Will there be any point building new units when manpower is low?

[AmpsterMan]

I know this is just wishful thinking, but I think a POP system like Vicky will help out with some of the issues brought up here:

Each province has 4 POP types, Young, Middle Aged, Old, and Wounded. Each POP type consumes consumer goods. Young and Middle Age produce IC per manpower per state multiplied by the IC and IFRA value of said state. Middle aged have a bonus to production (they have more experience). Young has 100% combat effectiveness, Middle aged 80%, Old and Wounded 50%.

The new laws are as follows:

Conscription: Only young, Young and Middle Aged, All Males

Mobilization: Same as HOI3 but instead of increasing IC it just massively reduces Consumer goods

Draft laws: Volunteer Army ( 10% of eligible pops, modified by neutrality, war, etc) Conscriptiob( 25%, 50%, 75%, 90% of eligible pops)

The key difference between Vicky would be that these pops get moved to a pool once enlisted, so you won't have the issue vicky had with pops tied to brigades. I.E. if you are enlisting 50% of young and middle aged, London province will fill 50% of it's allocation of youngsters and middle aged to a pool.

IDK, something like this would be cool.

 

[Marshall18]

That actually sounds like an interesting suggestion. I doubt they would implement it though...

 

[Secret Master]

I don't know about the Japanese home islands themselves, but a former co-worker was on Okinawa as a child, and the Japanese were training the 3-5 year old kids in how to use sharpened sticks to attack paratroopers. If the Japanese were considering using young children to soak up enemy fire, it's hard to imagine how much further they'd have gone to defend Japan proper.

Such measures as were taken by Germany (deploying old men and youths), Japan (even training young children), and the Soviet Union (essentially conscripting the entire able population of villages in passing) were certain to have long-term negative consequences, and could only be rationalized in a situation where the alternative was seen as annihilation. The harsh occupation policies of Germany and Japan, as well as the refusal of the Allies to accept anything other than an unconditional surrender, made moderation and acceptance of demands all but impossible by all parties, leading to desperation measures. Governments in most previous wars would have accepted the inevitability of defeat before resistance became impossible, and tried to arrange the best peace terms they could get under the circumstances. In an ideological war to the death, there wasn't another option for a lot of people.

Yes, but there were plenty of civilians on Okinawa that thought measures like that, as well as the others that were being taken (civilian families being given grenades so they could take some Americans with them as an example) were insane. There is an argument to be made that despite the propaganda of the central government, there wasn't quite as much fanaticism among the civilian population as we were led to believe. I can't even go into great detail on this issue, because it borders on forbidden topics (and I'm not talking about the US Army, either).

Of course, the real problem with the invasion of Japan wouldn't have been Allied losses, as severe as they might have been. But the losses among the Japanese populace, especially if there had been significant resistance among civilians as the military leaders hoped, would have appalling.

I like to remember again that "last ditch effort units" like UK Home Defense or GER Volksturm are not the same as a Volksgrenadier Division!
Volkssturm != Volksgrenadier

Yes, but Volksgrenadier units did recruit manpower previously classed as unavailable/unacceptable during earlier stages of the war. In that sense, it shares much more in common with UK Home Defense and Volksturm than Soviet formations in 1941.

It's a key difference. The Soviets were putting manpower into uniform as fast as possible in 1941, but they weren't doing large conscription of manpower that had been considered unacceptable prior. The units were hastily built and sent into action, but that's because they needed divisions in the field ASAP. It's not because they were four years into a war and finding themselves with units who had lost the majority of their strength.

HOI3 doesn't really have a way to model further use of manpower that has up until now been operating in factories or considered unacceptable for military service. Doctrines from HOI4 seem to open some possibilities here.

 

[keynes2.0]

And they paid an extremely high price. A price that no democracy could have afforded.

The Soviet Union suffered about 4.5% of it's population as military deaths in WWII. France suffered about 3.25% of it's population as military deaths in WWI. Not quite as big but it's in the same ballpark and the French didn't have so many war crimes to motivate them as the Soviets did.

 

[Chromos]

Yes, but Volksgrenadier units did recruit manpower previously classed as unavailable/unacceptable during earlier stages of the war. In that sense, it shares much more in common with UK Home Defense and Volksturm than Soviet formations in 1941.

It's a key difference. The Soviets were putting manpower into uniform as fast as possible in 1941, but they weren't doing large conscription of manpower that had been considered unacceptable prior. The units were hastily built and sent into action, but that's because they needed divisions in the field ASAP. It's not because they were four years into a war and finding themselves with units who had lost the majority of their strength.

HOI3 doesn't really have a way to model further use of manpower that has up until now been operating in factories or considered unacceptable for military service. Doctrines from HOI4 seem to open some possibilities here.

I think thats a bit different here. Even if the draft std. was lower, Volksgrenadier and Volksturm were mostly as different in drafting as "ususal Inf" and "Milita".
That lvl of desperation to lower draft std, already hit also the country as a whole. But the more capable men still where used in Volksgrenadier/Infantry and the lesser in Volkssturm.

The situation in '44 was for GER clearly as desperate as in '41 for SOV.
Soviets also put all that could fight into an uniform. They had no big choice when they did that either. Quite some chosed to fight as partisan instead to avoid the "draft".
But their fighting formations(TOE/OOB) differed much from Volksgrenadier-Divsions..
If something is mostly noteworthy about that formations is the drop of 3 Battallions in exchange of more firepower for the rest.
And as for the situation, many were getting what personnel was at hand or nearby. So some got also some of the less capable/older people. Same as for the whole rest of the country at that time.


-The key here is OOB/TOE wich was changed to have similar fighting power with less people. -> Tech that changes stats of Divs.

-Volkssturm is Militia.

-Draft the "previous uncapable" could be simulated with a MP bonus in HoI3 too. Based on the IC or base MP you get X amount of MP extra. And add another IC malus on top as also an fighting malus(Def/Tough) to reflect the lesser capabilities maybe..

 

[Secret Master]

Not quite as big but it's in the same ballpark and the French didn't have so many war crimes to motivate them as the Soviets did.

Which we are not going to talk about, because that sort of thing will not be modeled in the game.

 

[keynes2.0]

Appologies, I strayed a little from what I was really trying to talk about there.

 

[No idea]

The Soviet Union suffered about 4.5% of it's population as military deaths in WWII. France suffered about 3.25% of it's population as military deaths in WWI. Not quite as big but it's in the same ballpark and the French didn't have so many war crimes to motivate them as the Soviets did.

Source for your numbers?. The french one seems too high to me. According to wikipedia France had 212.000 military deaths during ww II. That is just a very small fraction of its total population.

 

[Axe99]

Source for your numbers?. The french one seems too high to me. According to wikipedia France had 212.000 military deaths during ww II. That is just a very small fraction of its total population.

There was only a "I" behind France's WW, compared with the "II" behind the Soviet Union's .

 

[keynes2.0]

Although I almost put a second I in there by sheer force of habit.

 

[Axe99]

Although I almost put a second I in there by sheer force of habit.

I actually read "WWII" behind France as well, but then did a double take at the percentage of population and went back and had a closer look .

 

[No idea]

Although I almost put a second I in there by sheer force of habit.

Ouch¡. My mistake. That "WWI" was tricky to spot. Anyway, during WW I french troops mutinied "en masse". Even if it was a "passive" mutiny. So, the high number of casualties HAD consequences. One wonders what might have happened if the germans had launched an offensive in some of the affected sectors.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I often misread WW1 or WWI as WWII, perhaps use "The Great War" name for WW1? That is, for first world war.

 

[FOARP]

By the way, did any nation that utilized such formations turn the war around? I know Germany and Japan didn't, but I'm not sure about other powers.

The Soviet Union mobilised entire divisions of Opolchenie for the defence of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad.

I suppose it's also worth mentioning that British Territorial Army and US National Guard also saw combat during the war, as did Australian Militia units (e.g., on the Kokoda trail). However, of course the Territorial Army and National Guard are essential reserve units for the main force and not emergency militia (Aussie Militia I don't know about).

However, on the main subject, I really hope in HOI4 to how it has been in previous HOI games. The simple fact is that no country suffered "manpower exhaustion" in WW2 of the kind you regularly see in HOI3. Germany had more men in uniform in 1944 than at any point during the war - and, surprisingly, more men in its armed services than were actually in the Soviet Red Army. Germany achieved this through what would be, in game-terms (and not touching on subjects that wont be modelled in-game), a mix of foreign manpower, and manpower mobilised from industry.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

With all this talk of the desperate situation the USSR was in throughout 1941, I wonder how this can be implemented in the game. Nearly every USSR player has complete hindsight, and can play from 1936 onwards expecting invasion in 1941. Meaning the player would most likely not experience the desperate situation the USSR was forced into IRL.

I think Podcat has said he wants to tackle player hindsight, I just wonder how.

 

[FOARP]

With all this talk of the desperate situation the USSR was in throughout 1941, I wonder how this can be implemented in the game. Nearly every USSR player has complete hindsight, and can play from 1936 onwards expecting invasion in 1941. Meaning the player would most likely not experience the desperate situation the USSR was forced into IRL.

I think Podcat has said he wants to tackle player hindsight, I just wonder how.

A while back I took part in a pub quiz, where the exact date of the German invasion of the Soviet Union was a question - most teams got it right. Everyone knows the start-dates, and in a scripted game everyone will play with those dates in mind, even to the point where they can completely disband the Red Army and then re-build it from scratch. Sandbox gameplay is the only answer, it just needs to be implemented properly - countries need to know their "motives" and "character" and work towards it. Playing CK2 and EUIV (or at least their latest versions) I think Paradox now knows how to do this.

Yes, this will lead to endless complaints about how "I was preparing for the German invasion by disbanding the entire Soviet Army and then everyone attacked me!", but a better game all the same. And no, this cannot be achieved by static scripting.

Yes, but there were plenty of civilians on Okinawa that thought measures like that, as well as the others that were being taken (civilian families being given grenades so they could take some Americans with them as an example) were insane. There is an argument to be made that despite the propaganda of the central government, there wasn't quite as much fanaticism among the civilian population as we were led to believe. I can't even go into great detail on this issue, because it borders on forbidden topics (and I'm not talking about the US Army, either).

Most credible analysts don't take the idea that the Japanese populace would as a whole put up a major resistance with bamboo spears etc. too seriously. The Japanese equivalent of the Home Guard/Volkssturm/Opolchenie was the Volunteer Fighting Corps, and was about as well-armed as it ever was likely to be when the Soviet Union invaded South Sakhalin (officially a Japanese "inner territory") in August 1945 - the Japanese regular units put up a strong resistance, but South Sakhalin was over-run in two weeks despite the presence of a civilian population of hundreds of thousands.

Perhaps a later invasion of the Japanese islands would have found a better-organised militia in place, though it's hard to think they would have been better armed. The Japanese state had a hard enough time arming its regular military.

TL;DR - I think a special mechanism should be in-game for emergency militias like the Home Guard/Opolchenie/Volkssturm/Volunteer Fighting Corps, I don't take the idea of the Japanese populace rising against an invader en masse seriously.

PS - One minor, but annoying thing that's been in HOI games a while - Ireland's militia units being called IRA units. The militia of the Republic of Ireland (which was no friend of the IRA, at least not most of the time) is called the FCA (Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil).

 

[Cybvep]

I hope to see gradually decreasing MP quality instead of BOOM! You ran out of MP! thingy. HOI-like running out of MP rarely happened IRL. On the other hand, worker-to-soldier ratio was important, while in HOI games there is no relationship between IC and MP.
IMO HOI3's MP system heavily contributes to the 1/0 nature of the gameplay.

Another thing I hope to see implemented in HOI4 is the impact of logistics on reinforcements. The time it takes to reinforce the troops should be variable, i.e. it should take longer when the logistical situation is bad. Units lacking replacements on a local scale should be a common sight, even if you have 99999999999999 MP in the pool. In case of units stationed overseas sinking supply convoys should affect the logistical situation, which in turn would affect the time it takes to reinforce the troops.

 

[FOARP]

I hope to see gradually decreasing MP quality instead of BOOM! You ran out of MP! thingy. HOI-like running out of MP rarely happened IRL. On the other hand, worker-to-soldier ratio was important, while in HOI games there is no relationship between IC and MP.
IMO HOI3's MP system heavily contributes to the 1/0 nature of the gameplay.

Exactly. In HOI3 (and HOI2, and HOI1) even right down close to zero, there's simply no point not going all-out, then when manpower runs out the army deflates like a punctured balloon within a few months. You go from Germany lapping against the defenses of Moscow to the fall of a barely-defended Berlin within six months or so. In reality the German armed forces kept growing in size right up until the last 12 months of the war, when the rate of loses (not the number of loses overall, but the rate they were being lost at) became more than they could replace.

Another thing I hope to see implemented in HOI4 is the impact of logistics on reinforcements. The time it takes to reinforce the troops should be variable, i.e. it should take longer when the logistical situation is bad. Units lacking replacements on a local scale should be a common sight, even if you have 99999999999999 MP in the pool. In case of units stationed overseas sinking supply convoys should affect the logistical situation, which in turn would affect the time it takes to reinforce the troops.

True. The reason why some people think that manpower collapse is historical is because units on the Eastern Front did become hollow shells of their former selves as the war dragged on, but this was a result of a preference for forming (and re-forming) units in the rear before dispatching them to the front rather than reinforcing units in the field, partly because it was difficult to reinforce units whilst at the front.

The North African front saw a similar phenomenon - logistics being the main cause.

You would, however, get people complaining about units not reinforcing despite manpower being available, and cycling units into/out of the front would be something of a chore.