Air force vs Army, how to invest your resources?

[Revolution 11]

As the Soviets, I would not invest in a large airforce unless you can actually keep up with land equipment demands (infantry, support, artillery, motorized, tank) during full-blown German blitzkrieg in late 1941. In fact, if you can keep up with land equipment, that just means you don't have enough divisions or that your divisions are not big enough. The only planes that should be made are fighters but how many you should make will depend on how the land war is going and how your supply problems look.

As the US, I would definitely invest heavily in all aspects of air production. Naval bombers against Japan, fighters against all enemies, strategic bombers against Germany and Japan. Combine this with the Air Land branch of the Superior Firepower doctrine tree and you get even more bonuses for air.

 

[Denkt]

While Soviet is encouraged to go down the mass assult doctrine it could very well choose another path and the same applies to any nation in the game. USA could go down the mass assult path and Germany could pick grand battle plan.

 

[Revolution 11]

True but looking at the national characteristics, geography, and strengths of each nation, the historical trees make the most sense. The USA has the most industry, relatively safe from bombers, very safe against naval and land invasions, and a lot of manpower with no nearby enemies. Take advantage of that industry and get the Firepower doctrine with Air Land branch in late game.

The Soviets have a lot of manpower but not a lot of IC, they are flanked by both Japan (not too serious a threat) and Germany (very serious), and the Russian front is massive. Mass Assault and Deep Warfare make sense because you get better reinforce rate with more divisions, more manpower, and less combat width.

The Germans have a lot of IC compared to manpower, they are centrally located and the main instigators of the conflict. They are also surrounded by powerful enemies on both sides (France and Russia) that get exponentially stronger the more time you give them to fix their structural problems. Mobility doctrine is good because it emphasizes encirclements, speed, and combat focused on the initial strike, not attrition warfare or defensive bonuses.

TL;DR = Better to pick the doctrine that improves your strengths, not your weaknesses, aka the historical choices.

 

[Denkt]

Each player will likely prefer one doctrine above the other and thus more likely to pick that doctrine no matter what nation.

USA is likely to fight in foreign terriorty (which generally mean weak supply lines) and could very well make use of the supply bonuses mass assult have while still building an army around tanks and artillery. It also have the manpower it could build up an infantry based army if it want to and still do well.

Germany do have a national spirit who give a planing speed bonus which may make a grand battle plan doctrine an interesting choice as the combination of fast planing with high planing cap may be not something to overlook.

Soviet can make very good use of the mobility focus and can use the other doctrines as well.

Many nations could make use of the infiltration choice if going down the grand battle plan as the night attack bonus applies to your whole land force and is pretty strong and it is also the only path that give a recon bonus which help quite alot.

In the end preference of the player may be what decide which doctrine to use.

 

[Revolution 11]

But isn't the German planning speed bonus better for improvisonal encirclements like Mobility doctrine instead of the more static planning of Grand Battle Plan doctrine? And the US could use Mass Assault but that does not harness their main strength, the high IC of the US.

The UK could go Mass Assault (but low manpower to help much), could go FIrepower (but not a lot of free IC after navy/airforce), could go Mobility (but are on a island away from the continent). They could also go Infiltration but have more IC to make it worth going the other path as compared to Japan which is limited in tank production and motorized production considering its resource problems.

Of course player preference is the final decider here but there are more optimal solutions and less optimal solutions.

 

[Denkt]

The planing bonus is not that static as far as I know. You can plan in peacetime so Germany with GBP could launch an very strong attack from day one and may get the needed breakthroughs quicker then with the mobility focus and may win with less casulties in less time. And if German army need to get its planing up again it will do so quickly which negate the weakness of the GBP pretty well.

USA who operate on weak supply lines may find the mass assault less dependence on supply lines as useful as the gains from superior firepower. USA have both the IC and manpower to field an army that can take advantage of the less supply needs of mass assault. You have always use for more armored divisions and only mass assault low supply will allow you more on the front.

UK should probably go air and navy first and maybe forget about developing a doctrine for a long long time given the huge research cost for doing so. Having a full air and navy doctrine and all their techs may be much more important then good ground stuff.

 

[Revolution 11]

The planing bonus is not that static as far as I know. You can plan in peacetime so Germany with GBP could launch an very strong attack from day one and may get the needed breakthroughs quicker then with the mobility focus and may win with less casulties in less time. And if German army need to get its planing up again it will do so quickly which negate the weakness of the GBP pretty well.

USA who operate on weak supply lines may find the mass assault less dependence on supply lines as useful as the gains from superior firepower. USA have both the IC and manpower to field an army that can take advantage of the less supply needs of mass assault. You have always use for more armored divisions and only mass assault low supply will allow you more on the front.

UK should probably go air and navy first and maybe forget about developing a doctrine for a long long time given the huge research cost for doing so. Having a full air and navy doctrine and all their techs may be much more important then good ground stuff.

But that risks any ground forces in North Africa and France. You could have held up Germany by helping France and Suez is now more at risk because your ground forces are weaker. Not to mention any action against Japan in Burma and Singapore.