WWW Poland - manpower calculation off?

[AOW]

In the recent Polish SP WWW Daniel changed his manpower policies and got his available manpower up to just over 1 million. A quick scroll through the rest of the session shows his manpower gradually reducing down to just under 500k. At 52:09 a war score casualty report shows that Poland has lost 171k in casualties but the manpower at the top of the screen has dropped over 500k. Either I missed a change in manpower policies, don't understand the relationship between manpower and casualties or the calculation is off.
What 'cha think?

 

[oerbaa]

I think it was the provinces he lost. Since each province gives a base amount of population, you recruit from that population. If you lose the city then your available manpower goes down.

I think thats what happened.

 

[AOW]

I think it was the provinces he lost. Since each province gives a base amount of population, you recruit from that population. If you lose the city then your available manpower goes down.

I think thats what happened.

You are correct. I did not think of that. Daniel even mentioned that the loss of territory affects available mp. DOH!

 

[Daelyn75]

You are correct. I did not think of that. Daniel even mentioned that the loss of territory affects available mp. DOH!

Was he not constantly training new divisions? I would think that would count for the loss of available manpower more than casualties and province losses.

 

[oerbaa]

Was he not constantly training new divisions? I would think that would count for the loss of available manpower more than casualties and province losses.

I don't think he made even 1 division. All his divisions were under-supplied the entire time.

 

[RabbidHamster]

I had the exact same question if it makes you feel better AOW! Thanks oerbaa for clearing that up!

 

[AOW]

I had the exact same question if it makes you feel better AOW! Thanks oerbaa for clearing that up!

Thank you for sharing my pain!!

Cheers

 

[Donkey Kong]

Not sure I like this. Manpower pool should be "in the bank". Losing territories should affect manpower growth, not depleting your pool of already "earned" manpower.

 

[vipic]

Not sure I like this. Manpower pool should be "in the bank". Losing territories should affect manpower growth, not depleting your pool of already "earned" manpower.

What?!? So you have a million people just sitting around, "Hey guys we dont actually need you yet, but you are just going to sit in this awesome building we made in space where no one can get to you for a few years, then, when we need you, you will get a gun and glorious combat."

That pool is the people living in your country who are able to be recruited under your current recruitment law, not people already recruited by you.

How do you recruit the populations that live in occupied territory? Are you going to sneak them out using Harriet Tubman? I don't think it works quite like that.

 

[Donkey Kong]

What?!? So you have a million people just sitting around, "Hey guys we dont actually need you yet, but you are just going to sit in this awesome building we made in space where no one can get to you for a few years, then, when we need you, you will get a gun and glorious combat."

That pool is the people living in your country who are able to be recruited under your current recruitment law, not people already recruited by you.

How do you recruit the populations that live in occupied territory? Are you going to sneak them out using Harriet Tubman? I don't think it works quite like that.

I see you registered in 2012. Thats how it worked in Hearts of iron 1, 2 and 3. Its gonna be hard to balance the game, especially the Russian front, if the Soviet's manpower vanshes as soviet territories are occupied.

 

[Art1985]

I see you registered in 2012. Thats how it worked in Hearts of iron 1, 2 and 3. Its gonna be hard to balance the game, especially the Russian front, if the Soviet's manpower vanshes as soviet territories are occupied.

This will be good motivation for soviet players not to lose territories, in Hoi 3 you could make defensive lines near Moscow on rivers , and live happily without losing any manpower and this was unrealistic.

PS real question here is what happens with all this manpower on occupied lands? Will they become German manpower resources (for some kind volunteer divisions?)?

 

[JerkyJerry]

But Donkey Kong this is HOI4. And why should it be the way you state? Why is your way better? Do you also code, make, produce WWII games?
Do you think that people at Paradox hate the game and want to produce a less than product? Isn't possible that Paradox have people testing the game and playing it and providing feedback and input?
If so, don't you think the one thing that above all else matters the most....someone to pull the triggers. If that was bunk, it would have been changed already? They have been working on the game for how long?
Keep the faith DK, keep the faith!

 

[Donkey Kong]

But Donkey Kong this is HOI4. And why should it be the way you state? Why is your way better? Do you also code, make, produce WWII games?
Do you think that people at Paradox hate the game and want to produce a less than product? Isn't possible that Paradox have people testing the game and playing it and providing feedback and input?
If so, don't you think the one thing that above all else matters the most....someone to pull the triggers. If that if it was bunk, it would have been changed already? They have been working on the game for how long?
Keep the faith DK, keep the faith!

So judging by this, raising a concern regarding a game mechanic means the following:

1: I believe my way is right.
2: I believe my way is better.
3: I also code, make and produce games.
4: I think Paradox is aiming to make the worst game possible.
5: I dont think Paradox has done any playtesting.

Sigh... I said I "wasnt sure about this", and that it would be hard to balance. Why is that? It appears that the Soviet Union will have unlimited manpower as long as it has it's territories. Once the European territories are gone, so is the Soviet manpower pool (not taking into account that the Soviets in real life mobilized millions between 1942-1945). At this time most of the European territories were occupied. You dont see any possbile way for me to raise a concern about this?

 

[Donkey Kong]

This will be good motivation for soviet players not to lose territories, in Hoi 3 you could make defensive lines near Moscow on rivers , and live happily without losing any manpower and this was unrealistic.

PS real question here is what happens with all this manpower on occupied lands? Will they become German manpower resources (for some kind volunteer divisions?)?

You mean making a stand at the gates of Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad? Yeah, totally unrealistic.

 

[JerkyJerry]

So judging by this, raising a concern regarding a game mechanic means the following:

And then we get the infamous "It appears" blah blah blah

You're raising a concern?
A little chest thumpin really is all I got out of it.
You want us to believe your way is better than that of Paradox.
I don't, sorry

And hey when you produce your own WWII game you can have manpower run anyway you want!

 

[Art1985]

You mean making a stand at the gates of Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad? Yeah, totally unrealistic.

Unrealistic is that losing ground does not cost you any manpower loss.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

How do you recruit the populations that live in occupied territory? Are you going to sneak them out using Harriet Tubman? I don't think it works quite like that.

Depends on the country. Soviet men in the occupied territory did indeed run away to Soviet controlled territories to avoid deportation to Germany to work as slave labor and partisan bands who were cornered enough would attempt to flee across the frontlines... only to be conscripted into the Red Army if they made it.

This was a rather insignificant quantity though. Rather more important was the mass evacuations of some 20-30 million people in the aforementioned territory eastward before the territories were overrun. In-game this can easily be modeled via the "evacuate to the Urals" national focus on the Soviet tree which would transfer a population from the western Soviet territories to the central and eastern ones.

 

[potski]

There is no population movement in the game.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

There is no population movement in the game.

Not normally, that is. Just as there is normally no way to move factories in-game. Yet there is a national focus for the Soviets which basically allows them to do just that. What I'd expect the national focus to do mechanics wise is the same as what it does with factories: decrease the population in the western Soviet states and raise it by an equal amount in the central and eastern Soviet states. It's a very easy way to model the population transfer that occurred alongside the industrial evacuations and even if Paradox forgets to do it, it should be simple enough to mod in.

 

[Donkey Kong]

Rather more important was the mass evacuations of some 20-30 million people in the aforementioned territory eastward before the territories were overrun.

Exactly. My consern is that the Soviet Union will not be able to mobilize troops after the European part of the country is overrun. Perhaps this could be solved by having the Urals and Siberia contain lots of manpower, but that doesnt solve the issue either. (What if Germany doesnt attack till 1942 or 1943? Does that mean the soviet Union will have 1 billion men under arms, as the game expects the European territories to have fallen in 1941)?