Manpower/units

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

    • I agree with the OP. I think manpower needs a major boost. As spain it is day 5 and I am reaching the ceiling of my manpower potential. With only around 21 infantry regiments its getting slower and slower to produce new units that need manpower even with high tier barracks. Not much incentive to produce any more high manpower cost infantry. More manpower everywhere on the map is needed to allow for larger and more varied armies. Manpower should honestly not even be much of an issue unless the player decides to mass produce infantry or especially militia.

    • Im not really using my man power up that much, but then Im not in any major wars yet. I guess for manpower to actually be a thing its got to be able to effect the game, and limiting recruitment seems legit.

      Perhaps its because we've all played sup1914 for so long we are used to massive stacks being thrown at each other, I think this game is aiming at something else with its various unit types, terrain and research levels. The point is that you cant spam units and the game doesnt want you to rely on it as a/the tactic.

    • We will look into manpower balancing again.
      Probably we will increase it by 25% (or reduce the maintenance costs for infantry and militia by ~50%).

      Manpower is a way to limit the spawning of cheap (but quite strong) infantry vs more technologically advanced units. It also limits the maximum army size, so in games where players are rather inactive, armies do not grow so big.

    • I think what is needed is that manpower can be effectively be increased over the game. and this should be achieved improving the bonus for higher tier of barracks (25% for T5 is really too low)
      Also a "secret" tecnology to increase manpower can be interesting as it allows to have small amies at the start of the game, but allow them to increase over time.

    • going back to this as ive played enough to decide, i now have 46 light tanks and 16 infantry in 1 of my games, im doing ok on manpower but only because im producing light tanks, if i was recruiting infantry i would've had a problem, even with light tanks i am running out (the maximum army) but clearly this shows that its much easier to mass produce tanks and possible, there are many cities on the map so light tanks have the advantage in many provinces as better units. most of my other games are the same, building light tanks, or some other low manpower unit, infantry are too expensive to be able to use and also dont have the speed of light tanks.

    • Lukebnm wrote:

      going back to this as ive played enough to decide, i now have 46 light tanks and 16 infantry in 1 of my games, im doing ok on manpower but only because im producing light tanks, if i was recruiting infantry i would've had a problem, even with light tanks i am running out (the maximum army) but clearly this shows that its much easier to mass produce tanks and possible, there are many cities on the map so light tanks have the advantage in many provinces as better units. most of my other games are the same, building light tanks, or some other low manpower unit, infantry are too expensive to be able to use and also dont have the speed of light tanks.

      That is ludicrous, it is ahistorical to the nth degree. Infantry should be the CHEAP units, the mechs should be the expensive and difficult to build units as it is in Supremacy. Otherwise you might as well just call the units orcs, trolls and dragons and supply the requisite unit icons, because any game that allows you to spam light tanks over infantry is just a fantasy game.

    • Zarathustra wrote:

      We will look into manpower balancing again.
      Probably we will increase it by 25% (or reduce the maintenance costs for infantry and militia by ~50%).

      Manpower is a way to limit the spawning of cheap (but quite strong) infantry vs more technologically advanced units. It also limits the maximum army size, so in games where players are rather inactive, armies do not grow so big.
      Well it's good to hear you are considering a rebalancing, but why would you want to "limit the spawning of cheap infantry"? Infantry are the backbone of any army, they are supposed to be the most easily spawned units. I am alarmed by reports of players spamming mechs because they cannot build sufficient infantry, that is the reverse of the historical situation and if that is going to be the paradigm then it's no longer a WWII game, it's a fantasy game. You might as well add magic spells if you are going to dispense with authenticity to that degree.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Joe Bentleigh ().

    • Zarathustra wrote:

      We will look into manpower balancing again.
      Probably we will increase it by 25% (or reduce the maintenance costs for infantry and militia by ~50%).

      Manpower is a way to limit the spawning of cheap (but quite strong) infantry vs more technologically advanced units. It also limits the maximum army size, so in games where players are rather inactive, armies do not grow so big.
      Taking a second bite at this ... I still don't understand why you would want to "limit the spawning of ... infantry" since infantry are supposed to be the cheap-to-spawn unit. But having played a little longer, it does seem to me that you just can't spawn enough infantry ATM. If I were currently to simply garrison my present borders with just one infantry unit per province, that would cost me about 30 infantry or almost half my total army. So, reducing the maintenance costs for infantry and militia sounds like a good idea - though I would go further and make militia maintenance lower than that of infantry, because right now there is NO reason to ever build a militia unit.

      I think I would also introduce manpower maintenance for AFVs - it makes no logical sense that they wouldn't require manpower the same as infantry, and would ensure that players can't just spawn heaps of AFVs in place of infantry as some players are reportedly doing.

    • Why not change the way we think about infantry units. Let's treat them like the AFV with a predetermined size. A unit in garrison has no manpower requirements because they are not fighting, but a unit in contact would have a manpower requirement proportional to their losses, just like the AFVs. I don't think it would be that difficult because the script is already in use for the AFVs. I am currently serving and I know of no infantry unit in the world that loses 100 men out of 1250 every day in garrison. In contact, that is an entirely different story.

      I also agree that AFVs should have a manpower requirement to repair lost morale because it takes humans to drive and crew the tanks, howitzers, anti-tank, etc.
      "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
      GEN William Tecumseh Sherman

    • Migh migh, where do your problems with manpower all come from?
      Is it, that you want a unit NOW and can't get it NOW? Is that it?

      I am playing 4 maps, 4x I am nr1 and all 4 times (Turkey, France, Spain, Sweden) I managed my manpower issues.
      That is part of the game: to MANAGE your economy, army etc.

      In every map I have problems of varying sorts, which makes the game interesting. But manpower? It definitely is not the issue I am worried most about.

      I simply sort he provinces on manpower production and build barracks where they yield the most and as these provinces reach higher levels of barracks, I move further down the list.

      What is really cumbersome, is all the maintenance I pay for buildings that I 'get for free' in conquered provinces and that are completely and utterly useless, but cant be diasbled. That is a real problem. I mean, who would build factories, roads, airfields and really the whole lot in Le Havre?? But some very 'interesting' people do...

      But manpower a problem??? Really, it is not.

    • i didnt have the problem weeks ago either....before they changed anything. it is about the player running his country well.

      but, when it proves too difficuly for the 'Average Joe', heck, the devs make it easier (...making the game less interesting)

      Manpower was not an issue for anyone who can add 1 & 1 together

    • _Pontus_ wrote:

      i didnt have the problem weeks ago either....before they changed anything. it is about the player running his country well.

      but, when it proves too difficuly for the 'Average Joe', heck, the devs make it easier (...making the game less interesting)

      Manpower was not an issue for anyone who can add 1 & 1 together
      it was not an issue, i could easily build light tanks and not have a problem.. the issue was that infantry were impossible to build as they cost 1500 manpower.. so they made it so infantry were actually useful..

    • how much inf do you need? they are only present in the main army for city attacks (at beginning). light tanks take unmanned provinces, because of their mobility Inf is totally useless for that as they are way too slow.

      unlike s1914, you dont need inf either, for garrissoning provinces. so, where is the inf useful? in cities and mountains.

      but, yes, if you would like to see more inf in the game, then it should be made more attractive.
      however, as soon as you have motorized/mechanzied inf, the manpower cost goes down fast and almost all my army by that time consists of motorized/mechanized inf.

      so, it really is only an issue very early on in the game for those who dont build barracks