Manpower Question - 1939 Historic World War Map

Well, that’s the issue with UK. You see, each nation in the historical map has a resource problem of some sort. France has this colossal food problem, with also a small oil problem, Germany also has small manpower, metal and a medium oil problem. Japan also has a oil problem due to its large navy. USA doesn’t have resource disadvantages, but doesn’t have a good army. Soviet Union also has oil problems, and like you said, UK is perfect except for the manpower issue. You just have to produce more tanks, planes and stop producing that much infantry.

As previously suggested by @BMfox attacking other countries will help you never get manpower issues but I do believe that helps... though not entirely

The historical map is not designed to be fair, balanced, or easy. It is designed to mimic certain historical conditions.

Part of the issue with the UK is the large number forces at the beginning of the map, albeit fairly spread out. Using these effectively to secure additional land for resource production

VorlonFCW wrote:

The historical map is not designed to be fair, balanced, or easy. It is designed to mimic certain historical conditions.

Thanks for the info. Not quite what I expected when I chose UK, as I am not well aware of all the shortcomings in the map.

Any strategy suggestions for UK? I’m almost done playing this one now, but I’d love to know more for the next time.

UK low manpower a direct result of losing such a high percentage of their males in WW1 = less babies in the 1920s = less adult males in 1940

As the game is historic and birth rates in UK were quite low..... therefore UK has low manpower ...

Man problem can be removed by building higher levl barracks and more barracks but this situation will also hinder ur wheat production as it takes more wheat

Have not played UK yet in 39 historical map. However, in my current game I'm playing India and manpower is not a problem. Of course, once you get to have a large army, you may have serious issues with food, and a bit low on oil ...

I trying to be motivated not too choose the same countries over and over again.

Ryan04px2025 wrote:

I trying to be motivated not too choose the same countries over and over again.

I found that I was quickly ganged up by many other nations where my outlying territories were (China, Japan, Mongolia, British India, Brazil, etc) all started taking land from me, and further reducing production from some output cities.

I had also allied myself with France and Germany, making it further more difficult to acquire land quickly to develop more manpower to replace troops being lost all over to consolidate power. Since managed to revert the issue, though oil and manpower are still the biggest challenge, and I am at risk of being overtaken by Brasil, US, Japan and or British India. Germany and France since went offline, I think they were frustrated with their respective issues, and I'm beginning to consolidate to develop more.

Very odd, as mentioned I usually have played a less powerful starting nation in this map. Had I known the serious challenge with UK, I too would have hit him hard and fast! My last time I was Brasil, and it turned out to be a nuclear war with UK that lasted days until he was taken out by sheer luck and diplomatic strategy.

By the time WWII rolled about, the only country that was really prepared for a full scale war (in Europe) was Germany. The United Kingdom had lost so much of its eligible manpower in the First World War that there just wasn't enough people to fight the Germans. Of course, rather than letting women do armed combat missions, they instead turned to their colonies, and while that did ease the strain, the issue still remained. India in particular had a large population, but was so far away that manpower inports were unrealistic, due to the Japanese naval strength in the area.

France was a different story altogether: they had lost a little more than 10% of their entire population, and almost all of those deaths were young men. Not enough babies were born during the interwar period in the 20s and early 30s, meaning France had no way to raise an army, and their colonies were stretched far and wide, with all of them facing threats from other axis powers - namely Indochina. France was doomed to collapse from the start.

Germany, however, had a completely different issue: they had no natural resources. Manpower was an easy fix: Nazi propaganda brought about a massive influx of conscripts, bolstering their numbers. Steel and iron were imported from Norway and Sweden, both neutral at the time. The issue was oil. They had been importing oil from the Soviet Union for quite some time, but Hitler knew sooner or later he would have to either find another oil well, or invade the Soviets AND WIN. He did neither of those things, but the player has a chance to do just that.

There's historical justification for every country's resource issue. Hope this helps you understand some. I know I'm late to the game.

Makes perfect sense, and agree. I hadn't considered before choosing the country. Something tells me picking Soviet, UK, France, Japan are all pretty challenging.

Minor correction on my part: France lost more than 10% of its workforce, not population. Apologies for confusion.

Petrus Beauvilliers wrote:

Something tells me picking Soviet, UK, France, Japan are all pretty challenging.

gusv wrote:

Petrus Beauvilliers wrote:

Something tells me picking Soviet, UK, France, Japan are all pretty challenging.

Of these, I have only played Japan. Got lucky early in the game and took over Nationalist China (and their oil) with my Tibetan ally. Was fortunate to have 2 decent allies (Sweden and Tibet) in my coalition and win the game ...