Usable manpower ratio

[zdlugasz]

I have already suggested discussing some bug in bug forum, but since this is proper place for suggestions I place it here.

Generally some/many countries had part of population which was not allowed to serve in military at all or as time progressed would fill mostly auxiliary roles, e.g. drivers, logistic etc.
I am thinking mostly about racial prejudicies: black or colored people in South Africa, USA. But also nonnationals like Koreans in Japan etc.

Generally I would propose to add additional multiplicative in range (0,1] factor for the manpower.
This factor would be applicable to the existing relative_manpower from cores. As time/slider/events progress this modifier could be changed.
Maybe there could be another/disctinctive factor for non-national/non-cored provinces.

 

[Faulty]

But your system would give "leftist" women bonus to the Soviets and malus to Germany, while, AFAIS, Stalin should be more penalized than Hitler.

Well women being 8% of the Soviet armed forces is a pretty big difference compared to not even fully integrating them into the critical war industries so I don't see the problem with that.

 

[NikephorosSonar]

Open/closed, not democratic/authoritarian. The event files call the slider freedom.

In that case there is at least some space for disagreement, as the government's are only tied to Left/Right and Democratic/Authoritarian.

My concern though is if the US cannot be full Open Society, then realistically who can? And in that case, what adjustments should be made to that slider? I realize Open Society/Closed Society doesn't just reflect the government's policies, it also reflects upon society's attitudes.

 

[zdlugasz]

Well women being 8% of the Soviet armed forces is a pretty big difference compared to not even fully integrating them into the critical war industries so I don't see the problem with that.

:blink:
8% of armed forces at any given time, but less than 3% of conscripted manpower. Men were dying much faster.

 

[Faulty]

:blink:
8% of armed forces at any given time, but less than 3% of conscripted manpower. Men were dying much faster.

And if Stalin ran out of men to die for him he would undoubtedly have started conscripting more women to fill their place - that "womanpower" should be available to the SOV player.

 

[zdlugasz]

And if Stalin ran out of men to die for him he would undoubtedly have started conscripting more women to fill their place - that "womanpower" should be available to the SOV player.

Were Nazis to invade USA no doubt any segregation issue would be abandoned. Were Hitler killed by Stauffenberg or maybe earlier, say in 1942, then Germany could save 6th Army at Stalingrad, Soviet would be pushed farther back with higher loses, Allied troops would meet German Panzer Divisions coming out of Normandy beaches, etc.
And maybe new (military) German leadership would change also their internal policy with additional years. And maybe Heisenberg could develop atomic bomb just after Amiercans did their and Germany could threaten to bomb London if UK did not agree to armistice.
We can not deal with what-ifs because then we would have to deal with infinite number of what-ifs.

And another tid-bit: According to this page women segregation was even stronger than for men in USA till almost end of war. At the beginning there were "quotas" for number of black women and they were banned from some service branches. Thus if we were to calculate % of white women we would see that USA called to armed forces even higher % of white women than Soviets.

And applying your proposal, USA would be more left than Soviet Union.

 

[Faulty]

Were Nazis to invade USA no doubt any segregation issue would be abandoned. Were Hitler killed by Stauffenberg or maybe earlier, say in 1942, then Germany could save 6th Army at Stalingrad, Soviet would be pushed farther back with higher loses, Allied troops would meet German Panzer Divisions coming out of Normandy beaches, etc.
And maybe new (military) German leadership would change also their internal policy with additional years. And maybe Heisenberg could develop atomic bomb just after Amiercans did their and Germany could threaten to bomb London if UK did not agree to armistice.
We can not deal with what-ifs because then we would have to deal with infinite number of what-ifs.

You're completely changing the subject, please stay on topic.

And another tid-bit: According to this page women segregation was even stronger than for men in USA till almost end of war. At the beginning there were "quotas" for number of black women and they were banned from some service branches. Thus if we were to calculate % of white women we would see that USA called to armed forces even higher % of white women than Soviets.

I am not seeing a number anywhere? The article is about the WAAC which had 150,000 members in non-combat roles over the entire course of the war, an order of magnitude fewer than the million Soviet women.

And applying your proposal, USA would be more left than Soviet Union.

That's a terrible strawman. You're confusing the direction of causation.

 

[zdlugasz]

You're completely changing the subject, please stay on topic.

You can not argue that Stalin would use more woman if he run out of men, he did not. That argument has the same value as mine, that USA would completely stop any kind of segregation, or maybe that Germany would start to use women were Hitler dead much earlier.

I am not seeing a number anywhere? The article is about the WAAC which had 150,000 members in non-combat roles over the entire course of the war, an order of magnitude fewer than the million Soviet women.

Total number of US women was given by me in post #13 as 350000. If you divide number of women by overall number of people in armies you can see that USA is just behind Soviet Union (both between 2% and 3%) in their usage of womenpower.
And that I gave you that article to show that huge majority of those women were white. So if you take number of white women and divide by white soldiers you will see that white segment of US population send higher percentage of its women to army (than Soviets).

That's a terrible strawman. You're confusing the direction of causation.

Not strawman but logic and mathematic. You want to tie womenpower to left slider. If I can show that US (or white part of it) send proportionally higher % of women to army, then, applying your logic, it means that US (or white part of it) is more leftist than Soviet Union.

 

[Faulty]

You can not argue that Stalin would use more woman if he run out of men, he did not. That argument has the same value as mine, that USA would completely stop any kind of segregation, or maybe that Germany would start to use women were Hitler dead much earlier.

Those eventualities would be addressed with my solution. If Hitler died and government policy turned away from Fascism, Germany would stop getting the right-wing penalty to manpower. Likewise with America and desegregation. A country-by-country figure is time consuming to research and implement, doesn't automatically take into account changes in the starting scenarios (or new scenarios) and doesn't take into account the choices of players. My solution does all of these and is readily transparent to anyone putting their mouse over their domestic policy sliders.

Total number of US women was given by me in post #13 as 350000. If you divide number of women by overall number of people in armies you can see that USA is just behind Soviet Union (both between 2% and 3%) in their usage of womenpower.

This essentially boils down to the higher casualty rate in the Soviet army causing faster turnover of men than women, since the Soviets conscripted a larger proportion of their women than America did. American women composed 2% overall and at their peak, whereas Soviet women composed 3% overall but 10% at their peak. My system would account for this.

And that I gave you that article to show that huge majority of those women were white. So if you take number of white women and divide by white soldiers you will see that white segment of US population send higher percentage of its women to army (than Soviets).

The white/black thing has no relevance to the issue of women in the army.

Not strawman but logic and mathematic. You want to tie womenpower to left slider. If I can show that US (or white part of it) send proportionally higher % of women to army, then, applying your logic, it means that US (or white part of it) is more leftist than Soviet Union.

It's logic but it's bad logic (a strawman) because you're mistaking the direction of causation.

 

[NikephorosSonar]

Umm, the US in fact drafted African-American males. It was black women volunteers they did not accept.

All-white draft boards did try to refrain from drafting African Americans, and they never reached the 10.6% of the military in accordance with their population, but they were in fact drafted.

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/assets/pdfs/african-americans-in-world.pdf

 

[zdlugasz]

This essentially boils down to the higher casualty rate in the Soviet army causing faster turnover of men than women, since the Soviets conscripted a larger proportion of their women than America did. American women composed 2% overall and at their peak, whereas Soviet women composed 3% overall but 10% at their peak. My system would account for this.

I do not know why you keep inflating Soviet numbers. Your source says 8%. And nowhere it is said it is a peak value, it is (probably) some instantaneous value. However the overall number should be taken into account and divided by total number of conscripts. Total number is not that revelant, Soviets were at MOB9 or MOB10, while US at MOB7 or MOB8.
And as previous poster agrees, US did not accept (most of the time) colored women volunteers (while drafting men).

It's logic but it's bad logic (a strawman) because you're mistaking the direction of causation.

If the result is absurd, it is because this logic is based on flawed (your) assumption, that sliders would solve this. It is a common mathematical and logical way to refute sbs argument.



Edit:
Example: using your sliders effect.
I am playing USA, and moved my sliders that way that I am "free" or completely abolished segregation. It means that I should accept all women, not only white. So in my army I would have, say 3% women. What does it mean in terms of sliders? I am (USA) more to the left than Soviets.
Which does not mean that I think so, only that your sliders do not work as well as you think


Edit2:
And lets take your argument from post 24 that Stalin would increase number of women in need. Which means he would need to increase MOB level. I agree that this is what would happen in real life. But lets apply this to your sliders. Say that from level MOB7 or MOB8 each level increases womenpower by 0.5% or 1%. What does it mean in my example? When USA would reach the same level of MOB as Soviets have, they should have 4% or 5% of womenpower (comparing to <3% Soviets).

I know that finding data for each country would be a huge work, but usage of sliders, as you propose, would lead to absurd or ahistorical situations.

 

[Faulty]

I do not know why you keep inflating Soviet numbers. Your source says 8%. And nowhere it is said it is a peak value, it is (probably) some instantaneous value. However the overall number should be taken into account and divided by total number of conscripts. Total number is not that revelant, Soviets were at MOB9 or MOB10, while US at MOB7 or MOB8.
And as previous poster agrees, US did not accept (most of the time) colored women volunteers (while drafting men).

I meant 8%. Assuming it to be the peak was how I tried to reconcile the disparity between the very clear statement "[FONT=&amp]more than 8 percent of the Soviet Union’s mobilized troops were women" and the 3% that [/FONT]the statement "[FONT=&amp]the wartime strength of approximately one million women in uniform" implies. If you have a better way to interpret it let me know.[/FONT]

If the result is absurd, it is because this logic is based on flawed (your) assumption, that sliders would solve this. It is a common mathematical and logical way to refute sbs argument.

I didn't say it was an absurd result, I said your logic was bad because you confused the direction of causation.

Example: using your sliders effect.
I am playing USA, and moved my sliders that way that I am "free" or completely abolished segregation. It means that I should accept all women, not only white. So in my army I would have, say 3% women. What does it mean in terms of sliders? I am (USA) more to the left than Soviets.
Which does not mean that I think so, only that your sliders do not work as well as you think

You wouldn't be to the left of the Soviets, you might be just as left but you'd have better freedom sliders. That would be totally in line with your own observations in this thread that America could have made better use of black manpower. The sliders would have worked just as I thought they would.

And lets take your argument from post 24 that Stalin would increase number of women in need. Which means he would need to increase MOB level. I agree that this is what would happen in real life. But lets apply this to your sliders. Say that from level MOB7 or MOB8 each level increases womenpower by 0.5% or 1%. What does it mean in my example? When USA would reach the same level of MOB as Soviets have, they should have 4% or 5% of womenpower (comparing to <3% Soviets).

My alterations to the sliders wouldn't affect the mobilisation sliders at all, not sure what you're talking about.

I know that finding data for each country would be a huge work, but usage of sliders, as you propose, would lead to absurd or ahistorical situations.

All the examples you've tried to provide of absurdity seem to make sense to me, and ahistorical situations are purely the result of players deviating from history which any system in an open ended video game needs to account for (which a single preset figure like you propose wouldn't)

 

[Limith]

It'd probably be easier to add a decision based flag similar to KR whereby if a country enables women drafts and minority drafts, the manpower they get on mobilization goes up. Of course, this is assuming I can modify the current mobilization system which according to [redacted] I shouldn't because it works and because the system is overly complicated (xD)...so I guess we could use KR's daily manpower growth decision for women in the army even though manpower growth is kind of useless in DHF...yes, I dislike the implementation of the manpower system in DHF. I think I've said it countless times already about how a simple generic one without requiring flags is possible via just checking for slider position.

That aside, feel free to debate how much MORE manpower a country would get if they drafted minorities and women.