The Case of the Missing Manpower

[M60A3TTS]

I was doing some number crunching in my PBEM game vs. jubjub and came up with some numbers that don't quite make sense. In looking at manpower gains through production and reported losses, the base numbers would indicate my army should be growing. In fact it was shrinking.

Let's start with at least my basic understanding of a couple items.

First, how manpower is generated. This is the amount coming from manpower centers with a certain multiple factored in, plus 1% of the disabled pool, plus 25% of the transit pool each week. From weeks 90-100 I generated a total of 1,167,038 manpower using this formula.

Second, the manpower losses shown on the metrics screen reflect those on the regular loss screen. By tracking the cumulative losses week by week, I suffered 893,606 losses.



Putting these two numbers together, I should have had a net manpower increase of 273,432 men over that time. Instead, the size of the army shrank.



I have to conclude therefore, that there is some element of casualty reporting that is not clearly displayed somewhere. I am wondering if that isn't the manpower from damaged ground elements of which 60% go to the transit pool and 40% to the disabled pool. You would think the appropriate numbers are factored in during the logistics phase, including the 1% of the transit pool that goes from disabled to KIA, but maybe not. In any case the latter wouldn't explain my issue.

Thoughts?

[gingerbread]

This is labeled Conjecture.
Returning disabled are included in the turn losses. Some AAR entries shows a negative number of lost disabled - more returning than lost.
Take the T94 Ground losses you published July 11. There are 47 820 lost, but that includes the 27 000 or so returned. The gross lost disabled is 75 000.

90 to 100 is 11 turns so roughly 300k.

[M60A3TTS]

This is labeled Conjecture.

Based on your explanation, sounds like bookkeeping more than conjecture.

[Wiedrock]

Returning disabled are included in the turn losses.

Not sure if I can follow, but that's not the case.
Disabled that leave the DISabled Pool get substracted from the turn's "Manpower Losses" graph, since they end their casualty status.
Those that die from the Disabled are not being accounted for in this graph in any way (because the graph shows casualties and they have been casualties before already).

I have to conclude therefore, that there is some element of casualty reporting that is not clearly displayed somewhere. I am wondering if that isn't the manpower from damaged ground elements of which 60% go to the transit pool and 40% to the disabled pool. You would think the appropriate numbers are factored in during the logistics phase, including the 1% of the transit pool that goes from disabled to KIA, but maybe not. In any case the latter wouldn't explain my issue.

Somewhat sure that the Transit Pool is counted as "alive and well" and the few that still die there are simply added on top normally on the losses during the logistics.

First, how manpower is generated. This is the amount coming from manpower centers with a certain multiple factored in, plus 1% of the disabled pool, plus 25% of the transit pool each week. From weeks 90-100 I generated a total of 1,167,038 manpower using this formula.

Hence I'd argue this is wrong. Ignore the Transit and only look at the total "Manpower Pool".
And as said, the returning guys are substracted from the Losses graph which you use (also see following Post).

[Wiedrock]

Maybe this helps.

You can share the "L"osses Screen form the two turns, then we may figure it out.

[gingerbread]

Disabled that leave the DISabled Pool get substracted from the turn's "Manpower Losses" graph, since they end their casualty status

Yes, that means that the T94 gross losses is actually 180k, not 153k. If the 153k figure is used (which M60 did to get 894k total), 1% of disabled pool should NOT be included in manpower generated since that would be counting them twice when calculating the net. 273k is to high.

[Wiedrock]

Yes, that means that the T94 gross losses is actually 180k, not 153k. If the 153k figure is used (which M60 did to get 894k total)

Now I got you. yep.

....altough the Casualties shown again include newly Disabled, so they will come back 66%....accounting braindamage ...

[Wiedrock]

I think you need to look at the
1. Manpower Pool total comparison TX and TY
2. "L"osses screen comparison of TX and TY
3. Add up new produced manpower for the 10(11?!) turns.
4. Look for fresh "Reinforce-Scheduled" Units (some of which have Manpower).
5. Losses TBs comparison TX and TY

....then it may fit
....for Germans it's more complicated due to HIWI and multiple Axis, all ending in the same Disabled Pools and being spread around (including the HIWI Manpower that gets Disabled afaik).

[M60A3TTS]

If I suffer 28,000 casualties during the logistics phase and get back 32,000 from the disabled pool, does that mean that my attrition losses were actually 60,000 or am I oversimplifying things?

[Wiedrock]

If I suffer 28,000 casualties during the logistics phase and get back 32,000 from the disabled pool, does that mean that my attrition losses were actually 60,000 or am I oversimplifying things?

Sounds right to me (if you have ~3.2M Disabled).

But it's not just "frontline Attrition" (not sure if that's your implication of the "Attrition" terminology), it also contains all the DAMaged elements from recent turns of which 25% get sent to Repairs and of which's manpower 40% gets added to the Disabled (therefore increasing your casualties during Logistics Phase depending on the combats in recent turns).