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]

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.

During WWII Finland conscripted 15 % of population to the military. All able bodied men, no kids or senior citizens. What was their quality? The Soviet Union suffered multiple losses in every battle against Finland, so it could not be low, or at least Soviet troop quality (regulars and conscripts) was lower. That 15 % is, as far as I know (don't remember the source), the highest proportion of population that can be recruited without functioning of the society suffering drastically.

As a work force during war, in many developed countries women did tasks men had done before, and when men returned from war, women lost their jobs and returned to be housewives. No equality 80 years ago. Efficiency of new (female) workers cannot have been as good as the experienced men they replaced so there was surely some drop on productivity, but that was (at least partly) compensated by rationalization efforts. At war time all machined parts don't need to polished shiny, and so on.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Using game logic, nations are fools for not going full war economy

That's Speer's logic give or take so THAT game mechanics does correspond to WWII reality

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

maybe you do, but not me

i note that manpower does not increase instantly and hasn't for years, such that delaying changing conscription too long will slow down rate of fielding armies. same deal for switching too early and losing industry

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.

you're making an assumption the game doesn't do anything to indicate. you don't allocate which men are doing what in hoi 4. it's not a thing. instead, we have an "experience system" where the most skilled people get a 75% damage multiplier. that's not how real life works, but it's how the game mechanic works.

i don't think it's argumentatively valid to make up an explanation that isn't there and then make claims about how it doesn't fit the game.

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.

losing troops that way is expensive and crippling in hoi 4, too. you lose both equipment and manpower if playing poorly/bleeding casualties. this is further exacerbated by increasing conscription, cutting into the amount of quality equipment you can produce

2.5% more manpower is doubling your manpower at that stage

"fun with statistics" semantics. what matters is how many more competent divisions you can field. unless your core pop is high, 2.5% isn't doing a great deal for you. it's a necessary stepping stone, and should be considered because mobilization isn't instant, but for the vast majority of countries in the game you're getting a couple extra divisions out of it

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.

this gives me the impression that if you stripped away the titles and just put "mobilization %" or something that most of the arguments would go away :/

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

already happens, despite allegations otherwise in this thread

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

maybe you do, but not me

i note that manpower does not increase instantly and hasn't for years, such that delaying changing conscription too long will slow down rate of fielding armies. same deal for switching too early and losing industry


you're making an assumption the game doesn't do anything to indicate. you don't allocate which men are doing what in hoi 4. it's not a thing. instead, we have an "experience system" where the most skilled people get a 75% damage multiplier. that's not how real life works, but it's how the game mechanic works.

i don't think it's argumentatively valid to make up an explanation that isn't there and then make claims about how it doesn't fit the game.


losing troops that way is expensive and crippling in hoi 4, too. you lose both equipment and manpower if playing poorly/bleeding casualties. this is further exacerbated by increasing conscription, cutting into the amount of quality equipment you can produce


"fun with statistics" semantics. what matters is how many more competent divisions you can field. unless your core pop is high, 2.5% isn't doing a great deal for you. it's a necessary stepping stone, and should be considered because mobilization isn't instant, but for the vast majority of countries in the game you're getting a couple extra divisions out of it


this gives me the impression that if you stripped away the titles and just put "mobilization %" or something that most of the arguments would go away :/


already happens, despite allegations otherwise in this thread

But the troop quality doesnt deplete. At all. Your volunteer only troops are no better than scraping the barrel, which by its own name indicates theres not a whole lot of quality left.

its funny you say that, because for the vast majority of playthroughs I rarely go above extended conscription. Even as most minors. Unless youre truly a small nation you can pretty much coast on that 5%, plus any other manpower boosts you happen across. And again it has no real downside when youd think there should be at least something stability or production-wise.

 

[American Traveler]

Mobilization should produce a small negative effect to stability during a war, and a very large negative effect to stability during peace time. It should also produce a reeducation in political power gain.

They should also bring back the mobilization mechanism used in HOI 2 which actually involved historical mobilization. Most divisions would be created as reserve division and would only receive the majority of their manpower and equipment at mobilization.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But the troop quality doesnt deplete. At all. Your volunteer only troops are no better than scraping the barrel, which by its own name indicates theres not a whole lot of quality left.

you need to train longer before deploying above penalties. you have weaker equipment, and thus the combat potential of your troops will be worse unless you've already trivialized production somehow

And again it has no real downside when youd think there should be at least something stability or production-wise.

you've already had enough evidence posted in this thread about what "you'd think"

 

[HmJ_JP]

Showing downgrading of the armies is not easy, as happened in the USSR but also with Germany (huge fighters production in the end of the war but very inexperienced pilots...).
Now I like how HOI4 manages the veterancy level: I'm very proud when I have 10-20 lvl 5 veteran armies, but it's a status extremely difficult to keep, as inevitably men dies. And yet I micromanage my attacks/wars to lose as few people as possible. So, at least at this level, I feel the balance is good.
Now on productivity, (total) war favors innovation and economies of scale, so I also understand why the developers designed HOI4 as it is.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

if you tag switch to ai it is not uncommon to see large numbers of divisions with penalties due to experience, which persists

training extensively in backline to regular takes a long time, even more so for vehicles with support etc. enough to potentially be prohibitive/luxury if you do it during war effort. if you field those earlier, you pay in production.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Showing downgrading of the armies is not easy, as happened in the USSR but also with Germany

Agree with what you wrote and I'd rather add / correct a little.

1. For the Germany it was a downward spiral of demonstrating worse and worse performance as the war progressed. Yet the Soviet Union Army was getting better and better with every year. It's not that Soviet Union had some magic potion but rather it started at a very low base. Germany was able to keep a good deal of their professional army core interbellum. And Soviet Union lost almost all professional officer corps of the times of Russian Empire (btw those professional Tsarist officers that were able to survive normally showed exceptional performance in Soviet Army). The Soviet Union started WWII with an army of ideologically charged rookies yet those rookies were learning the tradecraft and getting better.
2. So IMO an argument that no-limits no-malus mobilization in HoI4 helps the snowballing effect has its merits. Yet to say it's valid because the history shows so is not IMO. If an army of select seasoned professionals enters (starts) a world war and expands many times then its performance will inevitably suffer. Yet on a regular basis all kinds of people die at war -- professionals or not. So armies know how to absorb new people.
3. And IMO the history shows that weapons production efficiency grew very significantly. And that the history shows the countries are able to expand weapons production by 20-30 times from peaceful times. And not just loosing but rather spectacularly increasing said production efficiency.
4. So it all can be considered yet it's purely for the sake of balance. It's not to make HoI4 more "historical".

 

[Joshua Happytree]

They should also bring back the mobilization mechanism used in HOI 2 ... Most divisions would be created as reserve division and would only receive the majority of their manpower and equipment at mobilization.

This is exactly HoI4 model. When you recruit a division you have an empty shell with no substance and then you fill it in with equipment and manpower

 

[davidc929]

But the troop quality doesnt deplete. At all. Your volunteer only troops are no better than scraping the barrel, which by its own name indicates theres not a whole lot of quality left.

its funny you say that, because for the vast majority of playthroughs I rarely go above extended conscription. Even as most minors. Unless youre truly a small nation you can pretty much coast on that 5%, plus any other manpower boosts you happen across. And again it has no real downside when youd think there should be at least something stability or production-wise.

Perhaps the lower conscription laws should provide a slight training bonus so it is quicker to train newly created divisions.

 

[him_15]

I think having high mobilisation law active during peace time should have a serve penalty to the economy over time.

 

[American Traveler]

This is exactly HoI4 model. When you recruit a division you have an empty shell with no substance and then you fill it in with equipment and manpower

Incorrect. HOI 4 only has standing armies, which is totally ahistorical. There is no actual “Mobilization” in HOI 4 where in real life the decision to mobilize was massive and was international news.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

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.

The "real life" barriers against full conscription(and ways to overcome it) are too abstract to be represented in game because its rely on politics/social structure.

If in one side is simplistic the current in-game barriers, is also simplistic just keep creating in-game more and more abstract barriers, assuming "everything will be against it".

Lets not fall into the anacronistic trap... in 30's most world leaders experienced various economic crisis, ... them hipotetical economic burdem from wars was something that not scare anyone, wars was popular and people wanted it.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Perhaps the lower conscription laws should provide a slight training bonus so it is quicker to train newly created divisions.

Thatd be pretty interesting. Kind of reflecting how youre choosing from the cream of the crop, healthy individuals of reasonable age and ability, so they have more innate capability.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

I think having high mobilisation law active during peace time should have a serve penalty to the economy over time.

But then youd have a weirdo meta game of never capitulating an enemy just to stay in a war, even when they have 0 army left and just their capital standing lol

I think if anything maybe there should be certain minor advantages to civ economy…even if its as simple as a stability buff or something, since people are going on about their daily lives with no disturbances.

That is if people dont like the idea of a disadvantage associated with early mobilization to war economy.

 

[TalyonUngol]

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.

Because. The simple answer is this. This is not a simulation. This is not a game designed to represent real world consequences. It's a Sandbox game set in the WW2 Era. That's literally the simpliest answer for this.

 

[HmJ_JP]

Because. The simple answer is this. This is not a simulation. This is not a game designed to represent real world consequences. It's a Sandbox game set in the WW2 Era. That's literally the simpliest answer for this.

Yes, it's a game. But also in several games I dislike spending PP when after several months, the war ends and I'm forced to demobilize until the next one.

 

[Cavalry]

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.

I think they favor the right things. If you do the right things for a world war II, then no or little penalty because it is just complicated to make penalty for the right things.

So if one don't total mobilize, then that game setting is too easy for him, or he does warring wrong.

They did nerf mobilization, you don't get instant manpower but get a little day by day.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

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?

I wouldn't call it purely fascist. That's the logic of countries who find themselves in war that threatens the very existence of the state.