Population / manpower



  • Population / manpower is not less important for any war as the GDP / income.

    My question is:
    "How can I mod the map in order it can have 1 of 3 possible options?"

    For example, Germany has 68 mln. population in its mainland 1914.

    1.) How can I limit the total number of German units to 680 units possible recruited for the whole game? After the units are killed, the reserve becomes empty and Germany can not recruit any more units.

    or
    2.) How can I limit the total number of German units simultaneously present on the map to 68 units total? If some units are killed I can recruit more but not more than the limit of 68 units on the map at any given round.

    or
    3.) How can I add 1 more parameter to the unit - manpower costs?
    For example, 1 infantry costs 6$ and 5 manpower while 1 tank costs 12$ and 1 manpower.

    Limited production facilities in the game can not substitute the manpower reserve.
    USSR had 1940 the GDP equal to German, but 2,5 more population.
    The only chance for Germany is in the blitzkrieg by using its initial technology advantage: limited German heavy tanks and limited German perfect infantry against crowds of Soviet infantry and mass-made medium tanks.
    1 to 1 in GDP but very different approach in the war.

    There is no need for the manpower reserve to grow (population growth etc.). Only pre-determined fixed manpower reserve for the whole game.

    Also there is no need to make the manpower reserve to be capturable during the game - it will only follow to the unnecessary work of the game designers.

    Moreover, the pre-determined fixed manpower reserve is the only real reason for any Axis player to use blitzkrieg strategy both in WW1 and WW2.

    P.S. I like the TripleA game very much.
    P.P.S. Sorry for my English. It is not my mother language.

    Thanks in advance for any advice!


  • Moderators

    @Unternehmer said in Population / manpower:

    Population / manpower is not less important for any war as the GDP / income.

    Well, GDP is a function of the population, already, thus you would account population twice over. Obviously, if a country has half the population and the same productivity, then it has half the GDP.

    My question is:
    "How can I mod the map in order it can have 1 of 3 possible options?"

    If you know where is your "downloadedMaps" folder, how you mod a map is by unzipping it, then modifying it's elements, chiefly the game or games files, inside the games folder.

    For example, Germany has 68 mln. population in its mainland 1914.

    1.) How can I limit the total number of German units to 680 units possible recruited for the whole game? After the units are killed, the reserve becomes empty and Germany can not recruit any more units.

    This is very simple, arguably too simple. Anyways, just have a named resource that Germany has in 680 units in the resource initialize, at start game. Then make each unit costing 1 of that resource. You can also assign to any territories the ability to produce more of this resource, overtime, to represent the (likely slow) population reintegration or increase.

    or
    2.) How can I limit the total number of German units simultaneously present on the map to 68 units total? If some units are killed I can recruit more but not more than the limit of 68 units on the map at any given round.

    This cannot be done in a clean way, however you can take a look at Feudal Japan Warlords for a hacky way to do it (keeping giving and removing resources with triggers, while each unit costing 1 of that resource, so to assure you can never have more than 68).

    or
    3.) How can I add 1 more parameter to the unit - manpower costs?
    For example, 1 infantry costs 6$ and 5 manpower while 1 tank costs 12$ and 1 manpower.

    Assuming that by $ you mean "PUs", for the other one you just need to define an additional resource, called "manpower", in all the places in the game file where you have PUs. It should be fairly self explanatory, once you open the file an search for "PUs".

    Limited production facilities in the game can not substitute the manpower reserve.
    USSR had 1940 the GDP equal to German, but 2,5 more population.

    Since you are giving Germany and USSR as equal, I here assume that you are talking about the end of 1940, Germany also having the GDP of France, Belgium, Netherlands, and so on, am I right?
    If so, also, don't forget that, by the end of 1941, Germany conquered about 40% of that Soviet "GDP". So, assuming you are setting Germany and all conquered before Barbarossa against USSR at 1:1, then you would be at about 2.3:1 for Germany in 1942, only for the GDP.

    The only chance for Germany is in the blitzkrieg by using its initial technology advantage: limited German heavy tanks and limited German perfect infantry against crowds of Soviet infantry and mass-made medium tanks.
    1 to 1 in GDP but very different approach in the war.

    Germany didn't really have any heavy tanks until very late in 1942, and they were really present in strategically relevant number only starting from the spring of 1943 (Battle of Kursk). Until 1942, the medium tank of the Russians (the T-34) was heavier (better armoured, better armed and faster) than the medium tanks of the Germans (Pz III and IV), and the Russians also had heavy tanks (KV series).

    There is no need for the manpower reserve to grow (population growth etc.). Only pre-determined fixed manpower reserve for the whole game.

    Not sure what you mean here.

    Also there is no need to make the manpower reserve to be capturable during the game - it will only follow to the unnecessary work of the game designers.

    Not actually sure if all resources are normally captured when you take the capital or only PUs, but I guess only PUs (since tech tokens are not captured). In case, you can assure that all resources are destroyed, anyways. Just test it.

    Moreover, the pre-determined fixed manpower reserve is the only real reason for any Axis player to use blitzkrieg strategy both in WW1 and WW2.

    No comment. There would be just too much to argue, here.

    P.S. I like the TripleA game very much.
    P.P.S. Sorry for my English. It is not my mother language.

    Thanks in advance for any advice!


  • Moderators

    @Cernel said in Population / manpower:

    @Unternehmer said in Population / manpower:

    Population / manpower is not less important for any war as the GDP / income.

    Well, GDP is a function of the population, already, thus you would account population twice over. Obviously, if a country has half the population and the same productivity, then it has half the GDP.

    An example is China in World War II. Even if you estimate Chinese productively barely above to the minimum required for families to physically survive, you will have China having more than twice the GDP of Japan or France, and about the same GDP as Russia, thanks to the great importance that population has, in determining the GDP.

    Then, if not content with that, you want to give even more importance to the population, then you'll end up with China being maybe even stronger a player than all of the Soviet Union or Germany.

    A similar argument can be made for India, of course. Then you'll easily have India alone stronger than Great Britain, Canada, Australia and South Africa summed up.



  • @Unternehmer said in Population / manpower:

    Population / manpower is not less important for any war as the GDP / income.
    I am going to disagree with your statement . In practice, raw manpower means little. China's inefficient government could not effectively marshal its resources. Manpower is needed for production. Even the Soviet Union had demobilize some soldiers in WW2, in order to maintain war production.

    For that matter, tanks do not necessarily conserve manpower. Tanks require extensive support operations which take up more manpower than the tank crews themselves. That is even more true of aircraft. There is not really a need to have a separate manpower cost.

    There is also no finite manpower limit. In an emergency, the workforce can be expanded. In WW2, the US, UK & USSR all brought woman into the workforce in large numbers (the Germans did not, reducing their production). Neutral workers can also be recruited directly (or indirectly by buying goods from neutral countries).

    In WW2, the Allies had 80% of the world's production, but in 1939 the Allies had only the 50% of the military capacity. Once the US & USSR entered the war, the Axis had a very limited time before Allied production prevailed.



  • Dear @Cernel, thank you very much for your advice!



  • @RogerCooper said in Population / manpower:

    @Unternehmer said in Population / manpower:

    Population / manpower is not less important for any war as the GDP / income.
    I am going to disagree with your statement . In practice, raw manpower means little. China's inefficient government could not effectively marshal its resources. Manpower is needed for production. Even the Soviet Union had demobilize some soldiers in WW2, in order to maintain war production.

    For that matter, tanks do not necessarily conserve manpower. Tanks require extensive support operations which take up more manpower than the tank crews themselves. That is even more true of aircraft. There is not really a need to have a separate manpower cost.

    There is also no finite manpower limit. In an emergency, the workforce can be expanded. In WW2, the US, UK & USSR all brought woman into the workforce in large numbers (the Germans did not, reducing their production). Neutral workers can also be recruited directly (or indirectly by buying goods from neutral countries).

    In WW2, the Allies had 80% of the world's production, but in 1939 the Allies had only the 50% of the military capacity. Once the US & USSR entered the war, the Axis had a very limited time before Allied production prevailed.

    Dear @RogerCooper, you have quoted my words "I am going to disagree with your statement...in order to maintain war production." But I have not written this phrase. Moreover I don't see who is the author of this phrase because I cannot find these words in the present topic.
    Nevertheless thank you very much for your answer!



  • Mobility/encirclements and air support were that prevented Germany stuck and bleed itself in earlier of the war. They may be effective way for conserving manpower if used correctly.

    İf the current Pus system is mix of industrial power+manpower then no nation should be allowed fully benefit from occupied territories. Not sure how much penaly would be sensible though.



  • 1.) Now most of the games have only 1 type of unit build as the most cost-effective and players always try to use this particular unit build.
    It is easy to find the most cost-effective unit build by using the battle calculator.
    For example, 2 infantry + 1 artillery is the most cost-effective unit build in terms of PUs.
    But if the nations have limited manpower it might be more useful to have 2 tanks instead even if it requires more PUs to spend by helps to save manpower.
    It is only example. It could be 3 destroyers instead of 1 battleship or whatever else.

    The idea is to make nations to use different unit builds depending on their current PUs'input to manpower ratio.

    2.) Now most of the games are unlimited and each major nation can conquer everything.
    Moreover each major nation can use PUs' income from conquered territories increasing its force to unlimited size.

    The idea is to make nations more limited in the late rounds: a nation with the very aggressive player will run out its original manpower reserve more quickly than the nation with more defensive player.

    3.) It is like RAM-memory / HDD-memory
    or like fuel consumption / fuel tank
    or like production capacity / storage facility

    Sometimes this ratio doesn't matter. But in many real life cases it is crucial.
    I think the initial manpower limit will make the game more challenging for Axis players both in WW1 and WW2 as they wouldn't have any opportunity to stockpile units and to seat in defence.



  • Dear @Schulz, thank you very much for your feedback!


  • Moderators Admin

    @Unternehmer Your analysis and hypothesis are valid. I am intrigued to see where this leads.



  • @Unternehmer If you want to represent strategically the choice between offense and defense, you could have buildable defensive units. You can also have build caps for individual unit types to limit production of specific units. Non-buildable units can also be used to reflect elite units that are not easily replaced.

    Attrition can affect defenders as well. The CSA was mostly on the defense in the American Civil War, but attrition eventually limited their ability to maintain armies in the field.

    In wargames that are more sophisticated than A&A the Germans face the choice of trying to knock out Russia in 1941 or 1942 or simply advancing to the line of Riga-Minsk-Kiev-Odessa and standing on defense (Sitzkrieg). This can work depending on the victory conditions, but the historical German objective was to conquer Russia, not to take some border regions.


  • Moderators Admin

    @Unternehmer So I have started a map with Man Power as a key component to the design. Here is how I addressed it.

    Man power.png

    The cities generate Man Power (amongst other things). So each nation is given cities based on what I feel the over all manpower should be.

    Then as you loose territories with cities, your ability to generate new armies becomes more difficult. On the flip side captured cities provide fewer resources (including Man Power) to the occupier.

    What I have done is provide each nation with a stockpile of Man power at the start of the game relative to what they were capable of historically and what is generated each turn with cities will not even cover the average expenditures for a nation each turn. Thus on the timeline of a game... nations without vast starting reserves will have to be very conscious of their Man Power expenditures each turn.



  • Dear @Hepps, thank you very much!



  • @Hepps, your idea to add generation of manpower through cities with such a clever mechanics looks great! Hope it would bring the gameplay to a new level.


  • Admin

    @Unternehmer You might want to take a look at the Civil War map as it uses a form of manpower to simulate how many armies could be fielded vs how much they could be upgraded to stronger units.


  • Moderators Admin

    @Unternehmer said in Population / manpower:

    @Hepps, your idea to add generation of manpower through cities with such a clever mechanics looks great! Hope it would bring the gameplay to a new level.

    As @redrum points out the idea is really based loosely on what @pulicat had created in Civil War. It is really worth looking at as that game contains a genius level of design.



  • Dear @redrum and Dear @Hepps,
    thanks a lot for the advice to look into the Civil War map. There are many good mechanics implemented there.


Log in to reply