplified to the point of fuel - IRL you don't use the same one for tanks, planes and ships.

hmm, I kind alike the sound of that. Maybe if it's just like fuel but 'ammo' and you have to dedicate some military factories to maintain you units making this act as a soft cap for how many division you can have and so reducing division spam

 

[Harin]

Why introduce "ammo"? Couldn't you get the same effect by just increasing supply consumption?

Not arguing if supply should cost us. Just that ammunition is already covered by supply.

What you suggest is most likely the easiest method of dealing with the idea of ammo. On the other hand, dealing with the idea of ammo and the actual effects of ammo during the war are two different things.

Ammo was so expensive in capital, raw resources, transportation, and manpower, that only the Americans really had enough of it. It is a scarce commodity. That scarcity is artificially removed by spreading ammo through supply evenly, like it is icing on a cake. In the game two unrealistic things happen. One, everyone gets the same amount; Two, everyone gets enough. War has not been that way since, ever?

In the war, ammo was a large predictor of how long it took to prepare for an offensive and how long that offensive could last. Deciding where the scarce ammo would go was a heavy decision made by leaders. It was not spread out evenly. A bare minimum was established for parts of the front, so the rest could be sent where it was urgently needed. It was not unusual for defenses to hold, right up to the point the artillery ran out of ammo.

If ammo were introduced into the game, several things would have to be done to give it justice. One, artillery would have to be reclaim its title of King of the battlefield and have a much stronger presence in the game. Divisions without artillery cannot prevent the assembly of forces that will eventually destroy it. Two, the ammo needs to be controlled by decisions of the player. The ammo is scarce and the player needs to be able to move it where it is needed. Three, ammo is a valuable target. It should be vulnerable to capture and interdiction by air and sea. In other words the ammo needs to be on the map in some manor, say like sea convoys and land convoys.

When testing the importance of the different types of supply, think of encircled units that are determined to fight until the end. They have only the supplies on hand and are not going to receive significantly more. What supply items keep them in the fight? When reading about encircled units that tried to hold out to the end, you notice a general theme. Those units hold out starving. They hold out with no fuel for their tanks. They hold out without winter clothing. They hold out, until they run out of ammo.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

dealing with the idea of ammo and the actual effects of ammo during the war are two different things.

While your examples are correct, they ignore the scale of the game. I doubt many players want to be concerned with making sure the right type and quantity of ammunition is supplied to their troops, especially in a strategical level game. The lack of different fuel types doesn't seem to bother many.

Crank up the supply consumption levels to more realistic values and you'll get your ammo shortages.

 

[Orlunu]

SF absolutely should not. If manpower buffs within doctrines are to be retained, however, I would suggest that there is a place for a small manpower buff in the Infiltration branch of GBP.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

suggest that there is a place for a small manpower buff in the Infiltration branch of GBP.

Why manpower buff?

 

[Timmysoboy]

Doctrines are fine the way they are (aside from balance tweaks).

I prefer that ammo / supply be abstracted. If too many nit picky things are added HOI4 will cease to be a game and turn into a simulation, which (without real lives involved) would be a lie anyway.

 

[Harin]

While your examples are correct, they ignore the scale of the game. I doubt many players want to be concerned with making sure the right type and quantity of ammunition is supplied to their troops, especially in a strategical level game. The lack of different fuel types doesn't seem to bother many.

Crank up the supply consumption levels to more realistic values and you'll get your ammo shortages.

I think you are most likely correct that players would not want to deal with to much detail. I would not, either. No, ammo would need to be abstracted enough to not require micro-management, but requires the player to make meaningful decisions.

Such abstractions could be:

• There is only one type of ammo.
• Ammo is accumulated in the division for immediate use. It has a default value that is low enough for balance purposes.
• The army would accumulate excess ammo for prolonged defensive or offensive operations. How much is determined by the player. It has a wide range to reflect armies ready to attack and those on quiet fronts, but would also be limited so to maintain balance.
• Ammo consumption is predetermined based on operation. Sitting still, none used, training uses little, and combat consumes it quickly.
• Ammo could be produced as consumable convoys that travel on land. They would make their way to the armies automatically and invisibly.
• Any excess ammo that is produced beyond what the player has chosen each army to accumulate would accumulate at the capital.
• Since the land convoys take time to move to the armies, it would be wise to move ammo from the capital to the front, which would require opening up an army window and adjusting how much ammo it should accumulate.
• Ammo would be expensive in steel and military factories, so stock piling an insane amount would be difficult.

The above requires the player to make two types of choices. One, how much ammo an army should accumulate. Two, how much ammo should the nation produce.

The moving of ammo would be invisible. This is not a lot of micro, but it does limit offensives from starting in Berlin and not stopping until the Urals. It would help reproduce the back and forth nature of operations. As units ran out of supplies and ammo their offensive ran out of stream and became vulnerable to a defense in depth and counterattack by defenders who still had full ammo stores.

I am sure a much better ammo system could be built than what I just thought up on the top of my head, but it does show it can be done with little micro-management, but requiring meaningful decisions by the player.

 

[Orlunu]

Why manpower buff?

The buffs in game seem to represent both requirement for and ability to provide this extra manpower.

Both theoretically and in practice, this kind of doctrine relied on a large provision of manpower to provide for both continual defence in significant numbers as well as assault concentrations of infantry on grand scale. Historically, the nations most closely associated with this doctrine having well-developed and effective systems of raising and employing greater proportions of their population than would otherwise have been the case - through regimental structure and regional recruitment to tiered classes of manpower quality for different roles and units.

Actually, just on the historical basis it probably wouldn't be limited to the Infiltration branch but would be a main tree thing, but for gameplay reasons I was thinking it would be better to limit it to Infil.

 

[Jays298]

Well, ammo is already abstracted in the various types of equipment. And the equipment use is relative to operations.

But basically there's no functional difference between producing infantry equipment or infantry equipment and "ammo". The ammo cost is baked to to all equipment types.

And without enough equipment the units will suffer.

So the bottleneck is already there. You can't really control where the shortages go except via reinforcement priority. You have to choose what you can afford to make in mass qualities and reinforce.

And the complexity of production is already there. You could make the argument that it should go the other way and just allocate a percentage to aircraft, a percentage to small arms, a percentage to heavy gear, etc.

On the other hand logistics and supply seems very arbitrary now and they could do more on influencing the flow.

You don't have guys run out of artillery shells on this game. Instead they suffer attrition due to parking on bad terrain or massive AI armies just hanging out doing nothing while being 3 times over the supply limit.