Hard Limits, Soft Limits and Manpower in WWII

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by 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.

IMO that's a specious argument - IMO games need to accurately reflect the concerns of the command level you're trying to replicate. If you're doing grand strategy then manpower is a major resource just like production facilities and raw materials - indeed it is the underlying raw material for everything the game represents.

If there can be complicated systems for production then I don't see relatively simple systems for manpower being an added complication - instead they are added depth.

I hear stuff about ultra in WAW....so perhaps....

ff you want to get real accurate germany shouldnt be able to replace all her losses after about 1942.

Well that would depend on how each game went, wouldn't it!!

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.

Yes - I understand that, and the need to cater to the masses who can't handle the actual limitations that Germany had.

But it persists me off that I have to put up with a system dumbed down to that level.

[Desert Dave]

But it persists me off that I have to put up with a system dumbed down to that level.

LOL, know JUST how you feel,

Kinda how the ever-fluctuant

System named... "science,"

And/or "progress @ ANY cost"

Does dastardly things to me. :eek:

[... what DO you do, Dudes, when

logic & proportion

have fallen sloppy dead? When the White

Knights talking backwards, and

The Red Queen's - off with her head! LOL!]

Nice play on words there, BTW.

"Persists me off." :cool:

Thing is THIS:

You are immensely more likely

To -> at long last, and actually

GET that great WW2 GS game... here,

Than you are at enny a'them

Exploitive rip-off places like Matrix

Or Slithering-Snake, or who the hell

Else is out-putting junk.

So long as we don't succumb

To the temptation

To have the game MERELY or even,

MOSTLY... for the head-hunters.

New!

Game buyers ain't give a rat's whiskers

Whether the game is precisely "balanced"

For a hand-full of -> uber competers.

A billion humans in China don't

Care who gives testimonial, eh?

It NEEDS be, more, a game for ALL

Them crazed and antic Cats what plays

It out solo.

IMHO.

Modding it to be EXACTLY how they like it,

If necessary.

Lucky for us!

We got a guy who provides the sort of Editor

Where you can do - damn near - anything! :cool:

"Ultra?"

You can mimic it but, not

Perfectly duplicate it.

[SeaMonkey]

Wow, from hence great wisdom flows.

No doubt SO is right, idealistically so, long have I been a proponent of a manpower pool.

Mirrored my thoughts, Konigs.

I think we all here know, as DD has alluded to, that SC is our best bet to realize the game we are all after.

Boastingly, I recognized that fact a few years ago in the midst of SC, the original version. Can't say exactly when that revelation hit me, but it did, and I have remained here for awhile as the evolution of SC has not been disappointing.

I believe SO is also in possesion of that conclusion and that is why he remains a staunch critic, admiringly so.

So...where we are going is unknown to certain extent by the rest of us, excluding the Master and the betas, but generally in the right direction.

Let us see how WaW unfolds and I'm sure our forum will be alive with intelligent ideas for the future versions.

Just remember we are a team of thought provokers.

So......provoke!

[ev]

...OK. It seems many of us agree manpower was a very important issue for England, Germany and Russia. And, many but not all of us agree SC would be a better game if it somehow incorporated this element.

The oppossition is concerned, and rightly so, that manpower pooling could be overcomplicated and detract from the game experience.

At this point, I would like to return to one of the suggestions I made at the start of this thread: Instead of manpower pooling, set up a soft limit on combat stregth replacement per turn. If you try to replace to many strength points in a single turn, your costs go up for the reminder of that turn.

It is a halfway measure. But it is simple to code, simple to AI, simple for the players to manage, and it gets you at least some sense that manpower is precious and limited.

[SeaMonkey]

On the right track ev. Maybe we should discuss the relevancy of SC's MPP.

Is this defined as a Military Production Point?

I believe that is what my SC1 manual states. Perhaps this manpower issue is actually defined in that parameter, or should be?

I'm sure HC meant for MPPs to be associated with the manpower limitations, the argument seems to be that we need a more specific implementation.

Then again this parameter is full of intangibles even though there are historical records to define the limits. One thing that comes to mind is Major nations' diplomatic and/or conquest policies for minors regarding potential population increases available for military inscription.

There are probably others. Seems to me that perhaps we have not dwelt within the complications of the MPP values for each Major as was originally envisioned by the creator.

A lot of SC water has flowed underneath the bridge since the original questions were imposed in this regard. Perhaps HC should wish to reiterate his position?

[Konigs]

Right on target Sea Monkey. The MPPs already include manpower to some extent.

EV, there are many times in SC2 where I have over extended Axis armies and can not replenish all my units to full power on all fronts and the build screeen shows no new units coming. Then not only do I have to decide where to replenish, but what types of units, do I need to do air to keep reducing defensive positions, Tanks for that punishing assault, or Infantry as the initiative has passed on a front and I need to man up my defenses.

Only the most skilled players, hate to bring it up, but Terif has alluded to it many times, know they have to chose their battle fields carefully and commit an overwhelming force to complete the objective for that front. Has been said many times, Aixs can not conquer and hold all at same time. Thus their manpower limitations. It is up to the Allied player to hit and run axis early to soak off points and reduce the Axis tidal wave of 39-42. IE, know your enemy and hit him where he is weak and he will have to op units thus reducing his ability to keep the initiative. If Allies are not able to take initiative away some time in 43 and dictate the war on thier terms, usually will lead to an Axis victory. many times early on against some old time players(see my PL file, also add mirror against Rambo) I would loose a couple of units in France and maybe NA before Barbarossa. These add up huge and like interest, compound the later manning issues on the East Front. Because instead of adding fresh units to your experienced cadre, you adding green units to a reduced cadre thus another example of manpower being used in this game. Remember the conquest of countries did not only add thier economies to the axis, but the also added manpower to the Axis war machine. Everybody likes a winner and many fought for the Germas until the tide turned.Thus the grab all strategy that is used by those good enough to time the conquest and not have a late Bararossa, again shows and effect for manning. As they have added MPPs, which represent not only goods and money, but also Manpower.

Stalin's Organist, I ask you, as you seem to come up with many amazingly accurate data for WW2, which you use to defend your positions, how many foriegners were part of the Axis forces during the war?

Again just adding in my two cents, please I do not aim to step on toes, just love the debate....

[ September 07, 2007, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Konigs ]

[arado234]

S.O.if im reading correct you say that since this is a strategic game that manpower, ind.tech.raw materials represent the inner workings of the game and should be more accurate?If you were to set them historically accurate then wouldnt germany be dead prettywell every time?

[ev]

I understand the argument that MPP may include Manpower as a component of Military Production. However, my point is that the British, Germans and Russians were far short on manpower. They all could produce more weapons than men.

Take Germany's sixth army. Germany did not seem to have any problem replacing the equipment lost in Stalingrad. But Germany could ill afford the men lost there.

Furthermore, part of my argument is that Germany's military production suffered because of heavy drafting of men to the armed forces. The British and the Russians had suffered similar experiences. If a player takes unduly high casualties, and has to constantly replace them, he should likewise suffer some sort of penalty.

A soft limit on replacements per turn would achieve the goal of penalizing unduly high levels of combat losses.

A soft limit on replacements per turn is the obvious extension of the current hard/soft limits. What is the point on having a limit on the total number of units a country can field, and yet allow for unlimited replacements?

If manpower is not an issue, why not let MPP's take care of everything? Why do we have hard/soft limits that prevent the Axis players from building more infantry units instead of building more carriers, battleships, cruisers, or even subs?

[arado234]

ev one of the big reasons russia was so short of manpower is they kept doing stupid things with them(getting them wiped out in pointless attacks and defences).If they had been lead better(stalin listened to zhukov)and didnt try to hold places where they had no hope they wouldnt have been so short of men.Remember most of germanys motorised equipment wasnt designed to handle the harsh russian terrian.Russias shortage wasnt manpower it was lack of leadership.

What you say about soft build limits makes total sense(maybe there could be some sort of "punishment"for having to replace so many losses) but if you go historically accurate the germans are doomed.IMO i think the game is this way for play balance only.You could also argue that if you want a historically accurate manpower pool then you should also want a historically accurate raw material pool etc ,etc.(goodbye germany)

[Guest Mike]

Arado - yes, Germany would be dead every time....it woudl be a matter of how long it took to kill them that determined who "won". I've said as much for years, but it's not a popular position!

Russia wasn't short on manpower...at least no more so than anyone else. they lost how many million in 1941, and yet increased the size of the army to 5 million by the end of the year IIRC? (From recollection - I've just finished "When Titans Clash" by Glantz)

And they increased the number of men and women under arms every year thereafter, despite heavy losses.

They couldn't keep it up forever of course, and they were sweeping up all males in areas newly reconquered to keep those numbers up....but they never actually ran out even tho divisions might be only 25% of authorised strength - essentially they kept their eye on the goal at hand and put resources where they were required, ignoring peripheral areas.

[ September 09, 2007, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]