Hard Limits, Soft Limits and Manpower in WWII

[targul]

You could come very close playing CNA (Campaign in North Africa). It does have individual tanks but only goes to squad level so it wont cover individual weapons.

It covers all of Africa and the related highs and lows there.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Several things about the general manpower argument are unconvincing to me. Idealistically, it would seem that you could and should be able to take historical manpower data and equate that to unit strengths and replacements and then proceed to make the numbers match. But it's not that simple in an abstract game like this.

What exactly does a unit strength point represent, and when? A full strength division in 1939 was different in 1942 and different again in 1944 for many countries. Tables of organization changed and that is very difficult to accurately represent in a game.

What exactly does zero strength and unit destruction really mean? If you believe a 15,000-man division and all of its equipment are in fact killed and destroyed, then that's different than zero strength meaning "combat ineffective" where actual unit strength drops below about 50% or so. This stuff is not clearly defined at this abstract level of a grand strategy game.

I can't agree with that. At a strategic level manpower was still a precise and known resource - the British knew, for example, that each division they fielded required 42,000 men for it and all it's supporting and superior formations - there as nothing undefined about it at all.

For a tactical or operational game these details can be better accounted for.

Why's that?

Some strategic games like HOI and now CEAW attempt to model manpower, but these models are abstract and full of questionable assumptions.

Which is still better than not doing it at all IMO.

We know rough figures for some cases - eg various pockets on the Eastern front, and I see no reason why they can't be used as the model.

They provide some sense of accounting for real manpower limits, but they are still abstract and require some micromanagement, either directly by the player or indirectly with additional game code.

Well for heaven's sake what is code for if not to do these things for us?? Saying it requires more code is an argument that can be used against everything in the game!!

[ September 02, 2007, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[pzgndr]

I can't agree with that. At a strategic level manpower was still a precise and known resource - the British knew, for example, that each division they fielded required 42,000 men for it and all it's supporting and superior formations - there as nothing undefined about it at all.

Can't agree? I stated that strength point values and what zero strength means are not clearly defined in the game. They could be, but Hubert has never done so. You are free to interpret those numbers any way you want.

I was not discussing how actual unit strengths and historical manpower data was undefined, only that how those values are represented in a game like this is subject to a lot of interpretation. It remains a very abstract business, whether you attempt to model every nitnoid detail or not.

[Guest Mike]

for clarity I disagree with your idea that they are subject to "a lot of interpretation" - IMO they do not have to be at all - it is entirely possible to overcomplicate teh thing and make it into a monster when ther is no need to do so.

It does not need to be abstracted - it can be founded in very real considerations of population, demographics and manpower policies that are now well known and easily obtained.

Eg see

the manpower chapters of Hyperwar

saying that there aer "nitoids" to be picked is setting up a straw man. There is no such need.

[arado234]

S.O. i was reading about british shortages during the "dark years"and them brits are very lucky the germans didnt go flatout in uboat production,tech.and proper cooperation with the luftwaffe.

[ev]

Originally posted by arado234:

S.O. i was reading about british shortages during the "dark years"and them brits are very lucky the germans didnt go flatout in uboat production,tech.and proper cooperation with the luftwaffe.

British, Germany and Russia were all stretched beyond imagination as far as manpower goes.

Germany lost 46% of its male population in casualties. Any man left between the ages 18-40 was in the armed forces... plus many teens under 18 and more than few men past their 40's.

I've to confirm this number but my recollection is that Russia had something like 28 million casualties, plus another 6 million in the armed forces by the end of the war. Not sure if there were any men to be found somewhere in Siberia.

Manpower shortages were a very major issue for these countries.

Hubert's use of Hard/Soft Limit is extremely valuable element as far as giving a historical context to the game. I just feel more can be done in this area.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by arado234:

S.O. i was reading about british shortages during the "dark years"and them brits are very lucky the germans didnt go flatout in uboat production,tech.and proper cooperation with the luftwaffe.

Yes indeed they were "lucky" in that respect.

What I think most wargamers tend to ignore tho, is that the ability to go "all out" is usually determined by what happened 5 years before hand.

German inter-service rivalry, for example, was firmly rooted in the nature of the Nazi political system, which essentially actively encouraged it to keep the various power blocks busy competing with each other. So you can't change it without actually doing something about the fundamental nature of Naziism....and if you do that then do you have WW2 in the first place??!!

There's a study out somewhere I'll try to find again that concludes that the expansion of German production in 1943-44 has actually little to do with any great change in industrial practice at that time, but was directly caused by increases in investment in the late 30's.

However most games cannot take such a long term view of things!!

found it - here's the abstract:

Armament minister Albert Speer is usually credited with causing the boom in German

armament production after 1941. This paper uses the annual audit reports of the Deutsche

Revisions- und Treuhand AG for seven firms which together represented about 50 % of

the German aircraft producers. We question the received view by showing that in the

German aircraft industry the crucial changes that triggered the upswing in aircraft

production already occurred before World War II. The government decided in 1938 that

aircraft producers had to concentrate on a few different types, and in 1937 that cost-plus

contracts were replaced with fixed price contracts. What followed was not a sudden

production miracle but a continuous development which was fuelled first by learning-bydoing

and then by the ongoing growth of the capital and labor endowment.

[ September 04, 2007, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Yeah, the Buntas could've, shouldn've, would've...

Imagine the Allies bombing civilians senseless as a strategy.

[arado234]

Rambo all is fair in war.Us bombing civilians could be argued was legitimate because better to kill the guy making the weapon than have to face it on the battlefield.

You are right because if the allies could've,should've,would've the Buntas would never have been able to get it started.

[ev]

Originally posted by arado234:

...all is fair in war...

...an often used euphemism often used as a cover up for the unpalatable truth it stands for: that most people throw fairness down the drain in times of war.

So, instead of comfronting the despicable nature of any war act, we kid ourselves into believing that all concepts of fairness suddenly vanished and hence we no longer have to live up to our most basic human values.

[Moonslayer]

War is such a last desperate attempt to protect one's country that it certainly IS a situation where fairness should be abolished. If my country goes to war I expect it to only be for the protection of the state when there is no other course of action possible.

Then and only then would I advocate any and all means necessary to destroy my opponent's ability to hurt me.

I take the same viewpoint when having to physically defend myself against violence from others. Rules cease to be a concern and 'fair play' goes out the window.

Imho war is not despicable... the reasons for going to war may be. War is never an option... but sometimes it becomes necessary for our very survival. Under those circumstances then 'unfairness' becomes perfectly 'fair'.

[arado234]

ev and Moonslayer imo you both are right.There are basic "rules"of war that should never be broken(mass murder of people in occupied countries etc etc).I do think that you fight to win though(within reason).

[Liam]

There is no real rules to war because people can be ruthless to obtain their goals. War as mentioned is the last method in which we obtain our goals when politics are all failed. It's a real real brutal thing, people go as high as SuperBombs that level whole provinces to fists beating each other to death. Since we said, "Oooga Ooga!" 50,000 years ago we've had something to fight over. Whether it be the CaveWench or that BerryPatch... Man will fight because of survival and because of greed. It's coded in his DNA by this point I'd imagine and will take a Supernatural or Genetic Engineering Solution

[Moonslayer]

No need for a solution... we are what we are and I, for one, wouldn't want to change that.

Remove our capability/desire to wage war and you reduce our chances of survival as a species.

[jon_j_rambo]

Yes, the fallen DNA has existed for ~6000 years. This will be changed, until then, praise the Lord & pass the ammunition.

[Exel]

The problem I see with the use of hard limits is that if you lose a unit that's been cut out of supply, you lose the capability to have a similar unit permanently. Lose a tank corps and you're permanently short one tank corps. At least with soft limits you can build another tank corps, just pay somewhat more for it.

And don't argue that it's realistic that way, since the loss of given number of tanks (for example) doesn't impact your capacity to produce submarines, planes or rockets - you just magically lose your ability to produce tanks.

Soft limits make it possible to replace losses but at an ever increasing cost, which is far more logical.

[Desert Dave]

OK, Everybody!

Roll up yer sleeves,

RE-apply that

(... hard practised, in a mirror,

any looking glass will do)

Ham-acting Bad Cat visage

(... who! IS! The Jolly Green

Giant, IE, THE meanest!

em-effer -> in the Valley! :mad: )

Say,

How a REAL tough guy would do, oh,

Hemingway or

Cagney, VN-evading Stallone, and

Likewise as it was with

Dick Cheney

(... Jean Paul Belmondo, in that

borrowed-noir, new-wave French cinema

verite - "Breathless?)

And,

Whilst rotating the forearm,

Point to -> the bicep? And,

Grimace,

Gnash incisors,

Growl.

Eat a large red beach-towel?

LOLOLOL!

Ah,

Ain't we come a long, long, long ways

Since the cave days, uh huh,

Ain't we just!

I prefer this here comment by ev:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by arado234:

...all is fair in war...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...an often used euphemism often used as a cover up for the unpalatable truth it stands for: that most people throw fairness down the drain in times of war.

So, instead of comfronting the despicable nature of any war act, we kid ourselves into believing that all concepts of fairness suddenly vanished and hence we no longer have to live up to our most basic human values.

How does!

That there wry and - ironic?

Aside - go?

"As a Species, we've become smarter

But,

Ack and alas also, not much wiser."

Judging from some of the above

Large, and small muscle flexing,

Sure, 'at's about right.

[jon_j_rambo]

Now that one, I didn't understand!

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Exel:

The problem I see with the use of hard limits is that if you lose a unit that's been cut out of supply, you lose the capability to have a similar unit permanently. Lose a tank corps and you're permanently short one tank corps. At least with soft limits you can build another tank corps, just pay somewhat more for it.

Yes it's a shortcoming of the game design.

In "real life" the only issues with buildign units are do you have 1/ the manpower and 2/ the equipment.

However SC2 does not model these so has to apply a fairly drastic "fudge factor", and you're seeing the shortcomings of that decision in this thread.

Really I don't see any reason why modern wargames need to make these sort of constructs any more - there's enough info out there on production and manpower that yuo can use them or surrogates for them rather than getting all abstract on it.

[Retributar]

'I WholeHeartedly Agree With You!!! ' Stalin's Organist!!!...

" Even Though Million's Of Other's May Not!!! ".

[Liam]

It could be easy to adapt the game to the strategy, have the limits allow the building of units in regards to resources in other words...

I.E. Germany a steele producer can build Big Boats or lots and lots of Tanks. But not Both. Or maybe an equal limit as exists now, gamer's choice...

USSR which has everything can make everything but lacks the organization early to make to many HQs to limit her early Offensives!

UK, Has HQs, has some resources to build some things and if she wants can be build 5 tanks, but at great cost as she will be short on some resources... If an active U-boat campaign is started perhaps double reflect in her build limits along with Germany a dent in her production if a Bomber campaign is pursued

Just thinking how to make it more realistic but not gamebreaking. It's true though UK could built a lot more than a couple of tanks, she focused on Fighters early for airwar domination but later employed a great deal of tanks especially in Egypt.

Lastly a thought is perhaps Build limits on a timetable relative to history... you can build anything virtually if you have the time to do it?

Stocking up in other words much like the Germans did prewar

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Retributar:

'I WholeHeartedly Agree With You!!! ' Stalin's Organist!!!...

Steady there big fella......we don't want to spring too many surprises on the natives!!

[arado234]

S.O.how historically accurate do you want to get?

Do you also want to include ultra,possible alliances,real allied output?They had to draw the line somewhere.If you keep going then the game becomes very complicated and maybe not as appealing to some people.

If you want to get real accurate germany shouldnt be able to replace all her losses after about 1942.After the failed attempt to take russia germany could never make good all her losses.The fact that germany can make good most of her losses right up to 1947 is grossly inaccurate but its in the game for play balance.In the game third reich there is an addition that makes it so germany cant totaly(its based on actual german manpower available) replace her losses and germany has no hope.

[Konigs]

Ok, lets be honest, if soo many stupid decisions were not made, ie no winter equipment for German army in 41, Stalingrad 42, Kursk 43, equipment being replaced at pre war levels of produciotn until 43, the weak attempt to contain Normandy bridegehead in 44 with all armor units leaving 15th army sitting in Pas de Calais, how many of us over man Europe waiting for invasion, too many good males going to AA units and junky Luftwaffe dividions, building all new units and not reinforcing frontline units, too many stand and die orders with no defense in depth on the East front as well as others( How much better would Soviets have been in winter of 41 if they had not lost 3 million soldiers in opening of Barbarossa), El Almaein in 42 also, Manpower would not have been such a big issue for Germany. So by not making same ignorant decisions you have the ability to see what could have really happened. Have a couple of your assualt forces surrounded( couple of armies, corps and an HQ) and see how long you last, stand in the face of an offensive and let your units be surrounded and loose them permanently and watch how quickly Axis falls in this game.

I think this game is closer to accuracy then many think. I mean why does no one Land the BEF in Europe and use them to fight in Early defense of France(Not talking about the Brest option). Because we know from hindsight that they will be slaughtered with the French and any good Axis player will not let them escape like the foolish decision that was made at Dunkirk. Why do we hold back when winter begins in Russia instead of pushing Axis forces to exhaustion like they did in 41. Because it will lead to andearly exit for the Axis thats why.

The concept is to produce a game that allows for eveyone to go through the what if Scenarios. I mean some guys complain about the grab all strategy. Well I hate to say it, except for Spain and the Swiss banks and Swedish ore, Axis conquered all. So read history and learn from it, and take this game for what it is, an excellent game that was developed by and excellent person backed by an excellent beta team and a liked by an excellent group of history, gaming loving group of guys who make this forum a great place to hang out and read and share opinions.

Just my two cents worth. Thanks for your time....

[Liam]

Konigs put it well. I have to go with him on my 2 cents, on both sides the 'what if' scenario is a warn out one. There would be no Allies to produce 10 Xs what the Germans did if they hadn't had such luck. BEF lost in France would've meant little or no opposition to Sea Lion at all, and game over right then and there. In most my games, ironically Germany cannot keep up production with the USA UK Alliance and the game ends in '43 and '44....unless by this point the Axis spearheaded so deeply into the Allies there is too much damage to recover!

Germany had also conquored a lot of territory, there is no reason to believe that ultimately their goals weren't larger. There are a few exceptions... Turkey is a rare exception and to prove it could be taken, the Greeks nearly did it 20 years before WW2 but ultimately the Turks drove them out. Swiss Portugal and Spain not really Axis targets along with Sweden... as these were either Allied or too small of potatoes...

If at a certian timeline Allied and Axis nations sent Tribute to their Masters and there were graver consequences to landgrabbing you could do away with that aspect of the game and make landgrabbing only appealing for tactical strategic moves...

Also as far as Manpower, both WW1 and WW2 revealed a weakness in that with the Germans. It's only a Nation 60 Million Aprox in WW2 even with those who threw their lot in with the Axis, the Fatherland had to rely on High Quality Armed Forces, and they were highly trained men. More rigoriously admittedly then any other WW2 Army aside than the Americans. Best equipped only to the Americans... Also argueably some of the best lead men. Manpower may not have been as big an issue outside of attrittional fronts like the Eastern Front became past Winter of '41. As the High Mobility and newly armored armies of WW2 really changed the face of warfare. Though as the Axis attempt to garrison everything, and conquor everything as far as the Artic Circle things did become tough for them... They had 200,000 men in Norway!!!

It Took the Russians and Western Allies up until 1942 to have an Army worth a damned and up until 1943 until they totally surpassed the Axis... They took much too long for mobilization. Shortfall of their Governments.