Why no disadvantages to higher mobilization or standing armies?

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

I always found this strange. Using game logic, nations are fools for not going full war economy and having armies millions strong standing around for years…even though in real life and in this time period, there are massive costs for dedicating so much of your economy to wartime production and employing so much of your population to being a standing army…which is why, generally speaking, the nations of the world dont do it.

Now, I know part of it is that this is specifially a world war 2 game, and your production is basically leading up to this point…understood, were not looking at the long term consequences of economic policies.

But even then, I find it strange that civilian economy is just a straight debuff compared to war economy, even for building civilian factories or infrastructure. Or that there are 0 costs (outside of the political points upfront) to switch to a higher mobilization.

Likewise, you would think that standing armies would have some sort of cost…maybe simulated through small amounts of attrition. As is, it makes it look like theres no reason not to have millions of fully trained troops just standing around for years. In game theres no reason at all to demobilize at the conclusion of a war, even if your game goes on for like a decade. Which is of course contrary to real life.

I also think the costs associated with conscription laws are not nearly high enough. Volunteer Only is mostly fine not having negatives, but extensive conscription only adding on 10% training time seems so inconsequential. If nothing else youd think this would cost a sizable chunk of stability by having such widespread drafts into the army. I know this is locked behind war support but even then thats a pretty massive change in society.

 

[Ossiv]

R

I always found this strange. Using game logic, nations are fools for not going full war economy and having armies millions strong standing around for years…even though in real life and in this time period, there are massive costs for dedicating so much of your economy to wartime production and employing so much of your population to being a standing army…which is why, generally speaking, the nations of the world dont do it.

Now, I know part of it is that this is specifially a world war 2 game, and your production is basically leading up to this point…understood, were not looking at the long term consequences of economic policies.

But even then, I find it strange that civilian economy is just a straight debuff compared to war economy, even for building civilian factories or infrastructure. Or that there are 0 costs (outside of the political points upfront) to switch to a higher mobilization.

Likewise, you would think that standing armies would have some sort of cost…maybe simulated through small amounts of attrition. As is, it makes it look like theres no reason not to have millions of fully trained troops just standing around for years. In game theres no reason at all to demobilize at the conclusion of a war, even if your game goes on for like a decade. Which is of course contrary to real life.

I also think the costs associated with conscription laws are not nearly high enough. Volunteer Only is mostly fine not having negatives, but extensive conscription only adding on 10% training time seems so inconsequential. If nothing else youd think this would cost a sizable chunk of stability by having such widespread drafts into the army. I know this is locked behind war support but even then thats a pretty massive change in society.

Real life stability was not dropped in most nations during WWII mobilizations. There was a dedication to stand against a stronger opponent. People did not protest when every able man in Poland was ordered to defend against the German and Soviet aggression in Sept 1939, and all Finns preferred to fight when the Soviets invaded Finland in Nov 1939.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

You've forgotten that Hoi4 is a video game, and you have to sacrifice some realism for it to be fun.

I mean Im not a masochist lol, I think the additional costs balancing out with the benefits would make the choice more strategic and interesting, thus more fun for me.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

R

Real life stability was not dropped in most nations during WWII mobilizations. There was a dedication to stand against a stronger opponent. People did not protest when every able man in Poland was ordered to defend against the German and Soviet aggression in Sept 1939, and all Finns preferred to fight when the Soviets invaded Finland in Nov 1939.

Are you sure about this? Id imagine youre right about Poland and Finland, but those were defensive wars and both those nations are kind of exceptional when it comes to their resolve. Kind of a far cry from “ok so were not at war or anything, but were going into massive conscription now, say bye to your families” and everyone goes on as if nothing changed.

 

[bitmode]

Likewise, you would think that standing armies would have some sort of cost…maybe simulated through small amounts of attrition.

There is actually a define for base attrition, UNIT_UPKEEP_ATTRITION. It has always been zero though, maybe due to the rounding issues with attrition.

But even then, I find it strange that civilian economy is just a straight debuff compared to war economy, even for building civilian factories or infrastructure. Or that there are 0 costs (outside of the political points upfront) to switch to a higher mobilization.

As I understand it, the game basically takes a fascist perspective on the time period. Who cares what happens with this generation after the war? The only economy that matters is state-guided heavy industry, we'll just recruit from other sectors. Literally nothing matters past 1948, as long as the nation is reforged through war and looks real swole on a map. And from that point of view, civilian economy is just worse because it only indirectly serves the nations interests.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

manpower is frequently an issue for non-majors and the costs you pay for the high conscription laws are severe. i'm not sure where the claim they aren't is coming from

i do agree that it's odd to have only negatives for civ econ and only positives for war econs until total

 

[Joshua Happytree]

even though in real life and in this time period, there are massive costs for dedicating so much of your economy to wartime production

1. IMO you kinda approach this from the 21st century thinking. It's a world war, states / people are trying to survive and the only path to this is to win the war. A cup of rice per day is good enough for a civilian economy
2. Firstly long term impact of slower civilian economic growth on the war economy due to over-investiment in the latter won't manifest itself within such a short period of time. Secondly all European countries were over-investing so everyone was in the same boat. And thirdly you'll just start feeding a smaller cup of rice

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

manpower is frequently an issue for non-majors and the costs you pay for the high conscription laws are severe. i'm not sure where the claim they aren't is coming from

i do agree that it's odd to have only negatives for civ econ and only positives for war econs until total

I would say that once you start hitting conscription levels there should be at least something. The +10% to training time is inconsequential considering youre taking a good chunk of people out of the workforce

 

[marcelo r. r.]

without offense, but obscession with limitations amuse me......
wasn't recent war support changes not enough? u get -3% recruitable population also....

In hoi2 civilian economy generate lots money(i guess 50% or 100% more)... money was used for trade and spy operations, also straight buy resources, even buy "units" from other countries(in hoi2 theres no military equipment, u just build divisions).

Im very favor in return of money,,, actually political power is becoming the "money" of Hoi4... but buff on political power gain can generate tons of balance problems, so a split will be necessary... many things unecessary burdened into political power decisions cold migrate to cost "money".

Will be more fun to play "pacificist" countries, or a kinda of "soft power intervencionist" if money come back.

Just be careful with anacronism, if we take all odds to go to war(and using modern parameters), and apply to the game, nobody starts a war,..., but in real life ppl did the wars! the ugly truth is that war was popular at 30's... and in 30's only 15% of world population lived in democracy, and all was "censitary"(only ppl who match certain criteria can vote), yes authoritarism was popular too.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

manpower is frequently an issue for non-majors and the costs you pay for the high conscription laws are severe. i'm not sure where the claim they aren't is coming from

From the idea that they are not? I.e. not nearly enough close to what would have happened IRL to a nation converting 10-25% (before further modifiers/factors, mind you) of its total population into front-line troops. Service by Requirement is particularly silly - you gain 10% (i.e. twice as much compared to Extensive consciption) for a cost of a 10% production output bonus reduction, which - given it's additive effect - in practice means like -5% production overall. Amusingly enough, the quality of those troops drafted from otherwise barely fit for military service remains exactly the same.

Even Scrapping the Barrel which might seem frightening with its -40% output really means having 1939 industry tech in 1943, which is not a big deal for gaining 5 times as much able-bodied men.

Only War Economy vs. Total Mob gets it somewhat right and provides trade offs and thus a choice. The rest of these things are too straightforward, except maybe Mobile Warfare L2 or R2 (and that the latter you don't pick because the alternative ways for MP gain in the form of laws are so lax).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The +10% to training time is inconsequential considering youre taking a good chunk of people out of the workforce

2.5% marginal manpower increase is similarly not very impactful

From the idea that they are not? I.e. not nearly enough close to what would have happened IRL to a nation converting 10-25% (before further modifiers/factors, mind you) of its total population into front-line troops

divisions/troop distributions themselves aren't true to history, therefore using history as justification in such a context doesn't work

also, just as an example, the game's garrison damage (including damage to manpower) is comically beyond anything such movements could have hoped to achieve in the real war. conscription as game mechanic exists along the mechanics that utilize the relevant manpower

of its total population into front-line troops.

game abstracts support functions, so we must assume some of the manpower cost goes there

Service by Requirement is particularly silly - you gain 10% (i.e. twice as much compared to Extensive consciption) for a cost of a 10% production output bonus reduction

semantics, you are functionally taking away technologies. for higher conscription, multiple technologies

Even Scrapping the Barrel which might seem frightening with its -40% output really means having 1939 industry tech in 1943, which is not a big deal for gaining 5 times as much able-bodied men.

under current hoi4 rules, you are generally going to be gated on equipment production, not manpower, though bottom feeders can run into trouble with both. therefore, increasing conscription can and sometimes will hurt you war effort; you will have more bodies than you have useful equipment to give those bodies. that is how the game already is.

Even Scrapping the Barrel which might seem frightening with its -40% output really means having 1939 industry tech in 1943, which is not a big deal for gaining 5 times as much able-bodied men.

saying that a player researches 4 years of industry tech only to have it crossed out isn't a severe cost is bizarre. if you're willing to assert that 4 years of tech isn't a big deal, why should anybody think 5x more manpower is a big deal?

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

under current hoi4 rules, you are generally going to be gated on equipment production, not manpower

saying that a player researches 4 years of industry tech only to have it crossed out isn't a severe cost is bizarre. if you're willing to assert that 4 years of tech isn't a big deal, why should anybody think 5x more manpower is a big deal?

That's right, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. I.e. you enact Extensive Con first (provided PP is there, otherwise you start off with Limited one), then you switch to Serice by Requirement once the manpower starts being an issue and gradually proceed further on. It's a linear progression on demand with no choices and no evaluations - for the most part, at least.

You ripped my first lines into pieces and seem to have missed the idea that drafting outright cripples into the army won't make them first-grade soldiers, and that is what the game now suggests and what I'm inclined to disagree with.

I have little against the idea of certain majors going for all-out meat grinding, but that's just not what you should generally encounter in HoI4 for a simple reason it in fact was massively expensive and crippling.

Also in my humble opinion manpower grades, paramilitary organizations, draft exemptions and whatnot could make a very good DLC theme and bring a whole new layer to wartime country management, both meaningful and historical, but I might be in a minority here and appreciate most people rather be engaged dolly dressing their generals with traits and medals.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

The +10% to training time is inconsequential considering youre taking a good chunk of people out of the workforce

From a historical point of view (though HoI4 is not a historical simulator) USA, Germany and Soviet Union tremendously increased their war output during the war even though they were stripping bare their industrial base of manpower (especially the latter two). In peacetime war economy is a little slice of the total GDP. Yet when a country enters a true World War the war economy starts to dominate. It happens at the expense of a sheer drop in the quality of civilian life yet HoI4 is certainly not about this. Make no mistake you can increase war output MANY times even with simultaneous mobilization. Europeans recently used to have their military budget well under 2% of the total GDP. If I'm not mistaken US has about 4.5% and China about 2.0-2.5%. Yet during WWII, war expenditures in the US were 45% of GDP, 55% in the UK and Soviet Union and 67% in Germany. So from a historical point of view the countries were able to increase them by 20-30 TIMES.

 

[Herennius]

I think Arheo mentioned in his future plans for HoI4 as one point that demobilization should become a thing. I imagine that this means that with this mobilization will come with a price tag - and that price probably climbing the more severe it is, the longer it goes...and especially if it is continued without dear need.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

without offense, but obscession with limitations amuse me......
wasn't recent war support changes not enough? u get -3% recruitable population also....

In hoi2 civilian economy generate lots money(i guess 50% or 100% more)... money was used for trade and spy operations, also straight buy resources, even buy "units" from other countries(in hoi2 theres no military equipment, u just build divisions).

Im very favor in return of money,,, actually political power is becoming the "money" of Hoi4... but buff on political power gain can generate tons of balance problems, so a split will be necessary... many things unecessary burdened into political power decisions cold migrate to cost "money".

Will be more fun to play "pacificist" countries, or a kinda of "soft power intervencionist" if money come back.

Just be careful with anacronism, if we take all odds to go to war(and using modern parameters), and apply to the game, nobody starts a war,..., but in real life ppl did the wars! the ugly truth is that war was popular at 30's... and in 30's only 15% of world population lived in democracy, and all was "censitary"(only ppl who match certain criteria can vote), yes authoritarism was popular too.

Thats only total mobilization, which makes sense to me and is fair (even if its easily offset with Women in the Workforce).

Although honestly that jump from 0 downsides to -3% population is a pretty huge leap…using that logic, there should be a minor population decrease for war economy. Not that Im advocating that should happen, but youd expect there to at least be some downside instead of it being a straight upgrade. Even if its a small thing like war support decrease or some stability.

I dont want limitations, just there to be some choices to make me weight my options. Anything below total mob is no choice, its just straight better.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

2.5% marginal manpower increase is similarly not very impactful


divisions/troop distributions themselves aren't true to history, therefore using history as justification in such a context doesn't work

also, just as an example, the game's garrison damage (including damage to manpower) is comically beyond anything such movements could have hoped to achieve in the real war. conscription as game mechanic exists along the mechanics that utilize the relevant manpower


game abstracts support functions, so we must assume some of the manpower cost goes there


semantics, you are functionally taking away technologies. for higher conscription, multiple technologies


under current hoi4 rules, you are generally going to be gated on equipment production, not manpower, though bottom feeders can run into trouble with both. therefore, increasing conscription can and sometimes will hurt you war effort; you will have more bodies than you have useful equipment to give those bodies. that is how the game already is.



saying that a player researches 4 years of industry tech only to have it crossed out isn't a severe cost is bizarre. if you're willing to assert that 4 years of tech isn't a big deal, why should anybody think 5x more manpower is a big deal?

2.5% more manpower is doubling your manpower at that stage, and its the idea of going from volunteers to conscripts…admittedly maybe semantics and Im overthinking it, but thats theoretically a big deal since now people are yanked out of their everyday jobs and lives to be drafted into the armed forces.

You could say in many cases nations didnt mind because the population was for being in the armed forces for various reasons…but, thats already an aspect of the game in terms of national spirits. Ie We Hate Communists national spirit, +2% to manpower because all the willing people sign up so that forced conscription is no longer necessary.

I mean, Im not into the idea of trying to restrict choices or be obsessed with realism…of course its a game and should be fun so you gotta take some liberties lol. Its just that there is no thought involved, you always want higher mobilization, as huge a standing trained army as possible, and as much conscription as possible below service by requirement.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

drafting outright cripples into the army won't make them first-grade soldiers, and that is what the game now suggests

Here are the German Armed forces in WWII

Total	4,220,000	6,050,000	7,234,000	8,310,000	9,480,000	9,420,000	7,830,000
1939	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945
Heer	3,737,000	4,550,000	5,000,000	5,800,000	6,550,000	6,510,000	5,300,000
Luftwaffe	400,000	1,200,000	1,680,000	1,700,000	1,700,000	1,500,000	1,000,000
Kriegsmarine	50,000	250,000	404,000	580,000	780,000	810,000	700,000
Waffen–SS	35,000	50,000	150,000	230,000	450,000	600,000	830,000

In 1940 German population was 89.6M so if we forget about the conscription into German service in the occupied lands 10.6% of German people served at the peak. Which is over TWO TIMES MORE than you have at HoI4's Extensive Conscription. And the production of war materiel in Germany was growing considerably. Certainly you can arbitrary introduce whatever mechanics you want to slow down or even cap snowballing. It's just the history does not support your numbers.

UPD Population of 89.6M is if you take Germany plus Austria, Memelland, Sudetenland and Poland. That gives you 10.6% of population serving at the peak. If you take the German proper thуn the population was 70.7M that would give 13.4% of population serving even though there was a sizeable conscription of German nationals in the "newly acquired" lands though I doubt it reached the percentage in the German proper. Yet certainly HoI4 conscription percentage is way way lower than what Germany achieved historically.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

Here are the German Armed forces in WWII

Total	4,220,000	6,050,000	7,234,000	8,310,000	9,480,000	9,420,000	7,830,000
1939	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945
Heer	3,737,000	4,550,000	5,000,000	5,800,000	6,550,000	6,510,000	5,300,000
Luftwaffe	400,000	1,200,000	1,680,000	1,700,000	1,700,000	1,500,000	1,000,000
Kriegsmarine	50,000	250,000	404,000	580,000	780,000	810,000	700,000
Waffen–SS	35,000	50,000	150,000	230,000	450,000	600,000	830,000

In 1940 German population was 89.6M so if we forget about the conscription into German service in the occupied lands 10.6% of German population served at the peak. Which is over TWO TIMES MORE than you have at HoI4's Extensive Conscription. And the production of war materiel in Germany was growing considerably. Certainly you can arbitrary introduce whatever mechanics you want to slow down or even cap snowballing. It's just the history does not support your numbers.

My numbers? Also what makes you think it wouldn't have grown even more with lesser conscription? There was an evergrowing dispute between Keitel and Speer on drafting (there were definitely many more involved, just mentioning the two whose memoirs come on top of my head).

Production increased regardless of conscription due to a whole number of factors, i.e. working hours in the German air industry went up significantly, up to 12-hours per day with no holidays iirc (need to check my books for exact numbers and years).

Yet again: I'm fine with major continental powers fielding a whole lot of divisions (for which they need mere infantry as cannon fodder), but that should come with higher costs and degrade troop quality, if anything for those drafted under new laws.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Also what makes you think it wouldn't have grown even more with lesser conscription

War production is mainly about industrial output. So all women conscripted to replace the men in the industry leaving to the front inherited tooling from them. Yet if you want BOTH to conscript women AND keep a share of men that went to serve IRL then you'd need MUCH MORE tooling than was actually available. Civilian industries switching to the military side or increase in the (ab)use of available tooling was much more important for growing war materiel output than expanding your "true and native" production base.

Haven't seen any research on the option you mentioned yet with strict centralized planning in every major in WWII I guess wise men actually did the math on how to balance the weapons production with the human capacity to actually use one.

working hours in the German air industry went up significantly, up to 12-hours per day with no holidays

As I said, the main factor in the growth of war economy is the lowering standards of life of civilian population. Yet firstly modelling the civilian life becoming duller and duller is beyond the scope of HoI4 IMO and secondly that's "kind of" reflected in the diminishing percentage of consumer goods CICs.

that should come with higher costs and degrade troop quality, if anything for those drafted under new laws.

1. What's the desired end result: prevent in-game snowballing or try to be closer to what was IRL?
2. IRL IMO results varied. The efficiency of the Soviet Union war machine grew considerably yet Germans became significantly worse as they had lost the cadre of their NCOs / Warrant officers that they invested so many years of training into. So reducing the quality of newly formed troop at the time of the fielding for the countries that heavily invested into the large professional armies BEFORE the war (Germany) seems an interesting idea. Yet for those who didn't pay much attention to the training (Soviet Union) that seems counter-productive. So I'd refine your excellent idea: make those who start bad better off as the war progresses and those who start elite should get somewhat worse.
3. Why higher costs? Do you mean newly formed units magically need more E in their TO&E?

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Yeah I actually like that idea. Something like Bottom of the Barrel resulting in poorly trained troops would be interesting. After all, thats kind of the point: youre scraping the last dregs of people that are able to fight even if they lack the ability or physical condition. Yeah Germany could field more and more people, but when theyre old men or young boys theyre not exactly going to be quality ones. In game however theyre just as good as any other if you choose that conscription law.

But itd have to be like below untrained levels of experience otherwise itd be easy to work around.

I dont want to break the game or make it miserable lol, just like the idea benefits and negatives to almost all choices, makes for a more engaging game imo (as long as you dont go too far)