- 12
- 1
Army, Air and Naval doctrines from the wiki
- Thread starter Denkt
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Kudos to the people who've been working on the wiki - it's all very impressive stuff.
- 5
Without having played the game those Naval Doctrines don't look that balanced 
.
Base Strike is massively better at Carriers then the other trees, I expected it to be better then the other doctrines but the difference is enormous. Fleet in Being is worse at Carriers then Trade Interdiction? The Germans were better at Carriers then the British and French?
. Base Strike is massively better at Carriers then the other trees, I expected it to be better then the other doctrines but the difference is enormous. Fleet in Being is worse at Carriers then Trade Interdiction? The Germans were better at Carriers then the British and French?
Seems to me that the integrated support option in the superior firepower doctrine is far superior to dispersed support.
- 1
You can only have one support artillery per division while you can have several line artillery per division. That is why the numbers are so different here.
- 1
As I haven't played I don't that's why there was a smilie to signify the sarcasm. Just from looking at the numbers Base Strike doctrine has 2-4x times the carrier bonuses of the other two trees which seems a lot. I'm massively surprised the Germans were better at using their hypothetical Carriers then nations that actually used Carriers
.
Base strike is focused around carriers so it have alot of carrier doctrines. Trade interdiction have slighty better carrier doctrine the fleet in being but lack doctrines then it comes to protect convoys. Fleet in being is alot more focused on artillery ships then Base strike.As I haven't played I don't that's why there was a smilie to signify the sarcasm. Just from looking at the numbers Base Strike doctrine has 2-4x times the carrier bonuses of the other two trees which seems a lot. I'm massively surprised the Germans were better at using their hypothetical Carriers then nations that actually used Carriers
Interesting... What is the idea behind the "operational integrity" air doctrine? The other concepts are easy enough to understand, but what is the focus of this one?
As I haven't played I don't that's why there was a smilie to signify the sarcasm. Just from looking at the numbers Base Strike doctrine has 2-4x times the carrier bonuses of the other two trees which seems a lot. I'm massively surprised the Germans were better at using their hypothetical Carriers then nations that actually used Carriers
Of course it's a lot, the base strike doctrine is built around carriers. The other two are *not* built around carriers. Why does it surprise you that the base strike doctrine get's carrier bonuses and the others don't?
One focus for strategic bombing. One for ground support. One that is a jack of both trades (operational integrity).
My real question: What the hell is the difference between "air support" and "ground support" in the 7th tier of the "battlefield support" tree?
Have you read what I posted? I'm not surprised that Base Strike is the best at Carriers, in fact I stated in both my earlier posts that I knew it was going be, that is the point of that doctrine path. The level of bonus over the other doctrines is the only thing that I was a little surprised about.
I actually said in the post you quoted that I was massively surprised that a naval doctrine based on Germany is better at operating Carriers then the French/British Doctrine path. So carriers in HoI4 go US/Japan >>> Germany > UK/France.
But Germany convoys escort abilities are really poor. And while fleet in being have worst carriers it have the best ship anti air and late tech ships can put up with alot of anti air firepower.
http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Naval_units
http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Naval_units
Just had a look at this - the disparity between carrier capability for fleet in being and trade interdiction is a bit odd, and rather historically implausible. Personally, given I'm planning to do a bunch of naval modding, I suspect I'll do some major reworking to the naval doctrine tree (if no-one else does it first). I'm not comfortable with the idea of exclusivity for certain areas (or for fleet in being having the best ship anti air either) - it really doesn't feel like the way the actual navies developed their doctrines and capabilities. In effect, it's railroading different approaches to naval warfare based upon a combination of historical developments and popular misconceptions, in a game that's more of a sandbox. Thanks for posting Denkt, and big props to the wiki people .
.Numbers for land doctrines in description and in comparison section aren't the same.
The org boosts to tanks in the mobile warfare line seem rather underwhelming now that infantry carries almost all of the org. One tech provides more boost to mobile infantry org than all of the techs that give +org to armor. If you armor divisions are always a mix of mobile infantry and armor, is there a reason why boosts to armor org are significant? I'm not seeing it.
Well more org to tanks still help, it may mean you can get by with using less infantry and more tanks. You also get large increase in tanks breakthrough value which may make attacks much less costly.
Is it just me, or is the operational integrity Air doctrine the most valuable? So many things depend on air superiority in this game, Naval invasions require air superiority, Nuking and bombing requires superiority or is very costly respectively. I feel like the doctrine that boosts your fighters the most becomes more valuable as a result, both offensively and defensively, and operational integrity has by far the most bonuses to fighters.
I'm definitely not questioning the breakthrough stuff. However, it looks as though the branch bonuses were decided before units went through a major balance change. The armor org bonuses used to be significant, but now that Inf are the main sources of org and hitpoints, they are rather. Moreover, they can't really increase the armor org bonuses without breaking their new balance scheme. For any reasonable armor division composition, +15 inf org is going to just be straight out better than +3 tank org.
If you look at the mobile infantry versus blitzkrieg branch, on the MI side you've got: +0.2 recovery (inf), +10% speed, +28 org (+25 mobile inf, +3 tank) and +10 org to your non-mobile inf divs. On the blitzkrieg side, you get +0.2 recovery (tank), +20% breakthrough, +11 org (+5 mobile inf, +6 tank). If armor divs are half-half (and I think that's generous), then the recovery cancels and going from MI Blitzkrieg is trading +10% inf speed and +17 org (and +10 org for inf divs, which would be the majority) for +20% breakthrough. It seems off.
Keep in mind that breakthough only matters until you have enough to counter the enemy, and armor divs already have a lot of breakthrough, so in a lot of situations the additional +20% won't have any effect.
Last edited: