Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
We are going to improve this feature in the next patch, so it will consider all types of units, and also the strength of the units, so 5 divisions with 20% strength will be counted as one division.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

add a line to the upkeep report, stating any current force limit penalty, and how many divisions till the next level of force limit penalty, both down and up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

I think these limits are too low as the don't account for foreign troops.
Plus those foreign troops could have been increased from

Canada
South Africa
Pakistan
India
etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

I agree the limits are low and do not account for Commonwealth Manpower. I think the arbitrary force limit is where the flaw is. The game economics should be used to limit excess forces. Upkeep could vary by unit type by country. The USA and USSR for example with very large manpower pools would not have the manpower crunch UK or Italy would have.

Unfortunately (but necessary for simplicity in the scope of this game) there is not a separation between the three major resource types 1)Mfg goods (equipment) 2)POL (essentially Oil) and 3) Manpower. Each nation had a different mix with strengths and weakness (well the US had pretty much lots of everything)

R&D is really fourth category and has its own 'pool' of scientific talent plus needs for Mfg goods to use on large research projects, but spending more $$ (mfg goods) was not the single driving factor. The Manhattan Project kind of stands alone as the single exception an enormous industrial investment which added little to the war effort... until it changed the game completely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

I agree the limits are low and do not account for Commonwealth Manpower. I think the arbitrary force limit is where the flaw is. The game economics should be used to limit excess forces. Upkeep could vary by unit type by country. The USA and USSR for example with very large manpower pools would not have the manpower crunch UK or Italy would have.

Unfortunately (but necessary for simplicity in the scope of this game) there is not a separation between the three major resource types 1)Mfg goods (equipment) 2)POL (essentially Oil) and 3) Manpower. Each nation had a different mix with strengths and weakness (well the US had pretty much lots of everything)

R&D is really fourth category and has its own 'pool' of scientific talent plus needs for Mfg goods to use on large research projects, but spending more $$ (mfg goods) was not the single driving factor. The Manhattan Project kind of stands alone as the single exception an enormous industrial investment which added little to the war effort... until it changed the game completely.

Indeed, I agree entirely. Whatever you consider PP to represent, ALL the major powers seem to get FAR TOO MANY.

No.

Strike that. They DO get far too many.

It probably isn't possible, but having separate manpower and money/resource/industry costs for each given purchase would go a long way towards solving it


Phil

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Also note the difference in manpower between divisions of different nationalities ... and a difference between nominal (book) manpower and actual manpower maintained (or attempted to be maintained) in the field, and then there's the matter of non-divisional combat units and support units.

For example, as you may well know, the US Army fielded around 90 Divisions in WW2, but it also fielded a number of combat elements of a non-divisional nature of approximately equal manpower ... in effect, fielding around 180 Division equivalents worth of combat units ... and the Americans made a real attempt to keep their combat units close to full strength at all times.

The Germans initially fielded divisions that were 17000 strong (1st Wave), but by mid war they were fielding reduced establishment divisions with only 10-12000 men, and the Germans did not make the same attempts to keep Divisions at full strength that the US did, they preferred to withdraw and rebuild.

The Russians? Nominal Division strength was mostly just that. According to Glantz and House the average strength of a Soviet Rifle Division (not Guards/Shock) in the mid to late war was 3-5000 men, rather than, IIRC, the nominal 10000 or so paper strength.

The Brits had to disestablish some units towards the end of the war because they could not maintain them in the face of casualties.

Then there's the "Division Slice" ... the proportion of Armed Forces manpower represented by each Division (sometimes referred to as the "teeth to tail" ratio) ... much higher for the allied armies which were entirely motorised and lavishly equipped with both combat and non-combat support units than for the Russian and German armies which were largely not motorised and had much leaner supporting forces.

In short, the actual number of divisions fielded is probably a pretty good and reasonably accurate measure of what the nation could have fielded for the *type* of division.

So, for example, if the US had fielded German/Russian style non-motorised infantry divisions, they figured they could have fielded around 450 of them!!! Yet, as noted above, they fielded a nominal 90-100 or so, or double that if nondivisional combat units are counted as well (which they should be).

How to represent this?

Well, somehow there has to be a manpower element/cost in raising each *type* of division. If the US raises a Leg Infantry division, it costs "1" manpower point, while a mechanised or armoured division costs "4" (assuming that the nondivisional combat units are evenly divided amongst all such divisions, and they have greater combat power than a German Mech/Panzer Division), while a German style Panzer/Panzergrenadier Division would cost "2". A British/Commonwealth Armoured Unit would probably cost "3" and a British/Commonwealth Infantry Division "1.5" or "2". Russian Infantry divisions should probably cost "0.5" or "0.75" by that standard, and Russian Armoured/Mech Divisions should probably cost "1.5" to "2".

That's just off the top of my head, FWIW

Phil

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

...

So, for example, if the US had fielded German/Russian style non-motorised infantry divisions, they figured they could have fielded around 450 of them!!! Yet, as noted above, they fielded a nominal 90-100 or so, or double that if nondivisional combat units are counted as well (which they should be).

...

Phil


< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 3/30/2012 3:24:40 AM >

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL
I think the main thing needed is visibility to the player without having to dig for info. If there must be a cap have it affect the purchase price of new units (and splitting existing units of course) still better would be a gradual sliding scale which looks at all units not just infantry units and again once the overall military size gets large start making units (perhaps as simple as all units) progressively more expensive to split reinforce or purchase. The % strength must be a factor but unit level should not. Applying the restriction at the purchase level eliminates the'gotcha' effect. Also rather than not counting armor and mech units (resource hogs for sure) they would be at least counted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL
The US produced about 2.5 MILLION military vehicles during the war NO one needed to walk and well over 300,000 aircraft in case driving was too slow. These are the reasons the US deployed so few 'foot' infantry divisions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

And starting on 6 DEC 41, and completed in time for 2, count 'em, two, bombs by August 1945 ... 3.5 years production/research time.

Phil

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannon Cocker

So what are the limits for each country?
Are those limits constant or do they change over time?