ORIGINAL: mdsmall
The Strategic Command game system takes into account many factors, but the devs have chosen (up till now) not to introduce further limits on strategic resources, such as manpower or oil. So the only strategic constraints to production in the game are the MPP limits and the build limits per unit type for each Major.
For all the reasons cited above by stockwellpete, I think it would make a big difference to the WW1 game, especially in 1917-18, to start to introduce manpower constraints on new or rebuilt units. It would make the game not only more realistic but also more interesting to play. It would certainly make the arrival of fresh U.S. troops that much more significant a factor on the Western Front.
In theory, there are lots of different ways that manpower constraints could be introduced into the game once a manpower threshold had been reached. This could include:
- Increasing the MPP cost of reinforcements for existing units
- Reducing the maximum amount which units can be reinforced to levels below 10, even if fully supplied
- Increasing impact on unit morale of strength point losses and reducing the morale benefit of new replacement points added
- Increasing the MPP cost of rebuilding destroyed units
- Raising the supply threshold below which destroyed units can only be rebuilt at full cost (i.e. above 5 supply)
- Starting rebuilt units at a lower initial morale level
- Lengthening the production time for rebuilt or new units
An interesting way of triggering some of these measures would be to introduce for each Major a "whole campaign" build limit for infantry and cavalry units. This limit would track the total number of units built or rebuilt over the duration of the game, and not just the number on the board or in production at any given time. Once a Major had reached its campaign build limit, new conscription measures would have to introduced via a DE to increase that build limit, which would come with significant loss of National Morale, increased risk of demonstrations and strikes, along with several of the above constraints on building or rebuilding units. If the increased build limit was reached, there could be further rounds of conscription proposed in subsequent Decision Events (similar to the DE for expending MPPs to raise National Morale), triggering even collateral bigger effects.
I'd be interested to hear other players views on these ideas - especially people who have designed or played mods in any of the Strategic Command games where manpower constraints were a factor.
I think it's worth mentioning that in real life the allies never came close to inflicting more casualties on the germans in any year, than could be made up by that years class of recruits.
In other words, the attrition strategy never came close to working.
The manpower shortages some countries experienced weren't caused by casualties. They were caused by bad decisions regarding the allocation of manpower. Certain countries tried to have armies to large for their population base. They didn't leave enough manpower to man the factories and especially in Germanys case, to work the land. This was a major factor in the blockade causing a famine in Germany in 1918.
One of the purposes of build limits in the game, is to reflect that a country can only allocate so much manpower to the armed forces. If you were to try to implement manpower in the game, in any kind of realistic way, you'd have to have it set up that you would allocate so much manpower to industry, so much to agriculture, and so much to the military. Then your military force structure would be limited by the manpower that you allocated. It would make the game much more complicated.
Also it should be mentioned that when a unit is severely damaged or even destroyed, that doesn't mean that all the manpower, or even a large part of it are causalities. It just means that the unit is no longer combat effective.
PS. I am currently playing a game as the entante against the AI CP set to the very highest difficulty. I haven't seen the kind of unit congestion pictured above.