Doctrinal Evolutions in response to Enemy tactics?

[Anou]

One of the best parts of Hearts Of Iron 2 compared to the other games was the fact that tactics and strategies itself were shown as a seperate tech, rather then like EU3 which abstracted these two significantly. Victoria does the same as Hearts of Iron 2, which is very nice.

However, aren't tactics and specific evolutions within military warfare based off what the enemy does? As people say, competition and adversity bring about innovation while complete domination leads to general stagnation. Thus, why is it possible to research these new modern techs WITHOUT the catalysts that brought these evolutions into power in the first place? For example, in Victoria, it was possible to research reactions to Trench Warfare WITHOUT even having engaged in the long slogging match that was World War I. Many would say that several Soviet Doctrines were developed in response to the German Blitzkrieg doctrines IE Deep Operations, and vice versa; for example, the Fire brigade doctrine in the Blitzkrieg tree.

And the same applies to the Allied Doctrines as well. Wouldn't the doctrines the Allies used against Germany have to change if in response to a Russian War? Thus, I feel that specific tactical doctrines should only be unlocked in response to the appropriate response, and the three trees having various trees that are specifically designed to be a counter to the other trees.

And on a final note; many of the Commonwealth Nations in Hearts of Iron 2 are forced to waste research slots on Doctrinal expansion, straining their industry; while 3 does not have this tree, the Commonwealth nations and various Allies; shouldn't they get a boost far more potent then blueprints from their more tactically innovative allies?

Just a thought.

 

[Radu]

The basic idea is decent.

The fact is that Germany's military leadership was the first to polish the Armored Concentration+Close Air Support=Breakthrough+Encirclement doctrine that still holds true today.

Evidence abounds that nations either lacked the drive (France) or competence (USSR - Deep Battle was far too advanced for its time) to develop Blitzkrieg on their own.

The start of WWII was a seminal event in that the world came in contact with Blitzkrieg and the Allied leaders were like "Whatever Guderian is smoking, I want some of it".

So yes,there is some merit to the idea that for other nations to embrace the basic tenets of Modern Mechanized Warfare : Armor Concentration, Infantry/Artillery Mobility and Close Air Support, these other nations must see the Blitz in action first.

 

[Piggy]

I believe what you're asking for is being implemented... in a way. Im not sure there's going to be specific triggers per say, it seems it will based on your practicle experience.

This is from DD#3: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=380145

There are of course exceptions to the theoretical and practical rules. One of these is land doctrine’s. Here the theory is focuses in on specific doctrine paths, while the practical, which is gained from more general combat, covers all of them. So in the pre-war countries will be at the more efficient researching inside their area of doctrine expertise but you gain new experience from combat continues will able to ‘steal’ doctrine ideas from other countries.

So I gather this means that as you fight your battles your country learns/adopts and evolves from the experience gained, opening up other tree's in the doctrines. Or at the very least it makes researching these other doctrines quicker.

Take the Soviets for example, they might start with human wave type/path doctrines and might be limited to that tree somewhat, or if they stray out of that path prior to war it will require a much larger investment. But as they fight and lose to the blitzkrieg of the germans they also may learn this new doctrine, the hard way of coarse

I dont think you'll get them free of coarse, you'll still have to reserch them, but you wont be as penalized as you would prior to gaining this practicle experience.

Is that what you meant?

Edit: Whoo hoo, Ive been promoted... 800th post.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I believe what you're asking for is being implemented... in a way.

Indeed, I think Its a great step that they have doctrines rely on combat experience, hopefully even alot more than other research. If specific doctrines would be somehow marked as counters to other specific doctrines I think it all would go messy and hard to grasp very quickly. Thats not likely to happen considering the easier learning curve paradox wants to implement.

 

[Alexander Seil]

By easier you mean that instead of being represented by a complicated asymptotic function, it will be represented by a vertical line? Possibly. Seriously, going to 10,000 provinces and splitting supplies and fuel (not to mention the whole command chain thing...) does not make for an "easier learning curve." They definitely took a turn for the hardcore on this one.

 

[Radu]

Will you stop being so negative already!

First off,you don't know what options you have. You only know what's going to be included.

Second,the fuel/crude difference is absolutely natural.Like the different between wood and furniture or grapes and wine or what have you. One is raw materials the other is "manufactured" (here,refined) goods. Excuse my impoliteness,but anybody that doesn't get this,shouldn't tire his feeble mind with strategy games.

Third,you don't know what zoom out levels you have. Perhaps Johan is just showing off the new stuff. Where the hell did he say the older HOI2 zoomed-out view would disappear? How do you know the Regions will not become the building blocks of a zoomed-out view? Wouldn't it be weird for Johan to show off the old stuff? Plus,they're just teasing us, that's the whole point of the diary. You must be naive if you take these diaries as some kind of comprehensive weekly changelogs.These are glimpses.

Instead of raving over issues which might or might not exist, enjoy or criticize the stuff that is showed and take it all with a pinch of "alpha" salt.

Proclaiming HOI3 hardcore is akin to writing a review to a movie after only having watched the teasers and trailers.They are in bad taste and not at all fair.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Thanks a lot for calling me an idiot, but I actually welcome a turn for the hardcore. Hardcore = better. Enough said.

But Paradox will never convince me that including all of this will make the game comparatively easier to grasp for a newcomer than HoI2.

 

[Alex_brunius]

By easier you mean that instead of being represented by a complicated asymptotic function, it will be represented by a vertical line? Possibly. Seriously, going to 10,000 provinces and splitting supplies and fuel (not to mention the whole command chain thing...) does not make for an "easier learning curve." They definitely took a turn for the hardcore on this one.

perhaps ,a straigt line is easier to overcome.

But, uhm they didn't split supply and fuel :S they split fuel and oil. And btw its making the game more simple to grasp since its easy to understand which is a raw resource your shipping home, and which is the refined product that your troops need. Bugged convoys shipping oil back and forth is NOT an "easy learning curve".

Number of provinces don't have much to do with learning curve really, It only makes the map more accurate.

Knowing what leaders belong in what "level" of command and what leaders proviide what bonus right away is going to make the learning curve much easier than having to figure it all out by yourself or from the forums.

The only thing these changes do is making the game harder to master, not harder to learn. And this is why most of us thinks that paradox have done a great job so far. Sorry for all my OT rant

 

[dublish]

The start of WWII was a seminal event in that the world came in contact with Blitzkrieg and the Allied leaders were like "Whatever Guderian is smoking, I want some of it".

I've never heard it described quite like that. I like it.

 

[Zeitgeist]

I really like the idea suggested by the OP.

Give everybody some basic doctrines, and basically make it difficult if not impossible to progress up the tree without some combat experience. In turn, these could have global effects on what a nation can and cannot research effectively in that time. For example, the US isn't going to necessarily take the Japanese carrier force seriously until Pearl Harbor or some other battle that showcases their power. Carrier research for the US, barring some extraordinary effort on the player or some extremely random event, ought to be somewhat stunted till then.

This would also have the effect of stunting some of the industrial muscle the US and Soviets can get in HOI2 by just sitting around and IC whoring until their noses have been bloodied a bit.

 

[Anou]

Yeah, I cant believe I missed that in DD 3. That was pretty much what I was asking for I guess, but if I had my druthers, not to say that this isnt a nice step foward, they really should rename the already researchable doctrines to something that wasnt a reaction to specific enemy tactics and / or completely prevent researching certain doctrines without the specific contact that forced it. Also, my idea where certain Doctrinal changes based upon the enemy would be nice; American tactics for fighting the Soviets for instance would be different then for fighting the Japenese or the Germans.

But even this change is very nice; Hearts of Iron 3 is shaping up to be great

 

[unorthodoxt]

But Paradox will never convince me that including all of this will make the game comparatively easier to grasp for a newcomer than HoI2.

Shhhhhh....they might hear you and realize that they might be making the game more hardcore and decide to make it simpler.

(Since the more I see of the DDs, the more I wonder how it could be simpler than HoI2.)

*whistles and wanders off nonchalantly*

 

[Hannibal Barca2]

many new players find it very difficult to handle so many different troops all over the world: my little brother for instance never wants to play even Italy cos Ethiopian colonies are so far away from wiew

Not that he's the brightest of players (13 years lol), but I believe the new features will increase possibilty of having it hardcore or let computer handle all these new fancy details

I can imagine AARs and multiplayer games where player as house rule only can control he's field marshals, having computer control all lower level.. would make up for a more challenging game against an likely smarter but not smart enough AI ^^

 

[out]

Is it just me or the thread's gone completely OT?

Well, me, I think the OP's idea is a bloody great one. I thought of something similar in the secret weapons thread, but the OP's suggestion certainly is simpler and easier to understand/implement.

The key about technology/doctrine is that everything grew organically. They didn't just read some books on WWII and decided to invent AirLand doctrine. It's all an interaction between the combatants; an arms' race, if you will. And this applies to the "hard" techs as well as the doctrine. After all military research investment is just an extension of the doctrine.

 

[sapper66]

The basic idea is decent.

The fact is that Germany's military leadership was the first to polish the Armored Concentration+Close Air Support=Breakthrough+Encirclement doctrine that still holds true today.

Evidence abounds that nations either lacked the drive (France) or competence (USSR - Deep Battle was far too advanced for its time) to develop Blitzkrieg on their own.

The start of WWII was a seminal event in that the world came in contact with Blitzkrieg and the Allied leaders were like "Whatever Guderian is smoking, I want some of it".

So yes,there is some merit to the idea that for other nations to embrace the basic tenets of Modern Mechanized Warfare : Armor Concentration, Infantry/Artillery Mobility and Close Air Support, these other nations must see the Blitz in action first.

Actually the Battle of Cambrai (1917 WWI) was an earlier instance of using combined arms warfare as it is know today by the British. The offensive began with a large artillery barrage infront of advancing infantry followed closely along with MK1 Tanks. As the advance moved forward the artillery advanced infront of teh line of advance according to a set timetable. Likewise teh artillery started to hit behind enemy lines to weaken stronghonds that woudl be encountered later. Also, aircraft was was used for close air support along the front to soften hardened targets. As the front line progressed, F-17 tanks(precurser to the turret tanks we see today-teh granddaddy of them all) were sent trhough friendly lines to exploit holes in teh enemy defense and wreak havoc in teh enemies rear area as teh front progressed. Unfortunately, the tanks did run into problems due to their slow speed and the horse calvary was sent in to further exploit the gaps created by the assault.

Modern open terrain warefare is only a derivitive of what was occomplished in WWI. Alghouth that is not to be comfused with warefare, tactics and strategy in general as much of what we see currently is not entirely different of the teaching of Sun Tzu and clauswitz but merely adaptations thereof.

For instance elephants used by carthage can be though of as some of the earlies tanks in history in their application of how they were used in battle shwo that the use of teh modern tank principle is no all the different from the elephant.

I woudl say that while i liek the idea of the OP, however with further exploration of strategy and tactics and their applicabilty while they appear on teh surface during WWII to be a reactionary to thier combatants they are in effect actually just a duplication of tactics used thoughout history that were merely fogotten, deemed worthless by so called experts or just ignored until it be came apparant that a new strategy was needed and theefore either figured it out on thier own or looked at history for the answer. In any case, it is only a matter of determination to repeat past exploits and utilize previoulsy concieved tactics an strategy rather than invent somethign to counter when it was already discovered.

For the game, i woudl say that the player shodul be able to choose the strategy deemed best appropriate as many of teh tactics we are discussing were not born out fo WWII

 

[Deus Eversor]

i think there should be two kinds of doctrines
one as a "fresh idea"(ie blitzkrieg) should be first researched
but further doctrines that follow should also have a research bonus from fighting experience depending on freedom in commend (free commanders could adjust doctrine(give a bonus) when dependent commanders have to stick to the line (no bonus))

 

[sapper66]

i think there should be two kinds of doctrines
one as a "fresh idea"(ie blitzkrieg)

"blitzkrieg" is/was not actually a fresh idea but rather a recycled idea using modern(at that time) technology which make it appear as a fresh idea becasue of it success.

Although to the credit of the german army and some particular general(guderian) was the use of radio communication inside the vehicles and between vehicles which allowed for more unit cohesion, concentration of firepower and speed of movement.

But the actual theory of the Blitz using combined arms, speed etc is/was used many times throughout history well prior to WWII.

Technology has a way of disguising tactics and strategy as technology becomes more effective and potent increaseing the chances of great success against those ill prepared or outfitted but the tactics and strategy remain the same.

Similarily we(as a people) have a tenancy to think of older civilization as using archic styles of combat. The equipment may be such compared to modern equipment but many of thier tactics and strategy are are the very same. We just reinvent them and call them as our own, but are not the true inventor and inovators

 

[Von Biddulph]

"blitzkrieg" is/was not actually a fresh idea but rather a recycled idea using modern(at that time) technology which make it appear as a fresh idea becasue of it success.

Although to the credit of the german army and some particular general(guderian) was the use of radio communication inside the vehicles and between vehicles which allowed for more unit cohesion, concentration of firepower and speed of movement.

But the actual theory of the Blitz using combined arms, speed etc is/was used many times throughout history well prior to WWII.

Technology has a way of disguising tactics and strategy as technology becomes more effective and potent increaseing the chances of great success against those ill prepared or outfitted but the tactics and strategy remain the same.

Similarily we(as a people) have a tenancy to think of older civilization as using archic styles of combat. The equipment may be such compared to modern equipment but many of thier tactics and strategy are are the very same. We just reinvent them and call them as our own, but are not the true inventor and inovators

Agreed!!

 

[out]

"blitzkrieg" is/was not actually a fresh idea but rather a recycled idea using modern(at that time)

It's true that combined arms is nothing new, but you are confusing strategic principles with military doctrines. Mil doctrines are clearly formulated guidelines that emphasize a certain combination of strategic principles over others, based on the specific needs and resources of the moment.

Blitzkrieg was indeed a fresh idea. Yes it simply applied the same old combined arms principle, but it was an application that combined the specific technology available, with a specific tempo of operation and force concentration.

Yes, military principles basically stay the same. Because war, to quote a certain post-apocalyptic RPG, war never changes. That's why we still study Sun Tzu and Clauswitz. But doctrines do evolve constantly. And there are indeed "fresh ideas" that usually result in temporary domination on the battlefield (Alexander, Nobunaga, Napoleon, etc.) until the others catch up or the circumstances change.

 

[diskoerekto]

The thread has gone somewhat off topic but the OP's idea is excellent. I do not think everybody understood the point. The thing is; if USSR had never gone to war with Germany, but instead warred with the allies, they would have come up with a very different set of doctrines than deep operations and stuff. Because actions are what creates reactions, and every reaction is caused by an action.

If USSR had (somehow) less manpower when they faced Germany, they could have developed guerilla warfare instead of deep operations in the 40's. If Germany got attacked in 1936, they would have less time to come up with a very new thing so they could have followed a more traditional way and develop something like the superior firepower doctrine.

On the other hand, an implementation of this is really hard and beyond the scope of my imagination at the moment. If Paradox comes up with a nice system, i will thank them very much for flooding the gates of my perception.