Social/economic consequences of low manpower

[RichardOlcese]

Hi! I was reading an interesting critical contribution by @QuinnMallory, in which he says:

the manpower pool doesn't make sense: it's too small, regenerates too fast, and more importantly doesn't have recursive effects or those on your economy. In reality, fewer young men marched off to war to die would mean more young men working, making more babies, and paying taxes, but none of that is simulated in the manpower system.

And thus I got this idea. If manpower is less than 30%, there would be some maluses. At +30%, nothing. At 0% manpower (scaling), it should give something like:
- Tax eff. -10%
- War exhaustion +0.10
- Cost of raising regiments +50%
- Moral -10%
Take into consideration this big maluses would only applied as that when you have 0 manpower. This would make the game more realistic, attribute more importance to manpower as a general resource, not only necessary for war (they're supposed to be people, for goodness' sake!), and also will promote the hiring of mercenaries, so as to preserve manpower. I think all those were also general purposes of Emperor DLC, so adding this simple feature to the new patch/hotfix would be a nice addition.

 

[YourPalLags]

This seems like a great idea until you realize the AI will probably death spiral even harder than now if this was ever implement. You could mod this in for multiplayer but in singleplayer? Bad Idea, unless Paradox can magically make the AI competent.

 

[Kimbole]

I think there are quite a few fairly nasty events which trigger when you are low manpower?

 

[moscal]

This have place by disasters

 

[Vulkandrache]

You didnt read the "critical contribution" properly.
He isnt just saying that low manpower should have drawbacks.
Hes also saying high manpower should have benefits and that the size of the manpower pool is far too small.

And heck no do i not want even more incentives to use the new mercs. They are horrificaly bad.