Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Canadian exploit

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Canadian exploit Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Canadian exploit - 1/30/2021 6:50:42 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 7275
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
I wonder if Canada has not too much manpower early on. I mostly use them to buy escorts for my convoy lanes.

But, seeing their historical OOB, I can have three large Canadian infantry corps by May, 1941.
https://www.junobeach.org/canada-in-wwii/articles/infantry-organization/

For me, this is much too early for such amount.

May I suggest to reduce their manpower early on?

Cheers

_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
Post #: 1
RE: Canadian exploit - 1/30/2021 6:54:49 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 7275
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
For me, the I Canadian corps must not be active before 1942:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Canadian_Corps

The II Canadian Corps must not be active before 1943:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/II_Canadian_Corps

_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 2
RE: Canadian exploit - 1/30/2021 7:49:29 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9759
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: online
Not going to restrict players. I think they invested their manpower into the airforce in the early war instead of infantry

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 3
RE: Canadian exploit - 1/31/2021 5:40:03 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
Alvaro is correct. Because the Commonwealth Air Training Program was located in Canada it made sense for a large portion of Canada's manpower to go into the air force. I sizeable number were also placed in the navy.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 4
RE: Canadian exploit - 1/31/2021 6:53:15 AM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 7275
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
Thanks for the input but, to me, the Commonwealth Air Training Program does not represent a fighting unit to build on the map.
As such, there is no manpower used here.

For the navy, building escorts only costs 1 manpower point so this is also not here that the manpower will be consumed.

That's why I can build such a large army early on.

_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 5
RE: Canadian exploit - 1/31/2021 11:47:10 AM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
I agree Canada can field too many inf corps too early, have posted on this before.

Canada's production of aircraft and ships was a huge bonus to the UK, but it would have been politically impossible to conscript the amount of troops the game allows.

Restricting manpower is the answer. It would also help moderate the Commonwealth's overall ability to field a large land force early in the game.


(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 6
RE: Canadian exploit - 1/31/2021 6:24:44 PM   
stjeand


Posts: 1399
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline
I suppose if you wanted...you could add to the scripting to remove say...90 Manpower from Canada...

Then each year add 30.

The Allies did not think this war would last as it did...so were not fully preparing.

Alvaro,

Can you change the "base" Manpower setting within scripting?
I see CA has a max of 120...could it be set to 30...then upped each year?
Then again if you just remove 90 from them to start in the scripting and because they only gain 4 per turn that has the same overall effect...

For a much larger country it might have a larger effect...like USSR or USA...where they gain 30 per turn...

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 7
RE: Canadian exploit - 1/31/2021 6:38:14 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
I disagree. I was not saying that the Commonwealth air training program itself consumed Canadian manpower; but rather the fact that it was located in Canada meant that a great number of young Canadian men were encouraged and did in fact enlist in the air force rather than the army. As a result, by Wars end Canada had 86 squadrons (which I think is the equivalent of 5 air groups in the game) and had produced over 16,000 aircraft. Small numbers when compared with the US or Russia, but rather impressive for a nation of 11 million. So when you say that you can build a Canadian army of 3 large corps by 1941, my question is how many Canadian air groups have you purchased? How many Canadian patrol groups? How many Canadian escorts? How many Canadian merchant ships? How much Canadian production has been used on supply trucks. What you have noticed with Canada is true of just about every nation in Warplan. If the British built nothing but infantry corps they could have an army in 1941 about 3 times its historical and still have lots of manpower. The US can do the same by 1942.

In fact, in my experience, most nations (especially the UK and US) do build much larger armies than they did historically. The reason for this (as I have posted elsewhere) is that you get more bang for your buck with land units than you do with air units. The next game where I see a Canadian air unit on the map will be my first. So if you are going to cut Canadian manpower because it is possible to build more Canadian army units than historical, then you will have to do the same for the UK and the USA and perhaps other nations as well.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 1/31/2021 6:40:35 PM >

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 8
RE: Canadian exploit - 1/31/2021 9:28:10 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 7275
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
You have the right to disagree.

I understand your point. I did not buy any air unit nor any patrol unit. Their PP amount is too high for Canada.
I concentrate only on Escorts and on Infantry Division. Buying infantry division after infantry division, I may have a decent Canadian land army quickly.
And I don't have to garrison anything.

So I may send this army to block Axis offensive in Greece or in North Africa. With the constraints regarding supply trucks, I think I won't see anymore a Panzer Corps in Alexandria...

But there is another solution. Keep the manpower untouched for the Canadian. Just prevent them to buy Infantry Division. They can still split the corps into division. They just don't have the right to buy division. Like this, it will slow down the army build up.


_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 9
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/1/2021 12:56:59 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
First you say that Canada's manpower is too high and now you say that it's production is too high. Actually the opposite is the case; compared to other nations its production is way too low. In 1939 the UK economy (measured by GDP) was about 4.5X Canada's, France 3X, Germany 8X, Italy 2.5X, USA 16X. And as the War progressed the Canadian war economy grew quicker than all theses nations. So by this measure Canada's 1939 production should be about 35 and it should grow to about 60 by War's end.

And I don't understand your solution. Won't the Allied player just use the Canadian production to build escorts, merchant ships and supply trucks; freeing up the UK production to build those divisions. In fact it is my experience that this is exactly what does happen. So you end up with a UK army that is way larger than historical rather than a Canadian one.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 2/1/2021 1:02:38 AM >

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 10
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/1/2021 5:45:55 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

I agree Canada can field too many inf corps too early, have posted on this before.



You are absolutely correct that if Canada does not spend any of its production on armour, air groups, escorts, naval groups, merchant ships or supply trucks it can field far more infantry corps far earlier than it did historically. But the same is true of the UK, the US, Germany, Italy and Russia. So why pick on Canada? I note that Australia, with a much smaller population and industry than Canada, fielded 11 divisions in the War, almost twice as many as Canada. Which isn't to say that Australia didn't also build lots of air and naval units; but because of the Japanese threat it concentrated more on its army than Canada did. But Canada could have built a much bigger army (at the expense of it's navy and air fierce) if that was what was required.

I would accept that because Canada only sent volunteers overseas its manpower could be reduced from 4 to 3; but only if it's experience is increased from 50% to 60%. But I suggested something similar before and was shot down.

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 11
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/1/2021 12:03:31 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

I agree Canada can field too many inf corps too early, have posted on this before.



You are absolutely correct that if Canada does not spend any of its production on armour, air groups, escorts, naval groups, merchant ships or supply trucks it can field far more infantry corps far earlier than it did historically. But the same is true of the UK, the US, Germany, Italy and Russia. So why pick on Canada? I note that Australia, with a much smaller population and industry than Canada, fielded 11 divisions in the War, almost twice as many as Canada. Which isn't to say that Australia didn't also build lots of air and naval units; but because of the Japanese threat it concentrated more on its army than Canada did. But Canada could have built a much bigger army (at the expense of it's navy and air fierce) if that was what was required.

I would accept that because Canada only sent volunteers overseas its manpower could be reduced from 4 to 3; but only if it's experience is increased from 50% to 60%. But I suggested something similar before and was shot down.


For me the trouble is that the balance of manpower/production for the UK and Canada in the early game means generally speaking you'd be mad to spend Canadian production on anything other than inf. UK manpower soon runs out, leading to crash in national morale, so the answer lies in exploiting Canadian manpower, which is practically inexhaustible.

Hence you almost always see a large Canadian land army by end of 41, because it's completely inefficient as the Canadians to spend it on armour/air.

I think increased morale, decreased manpower for Canada is worth looking at. The Canadian troops were by and large tougher (better fed, more outdoor experience) and were volunteers rather than conscripts, which speaks of a more committed mindset.



(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 12
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/1/2021 3:33:12 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
Canada's manpower is 4 per turn; that is hardly inexhaustible. If large numbers of Canadian land units are built and used in battle they will very quickly start losing manpower faster than they can replace it. In any event, call me mad, but I seldom build Canadian army units. Almost all my Canadian production is used for escorts, and supply trucks with the occasional merchant ship. I think this is true for most players. Being Canadian I would love to actually build up a sizeable Canadian army and use it for something other than garrison duty. But it just doesn't make practical sense in the game.

I have never run into a UK manpower problems. At 26 the UK has almost as much manpower as Germany. I assume this is because the UK population takes it's empires population into account.

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 13
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/1/2021 4:10:53 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9759
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I have never run into a UK manpower problems. At 26 the UK has almost as much manpower as Germany. I assume this is because the UK population takes it's empires population into account.



Yes it does.


_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 14
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/1/2021 5:12:58 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Canada's manpower is 4 per turn; that is hardly inexhaustible. If large numbers of Canadian land units are built and used in battle they will very quickly start losing manpower faster than they can replace it. In any event, call me mad, but I seldom build Canadian army units. Almost all my Canadian production is used for escorts, and supply trucks with the occasional merchant ship. I think this is true for most players. Being Canadian I would love to actually build up a sizeable Canadian army and use it for something other than garrison duty. But it just doesn't make practical sense in the game.

I have never run into a UK manpower problems. At 26 the UK has almost as much manpower as Germany. I assume this is because the UK population takes it's empires population into account.


Good points and I have to admit my experience of the game is less than yours.


(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 15
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/1/2021 5:15:42 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 7275
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

First you say that Canada's manpower is too high and now you say that it's production is too high. Actually the opposite is the case; compared to other nations its production is way too low. In 1939 the UK economy (measured by GDP) was about 4.5X Canada's, France 3X, Germany 8X, Italy 2.5X, USA 16X. And as the War progressed the Canadian war economy grew quicker than all theses nations. So by this measure Canada's 1939 production should be about 35 and it should grow to about 60 by War's end.

And I don't understand your solution. Won't the Allied player just use the Canadian production to build escorts, merchant ships and supply trucks; freeing up the UK production to build those divisions. In fact it is my experience that this is exactly what does happen. So you end up with a UK army that is way larger than historical rather than a Canadian one.


I did not say the Canadian production is too high. I say that PP amount, to buy an air unit or some ships or mech/armored units, is too high for the actual production of Canada in the game.

My solution is to oblige Canada to buy small or large corps and not division. This is an artificial way to oblige the Allies to stockpile production before buying land units.

quote:

So you end up with a UK army that is way larger than historical rather than a Canadian one.

Even if the Axis is successful in the BoA? I wonder.


< Message edited by ncc1701e -- 2/1/2021 5:19:31 PM >


_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 16
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/1/2021 7:14:27 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

I did not say the Canadian production is too high. I say that PP amount, to buy an air unit or some ships or mech/armored units, is too high for the actual production of Canada in the game.


Okay, sorry I misunderstood you. But, with respect, I still don't know as I fully understand you or at least still don't agree with you. As I said I believe Canada's actual production was much greater than as represented in the game; but even with the limited production it receives it can save enough production to build a 1941 ground attack air group in about 15 turns (a little over half a year) and a 41 armour corps in a little less than a year. So theoretically it could build 5 or more armour corps in the game; not what I would do, but it is possible.

quote:

My solution is to oblige Canada to buy small or large corps and not division. This is an artificial way to oblige the Allies to stockpile production before buying land units.


Solution for what? The Canadian Army being larger than it was historically? Why does this need a solution?

quote:

So you end up with a UK army that is way larger than historical rather than a Canadian one.
Even if the Axis is successful in the BoA? I wonder.


What I am saying is that the Canadian and UK production is linked. Canadian escorts, merchants ships and supply trucks all become UK once built. So if Allied players are using Canadian production to build larger than historical Canadian armies (or more likely garrison divisions) than I assume this means they are not using that Canadian production to build escorts, merchant ships or supply trucks. This in turn means that the UK must be using some of its production to build these units. So if restrictions are only placed on Canada building divisions what do you think the Allied player will do? He will simply take that Canadian production and use it to build escorts, merchant ships and supply trucks and use the freed up UK production to build UK divisions.






(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 17
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/1/2021 7:30:12 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1169
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
Harrybanana - I agree with you. I do not see the issue. Overall, seems like UK/Canada is fairly balanced with the rest of the game. Alvaro will continue to tweak, but I look at Canada/UK as a single pool.

_____________________________


(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 18
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/1/2021 9:08:49 PM   
WraithMagus

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/22/2021
Status: offline
I think it's also worth noting that by the late war, the Royal Canadian Navy had the third-largest navy in the world if you count raw number of hulls, with over 200 escorts and destroyers. (Similar to Imperial Japan at the start of the war, in terms of smaller ships.) The UK also notably was able to build a lot of ships they couldn't actually sail, and therefore would build escorts that they then let the refugee crews of other nation's navies sail, like the Free French, Polish, Dutch, Norwegian, etc. navy crews because England just couldn't train their own recruits as fast as they could build ships, and a lot of these went to escort duty (since it didn't matter as much if they weren't fully integrated into the chain of command).

It's also notable that Canada is an oil exporter, and had a pipeline rushed to completion by 1944, yet the game makes Canada very oil-poor.

(in reply to MorningDew)
Post #: 19
RE: Canadian exploit - 2/2/2021 5:16:23 AM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 7275
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
The thing is even if UK has PP problems with a successful BoA. I can compensate by creating an important Canadian army early on.
But, I think you are right.

_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to WraithMagus)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Canadian exploit Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.531