UK force limit

[Chocolino]

Doom, can you please tell me the UK force limits (div and corps) that trigger the increased upkeep. I am deleting forces now for a while blindly without getting it back to the lower level. Thank you.

[doomtrader]

Up:

historical size:
more than 20 divisions and more than 15 corps
or
more than 50 divisions and more than 5 corps
or
more than 60 divisions
or
more than 20 corps

150% historical size:
more than 20 divisions and more than 25 corps
or
more than 50 divisions and more than 15 corps
or
more than 80 divisions and more than 5 corps
or
more than 110 divisions
or
more than 35 corps

200% historical size:
more than 20 divisions and more than 40 corps
or
more than 50 divisions and more than 30 corps
or
more than 80 divisions and more than 20 corps
or
more than 110 divisions and more than 10 corps
or
more than 140 divisions
or
more than 50 corps


Down:

under 200% historical size:
less than 20 divisions and less than 40 corps
or
less than 50 divisions and less than 30 corps
or
less than 80 divisions and less than 20 corps
or
less than 110 divisions and less than 10 corps

under 150% historical size:
less than 20 divisions and less than 25 corps
or
less than 50 divisions and less than 15 corps
or
less than 80 divisions and less than 5 corps

under historical size:
less than 20 divisions and less than 15 corps
or
less than 50 divisions and less than 5 corps

[Chocolino]

Thank you - much appreciated.

My UK upkeep doubled from the PP 40s to the 80s when I passed into "historical" (> 20div and >15corps)

Now I have 18 divs and exactly 15 corps. So I understand that I need to disband one more corps to go back to the next lower level.

Just a thought - would a sliding scale make sense where "upkeep per unit" increases slowly with overall armed forces size? (e.g. upkeep = base upkeep X factor, where factor = max (1, current army size / nominal army size)). One can tweak this expression a bit further to make it realistic and as desired. Each nation then needs just a base upkeep and a "nominal size" or "historic size".

[doomtrader]

We are going to improve this feature in the next patch, so it will consider all types of units, and also the strength of the units, so 5 divisions with 20% strength will be counted as one division.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
We are going to improve this feature in the next patch, so it will consider all types of units, and also the strength of the units, so 5 divisions with 20% strength will be counted as one division.

Can there be an info box appear as your units pass (up and down) through the force limit stages, as an indication that action may be required, with a mouse hover hint box showing the PP penalty or saving. [:)]

[gwgardner]

add a line to the upkeep report, stating any current force limit penalty, and how many divisions till the next level of force limit penalty, both down and up.

[JLPOWELL]

This is the best idea I have seen on this topic. Players MUST know what is driving the costs. Particularly as (currently) the limits are set at thresholds which have dramatic effects when exceeded.

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

add a line to the upkeep report, stating any current force limit penalty, and how many divisions till the next level of force limit penalty, both down and up.

[Razz1]

I think these limits are too low as the don't account for foreign troops.
Plus those foreign troops could have been increased from

Canada
South Africa
Pakistan
India
etc.

[JLPOWELL]

I agree the limits are low and do not account for Commonwealth Manpower. I think the arbitrary force limit is where the flaw is. The game economics should be used to limit excess forces. Upkeep could vary by unit type by country. The USA and USSR for example with very large manpower pools would not have the manpower crunch UK or Italy would have.

Unfortunately (but necessary for simplicity in the scope of this game) there is not a separation between the three major resource types 1)Mfg goods (equipment) 2)POL (essentially Oil) and 3) Manpower. Each nation had a different mix with strengths and weakness (well the US had pretty much lots of everything)

R&D is really fourth category and has its own 'pool' of scientific talent plus needs for Mfg goods to use on large research projects, but spending more $$ (mfg goods) was not the single driving factor. The Manhattan Project kind of stands alone as the single exception an enormous industrial investment which added little to the war effort... until it changed the game completely.

ORIGINAL: Razz

I think these limits are too low as the don't account for foreign troops.
Plus those foreign troops could have been increased from

Canada
South Africa
Pakistan
India
etc.

[doomtrader]

Actually the upkeep cost is a way different for every country. Varying from 0.03 and ending at 0.48 for some of the countries.
This takes for consideration many things like: accessibility to resources, accessibility to manpower, valuing manpower, training, forces structure (support/front soldiers)

[JLPOWELL]

I just had a happy event (got a unit oh joy until "shralk"[&:][X(] is called anyway[:D] ) effectively bankrupting GB pushing them over the force limit (of course you cannot know exactly where that is based on the UI or the manual). Looks like the 9th Australian division will cost GB about $500 in maintance over the next 15-20 turns as once tripped the threshold doesn't simply 'untrip' until you have drastically reduced the army (basically until you loose or destroy a LOT of units... So its October 1940 and GB needs to demobilize to get back to positive cash flow. What a game! Anything can happen.

Also I bought some units on TURN ONE of Fall Gleb as France and bankrupted the country causing MASSIVE negative cash flow (playing on hard) they will never recover. BTW Holding out until October/November in this PBEM game so I would have had a chance to hold France if all the $$$ wasn't gone. ALSO the penalty was applied when the units came out and just about the entire Army needed to be destroyed before the penalty was removed. The BIG hit adjustments either thru events or the badly executed unit threshold (not so bad if it were LISTED ANYWHERE) are VERY weak design elements. Any 'feature' which jumps out and bites a player (read CUSTOMER if management reads this) by surprise with a major impact is a problem. AT THE VERY LEAST document this with a readme file.

On the other hand the same thing happened to an opponent of mine in a game where they were bankrupted as the UK by a different event just at a critical stage. (only cost him the British Isles so no big deal right...) Frankly it was cool to take out GB but not that way. I will never know if I could have managed it without the event strike which blindsided my opponent just at the time he needed to reinforce England. Frankly playing ToF is starting to feel like poker except you don't know what's 'wild' (until you do...)

Doomtrader your post on the limits is incomplete and unclear (at least to me) it omits what happens and specifically what the threshold is (it appears to be 60 divisional equivalents but divisions and corps are counted somewhat separately???)

In any case the UI has zero visiblilty to this until AFTER it happens. And the effect is not reversible and HUGE.

Perhaps I should switch to Fizzbin


--- From Wikipedia---
...
The rules were intentionally very complex. Each player gets six cards, except for the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven. The second card is turned up, except on Tuesdays. Kirk dealt the henchman two jacks, which are a "half-fizzbin." When the henchman said he needs another jack, Kirk warned that a third jack is a "shralk" and is grounds for disqualification. With two jacks, one wants a king and a deuce, except at night, when one wants a queen and a four.
At this point, Kirk dealt a third jack, but to keep the ruse going, he ignored the disqualification rule he had just made up. He explained that, had a king been dealt instead of a jack, the player would get another card, except when it's dark, in which case he'd have to give it back. The top hand is a "royal fizzbin," but the odds of getting one are "astronomical": when Kirk asked Spock what the odds are, Spock truthfully replied that he had never computed them...
---

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

I agree the limits are low and do not account for Commonwealth Manpower. I think the arbitrary force limit is where the flaw is. The game economics should be used to limit excess forces. Upkeep could vary by unit type by country. The USA and USSR for example with very large manpower pools would not have the manpower crunch UK or Italy would have.

Unfortunately (but necessary for simplicity in the scope of this game) there is not a separation between the three major resource types 1)Mfg goods (equipment) 2)POL (essentially Oil) and 3) Manpower. Each nation had a different mix with strengths and weakness (well the US had pretty much lots of everything)

R&D is really fourth category and has its own 'pool' of scientific talent plus needs for Mfg goods to use on large research projects, but spending more $$ (mfg goods) was not the single driving factor. The Manhattan Project kind of stands alone as the single exception an enormous industrial investment which added little to the war effort... until it changed the game completely.

Indeed, I agree entirely. Whatever you consider PP to represent, ALL the major powers seem to get FAR TOO MANY.

No.

Strike that. They DO get far too many.

It probably isn't possible, but having separate manpower and money/resource/industry costs for each given purchase would go a long way towards solving it [;)]


Phil

[Geoffrey52]

add a line to the upkeep report, stating any current force limit penalty, and how many divisions till the next level of force limit penalty, both down and up.

[Razz1]

Have you ever played the UK?

You haven't played a game with Germany where Norway has to be taken. That is a big difference.
Also, you can create Croatia as in real life. Even Ukraine.

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

I agree the limits are low and do not account for Commonwealth Manpower. I think the arbitrary force limit is where the flaw is. The game economics should be used to limit excess forces. Upkeep could vary by unit type by country. The USA and USSR for example with very large manpower pools would not have the manpower crunch UK or Italy would have.

Unfortunately (but necessary for simplicity in the scope of this game) there is not a separation between the three major resource types 1)Mfg goods (equipment) 2)POL (essentially Oil) and 3) Manpower. Each nation had a different mix with strengths and weakness (well the US had pretty much lots of everything)

R&D is really fourth category and has its own 'pool' of scientific talent plus needs for Mfg goods to use on large research projects, but spending more $$ (mfg goods) was not the single driving factor. The Manhattan Project kind of stands alone as the single exception an enormous industrial investment which added little to the war effort... until it changed the game completely.

Indeed, I agree entirely. Whatever you consider PP to represent, ALL the major powers seem to get FAR TOO MANY.

No.

Strike that. They DO get far too many.

It probably isn't possible, but having separate manpower and money/resource/industry costs for each given purchase would go a long way towards solving it [;)]


Phil

[aspqrz02]

Yep. Normally play the Allies (UK-France-USSR-Belgium-Netherlands-Yugoslavia-Greece-USA) vs. Axis.

And there's too many PP for the major powers ... or, looking at it another way, things get produced far too quickly and for far less than they actually seem to have cost.

Phil

[JLPOWELL]

I agree re the PP, which is why my current PBEM game is set to Hard. Unfortunately with upkeep (particularly if you step into a upkeep penalty) the there are too few PP's and event PP's are even more dramatic in their peudo random effect. The whole force limits is an unfortunate attempt to 'cap' unit counts due to the PP level being too high. Unfortunately as ONLY infantry are counted it has a disproportionate impact on 'defenders' like France and UK. The UK limit can be tripped at infantry levels which are very low (penalty kicks in at 21 div with 6 corps) There is a very odd and poorly executed relationship between division and corps count (not counted together) which can only be unraveled by examining the xml which I finally out of frustration went ahead and did.

21 Div and 6 Corps will trigger (I an not going to get into the 'other' trigger mixes of Div and Corps) a very dramatic penalty (@30$ extra) for UK (1940 population about 48 million{NOT counting commonwealth which contributed manpower})
The (equivalant) trigger for France (with only about 41 million population) is 21 divisions and 31 Corps (essentially WTF???!!!???)
The (equivalent [lowest division count threshold]) trigger for Germany (population about 70 million ) is 51 divisions and 51 corps

For USSR (Population 196 million) the threshold is of course VERY high (effectively to high to even matter) 21 divisions and 231 Corps

Just for fun I checked the USA (which fielded a peak strength of over 12 million [just under USSR peak strength]) If you want to find this COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS number you need to dive into the xml files yourself. LMAO when I saw it SERIOUSLY the US peak deployment was over 12 Million they have a threshold LOWER than France. (with over triple the population of France, even with PTO commitments Wow.

Comparing this to the fielded peak strengths yields a pretty poor manpower simulation picture: Adding in the commonwealth the UK/Commonwealth peak strength was OVER 9 Million WAY over France and only number 4 behind USSR USA Germany. Yes this discounts commitments to the Pacific theater by US and CW. Setting the UK trigger at 21 divisions and 6 corps compared to for example France which had considerably lower population (just comparing UK to France) is well... [&:][&:][&:][&:]



Table 2-ARMED FORCES PEAK STRENGTHS AND BATTLE DEATHS OF THE PRINCIPAL ALLIED POWERS
From <http://worldwar2-wwii.com/17-world-war- ... alties.htm>

Nation Peak strength Battle deaths
Australia 680,000 23,365
Belgium 650,000 7,760
Canada 780,000 37,476
China 5,000,000 2,200,000
Denmark 25,000 3,006
France 5,000,000 210,671
Greece 414,000 73,700
India 2,150,000 24,338
Netherlands 410,000 6,238
New Zealand 157,000 10,033
Norway 45,000 1,000
Poland 1,000,000 320,000
USSR 12,500,000 7,500,000
South Africa 140,000 6,840
United Kingdom 5,120,000 244,723
United States 12,300,000 292,131
Yugoslavia 500,000 410,000

Table 3-ARMED FORCES PEAK STRENGTHS AND BATTLE DEATHS OF THE AXIS POWERS

Nation Peak Strength Battle deaths
Bulgaria 450,000 10,000
Finland 250,000 82,000
Germany 10,200,000 3,500,000
Hungary 350,000 140,000
Italy 3,750,000 77,494
Japan 6,095,000 1,219,000
Rumania 600,000 300,000


The most unfortunate aspect of this from a game design perspective is the information is buried in an xml file effectively unavailable to 99% of end users.

[doomtrader]

I'm pretty sure we have missed commonwealth units of ANZAC and India, but does your calculations takes into account commonwealth forces NEEDED in the PTO?

[JLPOWELL]

Doom,

I really hadn't made any calculations (it appeared so far off as to be obvious) So I have done a bit of math...

First major point if fighting for survival on the home island the UK would have pretty much let the PTO go. Australia New Zealand and India would have been pretty much on their own. Re ground forces that's pretty much what happened anyway. The ETO actually absorbed more commonwealth forces than UK manpower sent to PTO. PTO forces were predominately from PTO sources India Australia and New Zealand. Demographically the UK had significantly more (about 20% more) available manpower than France available and nearly all used in the ETO, the current force limits do not reflect this. Using historical corps and division counts really doesn't provide a guide for capabilities (only what was done based on the decisions made during the war as it occurred not what the capability was. Looking ONLY at infantry (and as I understand things this will be adjusted in a future version)vastly distorts the UK manpower issue.

The xml as written (not documented so not a 'rule as written') if converted to division equivalents looks something like this (as rule only applies to infantry which is another issue only inf limits can be compared)

TRIGGERS designed to limit 'army size':
UK about 49 from a population 48 million (NOT counting commonwealth) which yields about 1 division equivalent per million population
FR about 104 from a population 41 million which yields about 2.5 division equivalents per million population
GE about 200 from a population 70 million which yields about 2.9 division equivalents per million population

The only really valid comparison as France was knocked out before full mobilization potential could be reached) is between Germany and UK. History shows that the UK the US and the USSR ALL made more efficient use of manpower than Germany during the war mostly by effectively using womanpower both in the armed forces and in production roles. I think the valid argument is that the UK limit per unit of population should by HIGHER than the German limit not the other way round. The GE limit is nearly TRIPLE UK limit (per unit of population)

You can argue 'captured territory manpower' etc, but the game can play out various ways and until the capture of France this was a pretty limited resource (not effectively utilized even when available) In any case the limits don't take into account what areas are under control of the nation at the 'time of the trigger' they are just arbitrary caps.

This is a weakness in the design, fortunately there are several ways to fix it and it is being addressed.

[aspqrz02]

Also note the difference in manpower between divisions of different nationalities ... and a difference between nominal (book) manpower and actual manpower maintained (or attempted to be maintained) in the field, and then there's the matter of non-divisional combat units and support units.

For example, as you may well know, the US Army fielded around 90 Divisions in WW2, but it also fielded a number of combat elements of a non-divisional nature of approximately equal manpower ... in effect, fielding around 180 Division equivalents worth of combat units ... and the Americans made a real attempt to keep their combat units close to full strength at all times.

The Germans initially fielded divisions that were 17000 strong (1st Wave), but by mid war they were fielding reduced establishment divisions with only 10-12000 men, and the Germans did not make the same attempts to keep Divisions at full strength that the US did, they preferred to withdraw and rebuild.

The Russians? Nominal Division strength was mostly just that. According to Glantz and House the average strength of a Soviet Rifle Division (not Guards/Shock) in the mid to late war was 3-5000 men, rather than, IIRC, the nominal 10000 or so paper strength.

The Brits had to disestablish some units towards the end of the war because they could not maintain them in the face of casualties.

Then there's the "Division Slice" ... the proportion of Armed Forces manpower represented by each Division (sometimes referred to as the "teeth to tail" ratio) ... much higher for the allied armies which were entirely motorised and lavishly equipped with both combat and non-combat support units than for the Russian and German armies which were largely not motorised and had much leaner supporting forces.

In short, the actual number of divisions fielded is probably a pretty good and reasonably accurate measure of what the nation could have fielded for the *type* of division.

So, for example, if the US had fielded German/Russian style non-motorised infantry divisions, they figured they could have fielded around 450 of them!!! Yet, as noted above, they fielded a nominal 90-100 or so, or double that if nondivisional combat units are counted as well (which they should be).

How to represent this?

Well, somehow there has to be a manpower element/cost in raising each *type* of division. If the US raises a Leg Infantry division, it costs "1" manpower point, while a mechanised or armoured division costs "4" (assuming that the nondivisional combat units are evenly divided amongst all such divisions, and they have greater combat power than a German Mech/Panzer Division), while a German style Panzer/Panzergrenadier Division would cost "2". A British/Commonwealth Armoured Unit would probably cost "3" and a British/Commonwealth Infantry Division "1.5" or "2". Russian Infantry divisions should probably cost "0.5" or "0.75" by that standard, and Russian Armoured/Mech Divisions should probably cost "1.5" to "2".

That's just off the top of my head, FWIW [X(]

Phil

[JLPOWELL]

Some good ideas there Phil.

I think the main thing needed is visibility to the player without having to dig for info. If there must be a cap have it affect the purchase price of new units (and splitting existing units of course) still better would be a gradual sliding scale which looks at all units not just infantry units and again once the overall military size gets large start making units (perhaps as simple as all units) progressively more expensive to split reinforce or purchase. The % strength must be a factor but unit level should not. Applying the restriction at the purchase level eliminates the'gotcha' effect. Also rather than not counting armor and mech units (resource hogs for sure) they would be at least counted.

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Also note the difference in manpower between divisions of different nationalities ... and a difference between nominal (book) manpower and actual manpower maintained (or attempted to be maintained) in the field, and then there's the matter of non-divisional combat units and support units.

For example, as you may well know, the US Army fielded around 90 Divisions in WW2, but it also fielded a number of combat elements of a non-divisional nature of approximately equal manpower ... in effect, fielding around 180 Division equivalents worth of combat units ... and the Americans made a real attempt to keep their combat units close to full strength at all times.

The Germans initially fielded divisions that were 17000 strong (1st Wave), but by mid war they were fielding reduced establishment divisions with only 10-12000 men, and the Germans did not make the same attempts to keep Divisions at full strength that the US did, they preferred to withdraw and rebuild.

The Russians? Nominal Division strength was mostly just that. According to Glantz and House the average strength of a Soviet Rifle Division (not Guards/Shock) in the mid to late war was 3-5000 men, rather than, IIRC, the nominal 10000 or so paper strength.

The Brits had to disestablish some units towards the end of the war because they could not maintain them in the face of casualties.

Then there's the "Division Slice" ... the proportion of Armed Forces manpower represented by each Division (sometimes referred to as the "teeth to tail" ratio) ... much higher for the allied armies which were entirely motorised and lavishly equipped with both combat and non-combat support units than for the Russian and German armies which were largely not motorised and had much leaner supporting forces.

In short, the actual number of divisions fielded is probably a pretty good and reasonably accurate measure of what the nation could have fielded for the *type* of division.

So, for example, if the US had fielded German/Russian style non-motorised infantry divisions, they figured they could have fielded around 450 of them!!! Yet, as noted above, they fielded a nominal 90-100 or so, or double that if nondivisional combat units are counted as well (which they should be).

How to represent this?

Well, somehow there has to be a manpower element/cost in raising each *type* of division. If the US raises a Leg Infantry division, it costs "1" manpower point, while a mechanised or armoured division costs "4" (assuming that the nondivisional combat units are evenly divided amongst all such divisions, and they have greater combat power than a German Mech/Panzer Division), while a German style Panzer/Panzergrenadier Division would cost "2". A British/Commonwealth Armoured Unit would probably cost "3" and a British/Commonwealth Infantry Division "1.5" or "2". Russian Infantry divisions should probably cost "0.5" or "0.75" by that standard, and Russian Armoured/Mech Divisions should probably cost "1.5" to "2".

That's just off the top of my head, FWIW [X(]

Phil