Doctrines and Spirits

[sdplissken]

Any thoughts on doctrines and spirits in NSB? Personally, I find that with my increased use of motorized that I take Mobile Warfare more often than I used to. The spirits are good, Maneuver 5+ Speed 5% Coordination are really good, Motorization Drive is really crucial early game also to edit templates.

Superior Firepower has somewhat lost its appeal for me, due to the low Motorized organization. You can get 5% additional breakthrough but that's about it. I don't like the other two spirits... It's still good, but I find myself using GBP or MW more often now.

Grand Battleplan has the second highest Motorized organization, Supply Consumption 5% reduction and Theatre Training for terrain traits which might be the best Spirit in the game. The Coordination bonus is also great, and I use the Battleplanner more often now whether I like to or not, because it seems things are mostly more static taking certain points, waiting for supply to catch up and moving again.... Might be the most improved.

Mass Assault is well, I mean its still Mass Assault. The spirits aren't necessarily bad, but you are almost always guaranteed to get Infantry Leader. The experience gain is nice for infantry, 10% more HP is actually really good when considering your divisions are also fatter. Victory or Death is ok if I want to lose a bunch of soliders... The supply consumption stuff still doesn't really do enough for me, and the first 2 steps in the tree are still worthless.

Not sure, overall, I feel GBP is much improved in the current state of things. Thoughts?

 

[blahmaster6k]

Grand battle plan is better than before, but I still don't think it is very good compared to superior firepower or mobile warfare. Both of them give far better bonuses than GBP for most scenarios. The spirits shouldn't be the reason you take a doctrine, they should be a nice little bonus on top. I would still value the massive soft and hard attack from superior firepower and the org and recovery rate from mobile warfare over anything GBP has to offer. Until transport planes are completely nerfed into the ground the new supply system might as well not exist since 100 transports can give full supply to every province in an air region, so even that benefit to GBP and mass assault is of dubious value.

The only spirit that I would consider taking a doctrine for is the naval invasion spirit that GBP has. For a country like the UK that is going to really want planning bonus on naval invasions and have bonuses to invasion, the GBP spirit is very nice along with the bonuses to max planning. Also if you don't really have plans to attack, stacking entrenchment with GBP can be a viable option but it's not good unless you are 100% confident your opponent will never be able to penetrate your lines, since you lose all entrenchment when you move.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Theyre all very good and in my opinion improved in their own way. I think if anything Superior Firepower is even better than before. Suppressive Barrage as a preferred tactic is crazy useful for any army other thank your tank divisions, and you get that from the first rank. +5% breakthrough doesnt sound like much but can make a pretty big impact with how breakthrough works and combined with Suppressive Barrage.

Grand Battleplan definitely got a much needed buff, thats the biggest benefactor. I really like the Command Power boosts it gives too, makes those general based abilities way more useful.

Except Mass Assault which seems pretty terrible now. More than before even, when at least it had its own niche uses. Its extremely difficult and time consuming to get to the good stuff later in the tree, and even then those seem much less useful.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Superior Firepower has somewhat lost its appeal for me

The strength of SF is boosting support companies, and having lots of support companies in stuff like 10w. The important of concentrating attacks/defenses into single, large templates has been greatly reduced.

 

[blahmaster6k]

The strength of SF is boosting support companies, and having lots of support companies in stuff like 10w. The important of concentrating attacks/defenses into single, large templates has been greatly reduced.

I would consider it to be the extra soft/hard attack on tanks and the airland battle doctrine that is the best feature of SF, not the support companies.

 

[Ceorl]

Except Mass Assault which seems pretty terrible now. More than before even, when at least it had its own niche uses. Its extremely difficult and time consuming to get to the good stuff later in the tree, and even then those seem much less useful.

I disagree. I'm not sold on the left hand side, but the right hand side is very strong now with the increased front width. Provided you have enough CAS and air superiority, pop Mass Charge (with many ways thanks to NSB to boost its draw chance) and you can smash through defensive lines with no tanks needed. The extra manpower makes sure any infantry casualties be damned.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I would consider it to be the extra soft/hard attack on tanks and the airland battle doctrine that is the best feature of SF, not the support companies.

In the Before Times, I would agree. But since The Great Tank Nerf that was NSB, tanks don't really offer much of an advantage in attacks unless you're willing to pay out the nose for it. And since there is a rather extreme pressure downwards in widths, using small widths like 10w and having more support companies, benefits from being able to 'double' the attacks you get from those supports. Double support arty on pure infantry for example, +100 for every 10w rather than every 40w or so, and infantry being around 8 attacks per width means 10w with supports can offer around +70% soft attack. In the most extreme case, +70% soft attack can translate into 3.8x the damage. Only getting +50 from supports would be +40%, which would only be 2.6x damage.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

I disagree. I'm not sold on the left hand side, but the right hand side is very strong now with the increased front width. Provided you have enough CAS and air superiority, pop Mass Charge (with many ways thanks to NSB to boost its draw chance) and you can smash through defensive lines with no tanks needed. The extra manpower makes sure any infantry casualties be damned.

True, what you mention is pretty much the one niche it has left: spam Mass Charge to increase combat width, and your CAS will do crazy damage (since CAS damage is limited by combat width). That plus your relentless attacking with the division recovery bonus can get pretty crazy air damage in extended battles.

This of course assumes you dominate the skies though, which is no guarantee. AND it takes a pretty long time to unlock Mass Charge, the first 3 ranks are mostly all you can hope to get prior to a major war. And the first 3 rank of Mass Assault are honestly just really poor compared to the other 3 doctrines. So you cant use the manpower bonuses as a crutch to make a substantial army (if youre a low population major), it takes way too long or way too many many pitched battles to realistically get that far in the tree.

The other Mass Assault niche was basically ignoring bad terrain/supply debuffs, which you can still kind of do, but now its way less impactful now in my opinion, since it only impacts out-of-battle penalties.

Since combat width is less of an issue, the infantry combat width reduction basically just means you can fit more low quality infantry (compared to the other doctrines) in battle with less benefit.

 

[aletoledo]

Until transport planes are completely nerfed into the ground the new supply system might as well not exist since 100 transports can give full supply to every province in an air region, so even that benefit to GBP and mass assault is of dubious value.

I agree, they probably should have left it at 0.05/plane like before. 0.05 isn't bad actually, the problem has always been the speed of creating the planes. It wasn't a good idea to change the supply system AND change the transport planes in the same patch. I assume thi was play tested, so I'm not sure why people thought 0.2/plane was a good idea.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I assume thi was play tested, so I'm not sure why people thought 0.2/plane was a good idea.

The patch went live with 1.2 per plane.

 

[Com]

I would consider it to be the extra soft/hard attack on tanks and the airland battle doctrine that is the best feature of SF, not the support companies.

Got to agree. Nothing can come close to an airland battle SF if you've managed to max out the air supremacy gain from it, your entire army can roll right along.

That said, tanks need their mojo back before I start caring so much about them again.

 

[sdplissken]

Got to agree. Nothing can come close to an airland battle SF if you've managed to max out the air supremacy gain from it, your entire army can roll right along.

That said, tanks need their mojo back before I start caring so much about them again.

The tanks are not the problem. The cost and refitting is currently an issue. But, the more I think about it at least it’s historically more accurate. Tanks were expensive pieces of equipment.

I think they need like a combined arms bonus or something because Panzer and Armored divisions didn’t have tons of tanks, they had more motorized and SPGs etc along with the tanks.

 

[aletoledo]

The patch went live with 1.2 per plane.

Right, which was ridiculous. However the 0.20/plane is also too much. That means 100 transport planes can give 20 supply. Thats like five 40w tank divisions.

 

[Jays298]

I have gone with whatever the country starts with, and that is largely due to the way doctrines are handled now. In some cases the 100xp is expensive (could be 120 for USSR).

Mobile warfare does seem better but maybe it should be better. I think it is the doctrine for when everything goes right (supply, air, numbers, etc.)

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Got to agree. Nothing can come close to an airland battle SF if you've managed to max out the air supremacy gain from it, your entire army can roll right along.

That said, tanks need their mojo back before I start caring so much about them again.

Its kind of a moot point when you can do both super powered support companies and Airland Battle lol

Personally I find the game is long over by the time I can get that far in the doctrines anyway, so they may as well not exist at that point lol

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

I have gone with whatever the country starts with, and that is largely due to the way doctrines are handled now. In some cases the 100xp is expensive (could be 120 for USSR).

Mobile warfare does seem better but maybe it should be better. I think it is the doctrine for when everything goes right (supply, air, numbers, etc.)

Agree, its odd that it costs a flat 100 exp to change doctrines. Previously, research took half the time as normal for the first level, so Im surprised it isnt 50 exp to change over. Limits experimentation a bit.

 

[MR2]

Agree, its odd that it costs a flat 100 exp to change doctrines. Previously, research took half the time as normal for the first level, so Im surprised it isnt 50 exp to change over. Limits experimentation a bit.

100 Army Experience is worth more than gold post NSB!

 

[blahmaster6k]

In the Before Times, I would agree. But since The Great Tank Nerf that was NSB, tanks don't really offer much of an advantage in attacks unless you're willing to pay out the nose for it. And since there is a rather extreme pressure downwards in widths, using small widths like 10w and having more support companies, benefits from being able to 'double' the attacks you get from those supports. Double support arty on pure infantry for example, +100 for every 10w rather than every 40w or so, and infantry being around 8 attacks per width means 10w with supports can offer around +70% soft attack. In the most extreme case, +70% soft attack can translate into 3.8x the damage. Only getting +50 from supports would be +40%, which would only be 2.6x damage.

I don't think it's very realistic to plan on having double support arty, because you're not going to have rocket artillery in large enough numbers until 41 or later.

Even if support arty gives a bigger relative boost to 10w infantry, it's not going to make infantry better at attacking than tanks so that's kind of a moot point. Tanks are still way more effective than infantry for pushing, take far fewer losses (makes up for their large cost), and in general still do everything better than infantry. You lose way too many soldiers, equipment, and veterancy on your divisions for infantry to be the main offensive strength of your army. Even CAS doesn't prevent you from taking lots of infantry casualties, even if it makes your opponents take heavier losses as well. Tanks are expensive, sure, but not so expensive as to be unviable.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I don't think it's very realistic to plan on having double support arty, because you're not going to have rocket artillery in large enough numbers until 41 or later.

Even if support arty gives a bigger relative boost to 10w infantry, it's not going to make infantry better at attacking than tanks so that's kind of a moot point. Tanks are still way more effective than infantry for pushing, take far fewer losses (makes up for their large cost), and in general still do everything better than infantry. You lose way too many soldiers, equipment, and veterancy on your divisions for infantry to be the main offensive strength of your army. Even CAS doesn't prevent you from taking lots of infantry casualties, even if it makes your opponents take heavier losses as well. Tanks are expensive, sure, but not so expensive as to be unviable.

Sure, infantry are still going to perform rather poorly on offensives. Nowhere have I said to use infantry for offensives. Have you considered something like 10w tanks?

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

I don't think it's very realistic to plan on having double support arty, because you're not going to have rocket artillery in large enough numbers until 41 or later.

Even if support arty gives a bigger relative boost to 10w infantry, it's not going to make infantry better at attacking than tanks so that's kind of a moot point. Tanks are still way more effective than infantry for pushing, take far fewer losses (makes up for their large cost), and in general still do everything better than infantry. You lose way too many soldiers, equipment, and veterancy on your divisions for infantry to be the main offensive strength of your army. Even CAS doesn't prevent you from taking lots of infantry casualties, even if it makes your opponents take heavier losses as well. Tanks are expensive, sure, but not so expensive as to be unviable.

Honestly in terms of supply and cost, 10 width infantry with support artillery blows tanks out of the water, particularly with Suppressive Barrage, the breakthrough army spirit, and the support company super bonuses with current combat width mechanics.

I dont even want to think of the soft attack per IC differences between the two, its gotta be massively lopsided.

And thats not even taking into account the shenanigans you can do if you create a pure damage light recon tank with the Superior Firepower buffs