[Global 1940] Manpower Limitations?

[Argothair]

Has anyone seen any interesting house rules to simulate manpower limitations? Like, I’ve heard that Germany was almost completely out of able-bodied men by the end of the war, and that the Soviet Union was down to its last 2 million or so replacements, so that some of its final units in 1945 were lower-quality. Whether or not those specific facts are true, it does seem like there’s more than just an industrial limitation on how many infantry you can produce – at some level, the number of infantry divisions you can put into the field is limited by the number of people who live in your territory. A million men carrying thin rifles in wooden wagons might use only as much industrial capacity as 10,000 men driving steel tanks and burning gasoline – so the infantry-heavy strategy is going to chew through your manpower reserves much more quickly.

Has anyone experimented with rules about manpower restrictions? Like, the cost of infantry goes up after your first 100 units, or after your first 10 units each turn? Or infantry become weaker if you have too many infantry on the map at once, or if you lose too many infantry as casualties? It’s a tricky problem to simulate, and maybe it’s not worth it, but I thought I’d reach out and see how far other people have gotten.

I mainly have Global 1940 in mind for this house rule, but I suppose it could work in other systems, too.

[Imperious Leader]

To not bother keeping track, some unit costs or limits imposed on a specific turn.

Ideas: no player can spend more than 50% of income on Infantry
Or Infantry costs +1 starting turn X

[Caesar-Seriona]

The problem with this house rule is that you can have so many different complex setups for population and manpower for your armed forces. For example, you would have to define what each unit is by number of people. Example, I assume a fighter equals one wing. So is that five pilots? Does that take into account ground personal that upkeep the planes like mechanics? Second, I would prefer it if your cost changed based on your situation via deaths, if I loose 30 infantry so far in my war effect, should the price go up or down? Third, what about defensive total war from desperation? Both the USSR, Germany, and Japan went to complete man power total war status during their near defeats. USSR gave rifles to anyone and everyone, Germany used kids for more indirect role and teens for direct roles in combat. Japan just told their citizens to resists the enemy and fight with whatever you use. How does all of this play?

[Argothair]

I don’t think we have to define any of that to make a good house rule. For gameplay purposes, I’m willing to wave away the casualties on aircraft service crews. The point is that a million people organized around the principle of marching into combat en masse with rifles will take 5x or 50x more casualties than those same million people organized around manufacturing, supplying, training and repairing a small combat corps of tanks and planes. Infantry puts more of a strain on your manpower reserves than any other type of combat unit, so there should (perhaps) be some type of penalty for over emphasizing infantry when you recruit new units. Yes, Germany put teens in combat roles when it got desperate, but those units were not as proportionately effective.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@Argothair:

I don’t think we have to define any of that to make a good house rule. For gameplay purposes, I’m willing to wave away the casualties on aircraft service crews. The point is that a million people organized around the principle of marching into combat en masse with rifles will take 5x or 50x more casualties than those same million people organized around manufacturing, supplying, training and repairing a small combat corps of tanks and planes. Infantry puts more of a strain on your manpower reserves than any other type of combat unit, so there should (perhaps) be some type of penalty for over emphasizing infantry when you recruit new units. Yes, Germany put teens in combat roles when it got desperate, but those units were not as proportionately effective.

You’re missing my point, in order for any house rule on manpower which I admit will be interesting idea. You have to define three critical elements: first; define your nations population to the point that each territory worth of population while also taking into account actual civilian populations that can fight in a war. Second: you have to define piece value in terms of numbers. What is an infantry? Platoon? Company? Regiment? Battalion? Army? Plus do you take into account total work force for the unit? Infantry for example are backed up by a logical corp? Also do you take into account each nations different value of what these units are composed of? US platoon is usually 15-30 men, USSR for example define theirs as 9 men WITH back up of mechanized vehicles. Third: What about cost effectiveness of your units should your male population begins to dry up? I’m not tearing into your idea that it’s bad, it’s not, it just sets up complex rules and needs clarification.

[baron Münchhausen]

In 1942.2, hypothetically you can squizz higher value units if Germany and Russia would have double IPCs economy:
Russia can only built (Moscow IC 8+ Caucasus IC 4=12 units) Max: 36 IPCs
Germany: Italy IC 3+ Berlin 10+ Karelia IC 2. Max: 45 IPCs into Infantry.

So, you have to reduced ICs production cap with Global.
10 per Major should be reduced up to 5 per Major.
Countdown: 11 units minus Rnd nb. 11- G1 = 10 units max.
G1 = 10 units, (G1+10 = 11)
G2 = 9 units,
G3 = 8 units,
G4= 7 Units,
G5= 6 units,
G6= 5 units.

For SBR, just consider additionnal IPC considered as damage. To built, after G6, if maxed out, 15 damage points have to be repaired before paying 1 IPC to build 1 unit.

The only way to increase production would be to built another Major elsewhere.
Minor stay 3 units.

Japan, England, Moscow, might submit to this rule, not India…

[CWO Marc]

@Argothair:

Has anyone seen any interesting house rules to simulate manpower limitations? .

The subject of having a house rule which reflects the concept that nations don’t have limitless supplies of manpower (given that soldiers can be killed off far more quickly than the 18-or-so-year span it takes to replace them from scratch) touches on the larger issue of whether the game should be house-ruled to reflect the general concept of burning through one’s resources (of all types) more quickly than they can be replaced.  There was some discussion of this issue over here…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38191.0

…and in other threads too, I think.  As I recall, the prevailing opinion was that such house rules would tend to favour the Allies, who have more resources to draw on (or at least who did historically).  There were also concerns that it might lead to a scripted game if the game includes a built-in limit that regulates how long nations can fight before collapsing economically.

[Argothair]

Caesar, I’m sorry if I came off as defensive! I do that sometimes, and it’s a bad habit.

That said, I don’t agree with your position that “you have to define three critical elements.” I think we can safely ignore those elements. There’s no standard value for how many men are represented by one infantry piece in A&A, and that’s OK. I think the game is abstract enough that we can let the value of each infantry piece “float” and still try to account for manpower losses with a house rule.

It might be interesting for me if you try to explain why you think those definitions are necessary. What goes wrong if we don’t agree on your definitions? What does it add to the game if we do agree on your definitions?

[Caesar-Seriona]

@Argothair:

Caesar, I’m sorry if I came off as defensive! I do that sometimes, and it’s a bad habit.

That said, I don’t agree with your position that “you have to define three critical elements.” I think we can safely ignore those elements. There’s no standard value for how many men are represented by one infantry piece in A&A, and that’s OK. I think the game is abstract enough that we can let the value of each infantry piece “float” and still try to account for manpower losses with a house rule.

It might be interesting for me if you try to explain why you think those definitions are necessary. What goes wrong if we don’t agree on your definitions? What does it add to the game if we do agree on your definitions?

You don’t have to use my definitions based on what I said. I am simply pointing out that if civilian population effects your ability to buy units, you would then have to define your population which means that China will have the largest advantage of civilian numbers. I like the idea but the complexity of it makes me question the questions I asked. Unless you want to make it basic and say something like, “you can only buy 10 infantry per turn” based on X number of territories.

[Argothair]

I think I’m shooting for something in between those two extremes, Caesar. We have a rough idea of the manpower reserves of each nation – so maybe nations can only purchase X infantry per turn at the low cost of 3 IPCs per unit, and then after that they have to pay a higher cost of 3.5 IPCs or 4 IPCs per unit? And then X can vary by nation based on what we know about the nations’ manpower.

E.g.
China – 20 infantry / turn
Russia – 18 infantry / turn
America – 16 infantry / turn
UK Pacific – 14 infantry / turn
Germany – 12 infantry / turn
Japan – 10 infantry / turn
UK Europe – 8 infantry / turn
Italy, France, ANZAC – 6 infantry / turn

I’m not saying that’s accurate; that’s just an illustration of the level of detail that interests me. Other players might be interested in more detail or less detail than that.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@Argothair:

I think I’m shooting for something in between those two extremes, Caesar. We have a rough idea of the manpower reserves of each nation – so maybe nations can only purchase X infantry per turn at the low cost of 3 IPCs per unit, and then after that they have to pay a higher cost of 3.5 IPCs or 4 IPCs per unit? And then X can vary by nation based on what we know about the nations’ manpower.

E.g.
China – 20 infantry / turn
Russia – 18 infantry / turn
America – 16 infantry / turn
UK Pacific – 14 infantry / turn
Germany – 12 infantry / turn
Japan – 10 infantry / turn
UK Europe – 8 infantry / turn
Italy, France, ANZAC – 6 infantry / turn

I’m not saying that’s accurate; that’s just an illustration of the level of detail that interests me. Other players might be interested in more detail or less detail than that.

Not a bad idea but China and Russia will never have issues because 20 Chinese infantry equal $60, literally larger than the possible total value it can have unless you’re working a rule where China can leave their territories. I think 18 infantry for USSR would be $54 which is larger than it’s own national worth unless it captures Axis territories which the excuse for that is now it has more population to use.