Fixing Grand Battleplan

[el nora]

What exploit is this to reduce planning decay rate from manual control?

i'm also interested in this. the only such "exploit" i know of that affects manual planning decay is simply the fact that planning builds and decays on the midnight tick. so if you halt your divisions on 23:00 and restart their attack on 01:00, they gain instead of lose planning.

 

[Casko]

Nothing wrong with GBP. Its just that it really is a doctrine that you need to have 180 decree IQ Galaxy brain to use. Such as with tank destroyer meme Soviet union, And you need to micro with the battle planner and use radio support companies for faster planning speed.

 

[Com]

IMO the biggest problem with the doctrine isn't the doctrine itself, but that it demands use of controls that don't work and were deliberately made worse since release. -snib-


The more damage your line does and the less it takes, the more assets your opponent needs to org cycle to get a breakthrough in any particular spot. Even if it isn't enough by itself, it does alter the cost proposition and how long pinning attacks last (less time for them, more time for you due to higher breakthrough even on infantry). Superior firepower is the best at this job, but GB is 2nd. On the attack, GB left's tanks will punch harder than alternatives, though they don't sustain as well.

You have a really good point on the controls. GBP relies on planning bonus, but actually using that mechanic is a terrible idea. Put 3 divisions on different tiles all ordered to blitz a single tile adjacent to the 3 will have only 1 or 2 divisions actually attack their sole target.

The problem I have with entrenchment is the balance between org and attack. GBP feel nervously low org to me if outfit with line support, which makes it harder for them to hold in sustained combat - unless you are going for crits. Which means fat divisions that have lower reinforcement and a higher cost to being lost, and are arguably more difficult to deploy in the needed number.

Nah, GBP is pretty terrible unless you're using an exploit so that you can manually control your units while retaining the planning bonus and without suffering from the increased planning decay rate.

I'll admit, it's very disappointing that there haven't really been any word about doctrines aside from their manner of research being changed. It certainly doesn't bode well for a change in doctrines themselves. One gets the impression that they would have mentioned changes in this respect by now if they were actually coming. It's rather frustrating that half a decade after the game's release there are still some huge, glaring issues like this. It's puzzling they haven't tweaked peace conferences either given that so much emphasis is given by the developers on minor countries. It's very difficult for minors to take even a single desired state that they have claims on after a lengthy world war unless you've been cheesing the system pretty hard, sometimes.

I have to agree about doctrines. SF is the all around best, it gives solid or good tactics and great army wide buffs and greatly rewards a combined arms army. MW gives inf plenty of org or makes tanks fantastic.

GBP and Mass assault don't really have the same effectiveness. Mass gives lots of reinforcement and out of supply stuff which is far from bad, but it doesn't really do a whole lot else. Cut off divisions don't even feel like they last any longer to me. The whole thread is about GBP :/

 

[Com]

After looking at the discussion, I think GBP needs more versatile defensive bonuses, line artillery org , extra planning, and generally reward positioning and timing done at a high level by the player.

A generalized infantry bonus in normal infantry favored terrain like cities and forests would prevent total stat loss from reinforcing and make it less punishing to lose a line. Except of course you're pushed entirely out of your chosen terrain.

Line arty buffs make divisions stronger while following the idea of a trench warfare/ww1 style doctrine. Extra planning just because there doesn't seem to be a large difference between GBP and non GBP max planning.

In the same line of thinking, buffing field hospitals. Buffing them so that (they're not actively detrimental...) intelligent large scale pushes are feasible rewards smart offenses. Buffing experienced soldier retention will mean that mindlessly attacking an extremely well planned/executed defense makes enemy troops veteran, and using well groomed offense divisions well increases their yield long term.

Throw in very good tactics that require recon/traits/min planning to fire as well.

This turns GBP into a doctrine almost entirely about the macro of the game. Players would be rewarded for building units that need to be positioned well to be great.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

Extra planning just because there doesn't seem to be a large difference between GBP and non GBP max planning.

...

 

[Com]

...

It's what, a 10% right side and 30% left? The right should get a little more.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

It's what, a 10% right side and 30% left? The right should get a little more.

and that translates into 60% more max attack - that's far more than any other doctrine, and usually an effective 100% increase or so when you consider the other modifiers you're near-guaranteed to have.

gbp is great for naval invasions. it's hard to get 20w marines with 1-2k soft attack in yellow air without it.

 

[Com]

and that translates into 60% more max attack - that's far more than any other doctrine, and usually an effective 100% increase or so when you consider the other modifiers you're near-guaranteed to have.

gbp is great for naval invasions. it's hard to get 20w marines with 1-2k soft attack in yellow air without it.

I agree that the 30% total from the left side is plenty strong, its just the 10% only on the right that I have issue with. I don't see why it isn't 20%.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

I agree that the 30% total from the left side is plenty strong, its just the 10% only on the right that I have issue with. I don't see why it isn't 20%.

because its a different path meant to support a different playstyle... anyway the night attack bonus is actually decently powerful so it balances things out, just not enough to make it better than any other doctrine (other than deep battle and desperate defense maybe)

 

[Corpse Fool]

and that translates into 60% more max attack

Planning is only 1% per, so +30% planning is definitely not +60%. You also have a base amount of planning and going to 160 from 130 is only a 23% increase, not 30%. The more planning you already have, the less valuable having even more planning is going to be.

 

[el nora]

Planning is only 1% per, so +30% planning is definitely not +60%. You also have a base amount of planning and going to 160 from 130 is only a 23% increase, not 30%. The more planning you already have, the less valuable having even more planning is going to be.

which is why i always push back on people saying france should go gbp. france can already get ~80% planning easy (30 base, 25 protected by maginot, 15+ tassigney fm, 8+ juin general). going from +80% attack to +110% from planning is actually less than what they would get just from the +20% attack on sf, 1.2 * 1.8 = 2.16 > 2.1 which is what max gbp planning is giving.

 

[Com]

because its a different path meant to support a different playstyle... anyway the night attack bonus is actually decently powerful so it balances things out, just not enough to make it better than any other doctrine (other than deep battle and desperate defense maybe)

I don't agree. GBP's different sides are more or less left side tanks right side infantry, but the buffs are so simplistic that there is very little functional difference. Infantry will end up with the same org either way, and tanks/mech have very small org and recovery rate differences. Mech inf will have 10 more org with left side too.

This means the main difference between the choices is: left side gets 20% planning and 10% breakthrough army wide, essentially 30% free breakthrough. That outstrips MW breakthrough when the doctrine is finished. Right side gets night attack, out of supply, and a free tech upgrade to recon companies - and due to @corpsefool I'm not sure recon does anything meaningful atm. 10% infantry breakthrough does exist, but you should never be using infantry to create breakthrough anyway.

Ultimately this means left side has 20% attack and 30% breakthrough bonus, where right side has a 25% bonus active 50% of the time which averages out to 12.5% attack bonus.

Of course, planning bonus doesn't stop at night, so really right side has a 5% edge 50% of the time for a whopping 2.5% bonus on offense.


If right side had better infantry, or recovery rate, really anything at all, it would be a different play style. At the moment its just lesser.

 

[el nora]

This means the main difference between the choices is: left side gets 20% planning and 10% breakthrough army wide, essentially 30% free breakthrough. That outstrips MW breakthrough when the doctrine is finished.

how do you figure? mw has 60% brk if they go r-r. that's more brk and it's consistent brk, it doesn't go away if you dont have planning.

 

[Com]

how do you figure? mw has 60% brk if they go r-r. that's more brk and it's consistent brk, it doesn't go away if you dont have planning.

I missed the first 20% bonus you get from MW, my bad

 

[Corpse Fool]

which averages out to 12.5% attack bonus.

Its a 16.6% bonus averaged out.

 

[Com]

Its a 16.6% bonus averaged out.

How does a 25% bonus which is only active during night hours (12 out of 24 hours I assumed) average out to 16.6%?

 

[Corpse Fool]

How does a 25% bonus which is only active during night hours (12 out of 24 hours I assumed) average out to 16.6%?

Because we are at less than 100 with the baseline, increases make up a comparatively larger percentage. Getting a penny when you only have a penny is doubling your total. Getting a penny when you have a dollar is much less of an increase to the total.

Day is normally 100, night is normally 50. This would average to 75. With the bonus night moves up to 75. This averages to 87.5, which is a +12.5. 12.5 is 1/6th (16.6%) of 75, which is the baseline.

 

[Deathbringer1974]

Is it possible?

GBP is deficient in a lot of ways. The main bonuses come from entrenchment and planning, with very small pockets of org scattered around.

Planning is a great bonus, but using plans isn't a good idea.

Entrenchment is a great bonus, but it takes a very long time to build, and you instantly lose it all if you move.

10% defense is great, but that doesn't help you kill the divisions attacking you.

The tactics and one night bonus are alright.

At best, GBP is an infantry focused doctrine in a tank and air dominated game.

Even if you manage to make a line of infantry on forts and forests and hills that can pen mediums/heavies (say mods with heavy AT or medium TDs mixed with normal ATG), doesn't get slaughtered by CAS b/c of AA, and still has the soft attack to beat back infantry, you'll just get cycled because you can't re org quickly after a battle. Once that line is breached, you're screwed since most of your stats come from digging in.

If you try to attack, what are you doing it with? You get 20% bonus breakthrough to, and that sounds good, but infantry don't exactly have breakthrough to boost. Even with 70% planning, you're not going to do a whole lot of damage unless you make attack specific divisions, and you'll piss manpower away attacking with any infantry. Using tanks will get them clicked while you're planning (theoretically enough tanks would be on line to ignore the push and pull a true deep battle move, but I've never seen it happen).

So how can this be fixed?

The first issue I think is org. GBP needs artillery and support tanks more than other doctrines, yet suffers severely to adding them due to lacking org. MW infantry will have a lot more org with arty and AT then a GBP division will. Giving GBP inf more org, or giving support guns some org would alleviate the issue.

The next is entrenchment. Entrenchment needs to be an option for GBP, but due to game mechanics (responding to breakthroughs) it can't be the only option. I'd prefer to see bonuses being given to infantry and arty units used in favorable terrain. a 5% attack/defense for infantry in forests for example. That would be a lot better than entrenching speed, as nobody would enjoy fighting infinitely super entrenched frenchmen.

Org recovery rate could be affected by mobile divisions. Cav and armored cars might finally find a niche if they improve the recovery rate of a division, even more so if the battalion versions give recon as well (no org loss to support company).

Attacking will likely still have to be left to tanks, but it should be easier to make attacking infantry. Bonus breakthrough and attack to special forces divisions would be one option.

Beyond that, GBP really should have some type of manpower boost. A fully rocket arty attack focused army should be a somewhat viable strategy as GBP, but they would take too many losses. I suggest buffing hospitals with an exclusive tech to field surgeons to return manpower to the pool in the way thats worth it.

I see no problems with it. Except it might be too strong LOL if anything

IT is the most powerful defence doctrine and with max planning and stacking it with officer planning skills. Do everything to get the highest possible max planning. IT becomes the most POWERFULL ATTACK doctrine also

Every doctrine has downsides. For This doctrine is time. You have to build up planning. So you have to attack, wait, build up planning, attack and repeat.

What do you want? Takes away all the drawback to this doctrine so it is the most POWERFULL in Attack and defence with no drawbacks. You just killed every other doctrine LOL

 

[Putuna]

Grand Battle Plan is the weakest doctrine by quite a bit OP your right their but I think your wrong about it should not be relaying on the entrenchment/planning bonus. It should have even more planning bonus like it used too.

At one time (pre walking the tiger dlc) it was considered a good doctrine because you could stack so much battle planning you could get seriously upsurd numbers. I remember seeing 40 width standard 14/4s having 4.5k soft attack as Japan with 1940 tech. I bet you can still find screenshots of people getting these stats still on these forums. You were able to achieve these crazy numbers with grand battle plan and building your planning bonus because I believe either planning bonus as a whole was nerfed or grand battle plan was nerfed. It used to be considered a very strong doctrine in MP circles, there were even Grand Battle Plan Germany builds at one time.

I think the way to balance it is to actually increase its planning bonus it gives you. It should allow you to do these massive pushes for a short time then you stop once you planning bonus gets low. The enemy could then counter attack you while you built up your planning bonus for the next push.

 

[Casko]

Grand Battle Plan is the weakest doctrine by quite a bit OP your right their but I think your wrong about it should not be relaying on the entrenchment/planning bonus. It should have even more planning bonus like it used too.

At one time (pre walking the tiger dlc) it was considered a good doctrine because you could stack so much battle planning you could get seriously upsurd numbers. I remember seeing 40 width standard 14/4s having 4.5k soft attack as Japan with 1940 tech. I bet you can still find screenshots of people getting these stats still on these forums. You were able to achieve these crazy numbers with grand battle plan and building your planning bonus because I believe either planning bonus as a whole was nerfed or grand battle plan was nerfed. It used to be considered a very strong doctrine in MP circles, there were even Grand Battle Plan Germany builds at one time.

I think the way to balance it is to actually increase its planning bonus it gives you. It should allow you to do these massive pushes for a short time then you stop once you planning bonus gets low. The enemy could then counter attack you while you built up your planning bonus for the next push.

One another thing that they did to nerf GBP was that manually moving units made planning bonus drain twice as fast, which was just silly thing to do IMO.