Slitherine

Opinions about the effect to the manpower resourse during the different war situation

At present , in GS2.00 , the production & fuel data are both effected by the war situation ‘s status . Whenever you occupy a city or a oil field ,it will increase your income of production & fuel , and vise versa .

But regarding to the manpower resource , it is not effected by the war situation’s going . It increases a fixed number at each turn & be used by supply unit or product new unit . .

Actually , the fact was not going like this !
For example :
1 If the mainland of the Great Britain was occupied by sealion mission , The GB would lose almost 47 millions population including the people who was able to be conscriptive for military . Then GB would only have the manpower from Canada , SouthAfrica , Austrilia , Newzealand ,etc . It would be quite difficult to set up a strong enough army like it had happened in the real history . It would serious decrease the GB’s war ability .

2 In the real history of the WW2 , at the most dangerous period of USSR in the summer of 1942 ,there was a really big territory which had 40-60 millions population was occupied by Axis . The USSR was too difficult to find manpower to set up new troops from the above occupied area . So when USSR began to fight back , they were so urgently to conscript solidiers from the area they just liberated .

But in the GS2.0 ,whatever the mainland England is occupied ,or USSR lost a huge area of their territory ,it will not effect their output of manpower resource . It seems the millions of people moved to the back at the same time . It is not realistic .

So we provide a suggestion to discuss :
To set up a data connection between the native cities and
50% of GB’s manpower ,
50% of USSR’s manpower ,
30% of USA’s manpower
100% of Germany ‘s manpower
100% of Italy’s manpower

Each city has a fixed percentage( city production/ total country production ) of his country’s total production , and this percentage also be used in the above manpower which has data connection with it . If this city is occupied by the enemy , this country will lose the manpower from this city . At the same time , the enemy also can not conscript soldiers from this city .

China GS group
Morris & Mamahuhu

I'm not sure that this is something that can be shoehorned into this version, but it is an interesting idea! The manpower model in the game is pretty simplistic and could definitely use some improvements, including the one that you suggest here.

One way to do this is to do the following:

Current manpower potential: sum of capital / city / fortress core hex max production which are under control of your side
Max manpower potential: sum of capital / city / fortress core hex max production

Manpower potential factor = 1 - (1 - current manpower potential / max manpower potential) * onmap percentage

Onmap percentages:
Germany: 100%
Italy: 100%
USSR: 50%
UK: 50%
USA: 30%
All minor powers: 100%

Manpower gained this turn = Manpower generated based upon manpower level * manpower potential factor

This means UK will generate 50% of their manpower in Canada and Britain (most in Britain). So a loss of Britain means that a manpower gain of about 8 per turn can drop down to maybe 5 per turn.

If we do this I think we need to boost the Russian manpower potential a bit. With the current manpower rules it's normal to see Russia drop below 75% late 1942. If they lose manpower from losing many cities it means that they will drop even further. We need to check the production number Russia normally loses and compare it with the onmap production to check the percentage lost. I'm sure we can find the good value that will get Russia down to the appropriate level.

Please vote yes or no to implement such a rule.

The implementation of this will be in the game engine code so the players won't have to think much about it. All they need to know is that cities / capitals / fortresses with production contribute to the manpower generated so capturing those will reduce the manpower. The more production from the city the more manpower will be lost when the city falls.

We can post the formula in the documentation for those who are very interested in that.

Hi,

Manpower equates to the quality not the amount of manpower. That is controlled by the PP's in what can be purchased.

The game is balanced in that manner. As for invasion of Britain and or the Americas, and Russia the game plays so that is balanced.

In reality there would have been more units formed hastily to turn back the invaders. But that requires another set of playtesting to balance

the game throughout.

This can be on the wishlist for the next version.

At this time I vote no keep it the way it is.

I agree – manpower and quality are linked in such a way that reducing the manpower pool would have too great a negative effect on quality at this point.

If the game model were changed, so that you had 'buckets' of each quality of manpower, and each 'bucket' were reduced by the percentages suggested, rather than the whole manpower pool, this problem would be addressed.

Because of the linkage of manpower and quality (noted above), we need to be careful about implementing changes that alter the relationship between these factors in a one-sided way. (Translation: No, not now.)

Basically, I agree with what Paul has pointed. My line of thoughts about this question is the following:

1. Using the same argument, Germany would have to increase its manpower from the many occupied countries (forced workers). So if we implement such a system we would have to keep in mind both things: less manpower for the occupied country --> more manpower for the attacking country. This would require a lot of playtest.

2. Stalin decided to evacuate Ukraine industrial zone to prevent it could fall in german hands. This was both an evacuation of industries but also scientists and qualified workers. So manpower is not only linked to quantity of workers available but mainly to organization, number of qualified workers, etc.

The current system in manpower represents well what happened in the real war: both Germany and USSR suffered from manpower issues. And this is what happens in GS in normal circumstances: a Barbarossa launched in 1941 and heavy fighting for years in Eastern front much affect to the manpower of USSR and Germany.

For the reasons pointed, I vote no to this change.

I like the idea but it would need much testing and time to implement properly. IMO better leave it for later version(s).

I also vote not.

The initial idea and Stauffenberg's follow up are very interesting and I hope they can be looked at further to make this area of the game more refined. That said, it is a big change and would require a lot of testing to get the mix right, so I vote the idea be be tabled until after a version 2 of GS is released publicly (if there is a to-do list of things not yet implemented, this would fit nicely:-)).

not now

With one modification, I think we can address the quality issue noted above.

To do this, the quality levels should simply be reduced by the same proportion as manpower.

So:
+ if you lose 25% of your 'manpower-resources' i.e. cities, your manpower level would be adjusted by a reduction of 25%. So, if you would otherwise have 1000 manpower, your adjusted manpower would be 750.
+ at the same time, the levels for quality reduction should all be reduced proportionally. So, if the point at which you started to get reduced quality units is at 750, in the same example, that level would be reduced to 75% * 750 = 562.5.

Harder to explain than to implement, I suspect.

The Soviets, despite huge lost teritories still had men to burn and I don't see it would make any difference. For the Axis, once you're on their borders, it's really a moot point. For England...well, they'd lose a lot more than bodies for their army. Industry in Canada, South Africa, and India wouldn't prove equal to the task. I also think that research would be affected. However, all of that goes beyind the scope of the question.

I have to vote no.