Manpower should be Bought and Sold

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Manpower should be Bought and Sold

      I feel like Manpower should be included as a buyable and sellable resource and if your going to ask it's not possible to buy and sell manpower just think about mercenaries and how they get "bought" and "sold". I don't know if I should start a poll or not to see if everyone agrees so let me know if you want me to start a poll on this issue.

    • While I like the idea, manpower is something I'm rarely lacking. Really the only purpose that would serve is early game.
      Ethics on that matter is a bit shaky as well.
      General Nightman

      Retired Hero


      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."

    • Selling manpower would mean that you can sell your manpower to players who sooner or later will become your enemy. So you would actually help them expanding their army. It would be cool though if you could trade manpower with your coalition members.

      I only have problems with manpower in the early game. When you build barracks where you have industrial complexes they will produce more manpower when the barracks are not disabled. Second way to increase manpower is to expand your provinces, with more territory you will produce more money and manpower.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • First of all mercenaries where never bought or sold only slaves fit that category.

      Merceneries were hired for certain time periods or specific objectives. Also they were a double edged sword as they would switch loyalties frequently to the highest bidder so to say they were unreliable is putting it very mildly.

      As to the idea of trading manpower I fail to see the point, strategically its a bad idea, I never trade any extra food or oil I may be producing and I would never trade extra manpower should it become an option.

    • Similar to BMfox, I think manpower should be transferable among players. Not only coalition members but also other players on the map. Though yes, the odd possibility then arises that a player ends up fighting his own country born men sooner or later.

      Maybe rebelions among your own troops and that they join the enemy could be programmed in for these situations?

    • man·pow·er
      /ˈmanˌpou(ə)r/
      noun
      1. the number of people working or available for work or service."the police had only limited manpower
      manpower can't be traded without taking men from your land and giving them to someone else, which is just using mercenaries.

      if you want to trade Mercenaries, head to New World Empires. they have an entire tree toward mercenaries.
      FORUM GANG WARRANT OFFICER
      "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
      KNOW THE RULES!
      Call of War Game Rules
      Call of War Forum Rules
      Terms of Service

      attacker 101
      Call of War Player
      EN Server | Bytro Labs Gmbh

    • Slavery:

      Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy, sell or trade other individuals, as a de jure form of property.

      Ergo as I explained previously by definition mercenaries do not fit this profile as they are not traded by nations, they do not belong to nations, but can be hired by them.

      Having said that the closest thing that resembles what you are asking for is an expeditionary force.There are many such examples throught history where a military outfit belogning to one nation is sent to fight under another nation's chain of command. Examples that come readily to mind are the Eagle squadron and the Flying tigers, which were American volunteer pilots who fought during WW2 in the battle of Britain and in China respectively.

      However this can already be simulated in game as we are allowed to trade units with allies up to a certain percentage of army per day. Now if you still want to trade raw manpower see above as thats the very definition of slavery.

    • Not really though. It is true that entire units of a certain country have been part of the chain of command in another army. Like how with operation market garden there were also a couple of Polish regiments, though equiped with britisch material. Also, the invasion in Italy was supported by countries like Brazil by sending both mainly land and air power. The tanks they used were american.

      Point is that throughout history there are plenty of examples where you can say that a country send mostly nothing but manpower. Depends on how you look at things and where you draw the line I guess.

    • Regardless as previously stated the function of trading units alteady exists in game. So if you lack manpower and have allies ask them to produce units for you and sell them to you.

      If you want to trade manpower on the stock exchange its the very definition of slavery and no there is no other way to see it.

    • Kanaris wrote:

      Regardless as previously stated the function of trading units alteady exists in game. So if you lack manpower and have allies ask them to produce units for you and sell them to you.

      If you want to trade manpower on the stock exchange its the very definition of slavery and no there is no other way to see it.
      Transferring manpower between players is different then giving units. When you give units you do not only give resources + manpower, production time is a part of this equation that you might not want, or be able to give with it. There are plenty of situations thinkable when this would be the case. This does mean that you leave manpower out of the stock exchange. I never said that this was the plan to be had.

      Although, just for the sake of it. I do not necessarily see a problem with manpower in the stock exchange. This just a game after all. The manpower in the game already does not have a choice in becoming a teacher or doctor or whatever. They are all drafted in what could be called a slave army. In fact many of them are merely recruited to serve suicide missions at the will of their dictator (the player). So there is little use for pointing to what slavery is outside of the game since the manpower discussed here is just another resource in a game. Though due to representing reality I agree that the market is a little weird for manpower to be. Though manpower should/could be transferable between players.

    • Clearly you are making alot of assumptions about things that are not explicitly described in the game. For instance you assume the number represented by manpower is exclusively conscripted personel. I choose to beleive otherwise as the majority of the men who gave their lives to fight tyranny did so willingly.

      In many countries volunteers swramed the recruting offices before draft measures could even be put in effect, before even a state of war existed between theirs and rival nations. In some countries, abeit not many, conscription never went into effect and it was a pure volunteer army.

      While you describe some tyrannical, despotic, megalomaniacal, belligerent ruler sending his citizens to be slaughtered in suicide missions, I choose to believe in something better. While you have every right to believe whatever you want to believe please do not impose your views on the rest of us. Advocating for manpower to become a tradable commodity on the stock exchange does precisely that and desecrates the memory of those that died so that we can have a better life today. These people like my grandparents deserve better even if this is just a game some things are too disgusting to suggest even in games.

      Thank you

    • As for gameplay:

      I find the idea of trading manpower just an easy exploit of the AI: they will trade their manpower at the start of the game, as they do for everything else, and this will eliminate one of the challenges of the early game (where it is probable to be lacking manpower, unless you slaughter your troops).

      As for history now:

      Yes, trading manpower sounds crude and incorrect. Unfortunately, even more so is the idea that you can get manpower by conquering other countries. Since manpower is clearly meaning the ability to form new troops, the conquests clearly will never affect it so much (yes, a few people from other countries may come to WORK for the conqueror, either by been directly forced or by having no other means of survival), but that will never effectively double your manpower, as so easily happens in the game. Still, we all accept as "game rule" this fact, although it contradicts reality (and don't tell me about brigades from occupied countries, as they were few, generally untrustworthy, and of low fighting value). This is in direct contrast with the high-value volunteer units that fought on their own will for a cause they considered just. History is simple: people are willing to sacrifice their life for freedom, but not for a conqueror.

      Yet, the game mechanism is like that, no matter how badly it looks for some of us (and certainly, in that subject national history plays a far from minor role). If trading manpower would add some value to the gameplay, making it more challenging, I would be willing to forget how badly it sounds. Since it is just a means to simplify the early game, it can easily be avoided: just give some more manpower as a starter and no need for that "trade".

    • Basically, to sum it up:
      • It's Slavery- The ethics are horrible
      • Game Mechanics- There is no use for this feature except in early game, which would make it all too easy.
      General Nightman

      Retired Hero


      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."

    • Kanaris wrote:

      Clearly you are making alot of assumptions about things that are not explicitly described in the game. For instance you assume the number represented by manpower is exclusively conscripted personel. I choose to beleive otherwise as the majority of the men who gave their lives to fight tyranny did so willingly.

      In many countries volunteers swramed the recruting offices before draft measures could even be put in effect, before even a state of war existed between theirs and rival nations. In some countries, abeit not many, conscription never went into effect and it was a pure volunteer army.

      While you describe some tyrannical, despotic, megalomaniacal, belligerent ruler sending his citizens to be slaughtered in suicide missions, I choose to believe in something better. While you have every right to believe whatever you want to believe please do not impose your views on the rest of us. Advocating for manpower to become a tradable commodity on the stock exchange does precisely that and desecrates the memory of those that died so that we can have a better life today. These people like my grandparents deserve better even if this is just a game some things are too disgusting to suggest even in games.

      Thank you
      I notice you only responded to the second part of my post. The first part was the most inportant part according to myself though.
      Since you reacted only to the second part I take that to mean that it is important to you. Especially since you make mention of your grandparents in regard to lives lost for our freedom. Please know that I know full well that I owe my way of life to those that fell in the second world war.

      It seems that we are both making assumptions as to what manpower represents within the game. You can look at manpower in any way you want. Though I would be cautious to link it to anything in our real world. I look at manpower in the game from a game perspective. Meaning to me, it is a resource. The dictator I mentioned was more meant to be a laugh than anything else (since some players send their units into certain death). And I surely meant not to be offensive.

      I doubt I am imposing my views on anyone by venting my perspective. Those that think that I am might be a tad sensitive to written words in general. I am asuming that everyone here is able to think for themselves, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

      I am not advocating for manpower being sellable in the market. Just that it can be traded between players (human players).
      IF manpower is to be a commodity in the market however, I do not think it would be all that strange. With a little fantasy one could think of one government paying another government a sum of money to be able to draft from their pool of manpower. Would not necessarily mean that slavery would be brought into the game according to myself.

    • This is just up for debate and really the mercenaries was the only way I could make the idea of manpower being "bought" and "sold" not sound like a form of slavery. I actually did not expect this much debate on this I just found it odd that all the other resources had a buy and sell option and not manpower. If you feel like getting more technical with this then call it something else to justify buying and selling manpower.

      This part here is mainly my opinion of the willingness people and how I would prefer leaving the game and leaving the historical/modern world to be two different things.

      The concept of the game is really only tyranny and can be seen in no other higher light. Without having any kind of parliament or democracy (it's just too technical for this game) there is no real way of being this perfect ruler. Your way of justifying that men are giving their lives willingly can be clouded with the use of propaganda and human morals. WW1 is a great example as it was a era were war was Romanticized and every single person was dying just to get to the front of the battlefield. If your Son doesn't want to become a soldier and dishonor the family well whip him till he is more then willing to kill the enemy on the battlefield.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by BMfox: I removed the part of the holocaust, we will not go down this road. Thanks for understanding. ().

    • There have been two debates on the topic:
      Game mechanics and the real life implications.
      The whole point of a forum is to discuss all angles of a topic.

      I have dealt with the game mechanics, I leave real life to others, though I am huge fan of history and WW2. ;)
      General Nightman

      Retired Hero


      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."

    • Edepedable wrote:

      I notice you only responded to the second part of my post. The first part was the most inportant part according to myself though.
      Oh no you are very very wrong. I have been replying to you and to everyone else for that matter on that exact point you are simply unable or unwilling to hear me.

      So I will try to be as clear as possible. Trading manpower between nations is the very dfinition of slavery which is something I abore and am unwilling to consider as a viable option in a game. There is enough ugliness in this world I fail to see the need to import it in something that is supposed to be a game.

      Manpower in this game is used for any type of unit to be trained, be it land, sea or air units you need manpower to produce it. You do no necessarily need all the other resources to produce some units but a combination or resources; only manpower is universal to all units. Also manpower per hour production can be augmented by the construction of barracks so I think its safe to assume that manpower is composed by the nation's citizens. Furthermore the per hour production rate of manpower in any given province is a directly correlated to the population of said province in a sime formula that I have figured out. So you can dress it up anyway you like but trading citizens = slavery there is no other lawful possibility.

      Does slavery exist in real life? Absloutely! Do people get traded like cattle even in our modern so called civilized times? Unfortunately it happens every day in many parts of this planet. Thankfully I had the privilege to grow up in a nation where people gladly gave up their lives to ensure it doesnt happen to their children. Do I feel the need to have this ugly reminder every time I try to enjoy a game of CoW? I rather not. If by your morale compass this is an ok thing to do then I feel sorry for you.

      As its impossible for me to be any clearer this will be my last post in this matter. Needless to say should such an option ever be implemented and manpower becomes tradable then I guess I will have to move on to a different game.