This idea is really inspired by Anou's proposal. I'm starting this thread because, that thread has gone OT a bit and my suggestion is somewhat different from his.
I want to propose a new doctrine system that would fit better with the new "model-less" tech model. This doctrine wouldn't have a tech tree at all, but instead more of a "slider" setup. You would have sliders like "centralization-decentralization", "quality-quantity", "mobility-firepower", "line defense-defense in depth", "big guns-carriers", and multi-pronged sliders like "CAS-tactical-str bombing", "infantry-mech infantry-armour", "encirclement-assault-delay" and so on and so forth.
These sliders would of course be classified into different major and minor categories; broad categories like air/land/sea, and detailed categories like philosophy (quantity-quality, mobil.-fire), offensive tactics, defensive tactics, unit mix, etc.
These sliders basically work together to form your "doctrine". For example, the blitzkrieg would basically equate to an emphasis on mobility and quality in philosophy, favours "breakthrough" event for offensive tactics, heavy element of armour in unit mix, and CAS in the air branch.
The effects of the sliders are manyfold, but for the most part it would provide bonuses when you are in combat condition that fits your doctrine and penalty when it doesn't. For example, if you have high emphasis on quantity, you would get a bonus when you outnumber the enemy, but penalized if you are outnumbered. If you favour centralization, then the HQ's would give better bonus whereas decentralized doctrines may give command limit bonus, thus reducing the need of HQ's. If your inf-mech-armour slider is balanced, you would get a bonus if your troops are similarly balanced and penalty when it's not. Line defense emphasis would make your forts and entrenchment more effective, whereas defense-in-depth would give reorg and supply bonus for retreating armies. The "event" sliders are more straight forward: it simply increase the chance of certain battle events over others.
But the exact bonuses and penalties would require great care in balancing. For example, if you have your slider all the way toward infantry in unit mix, you should probably get some degree of bonus, but really not much since infantry is the basic troop type. On the other hand it makes no sense to be penalized for having armoured divisions -- they should simply perform less effectively than if you had your slider more toward armours. These are all details that would need to be worked out.
The doctrine sliders should probably somewhat detached from the research system. To move the sliders, you'd need to spend some leadership and practical experience (as mentioned in the DD), and possibly research point. Even though IMO it doesn't make that much sense to spend research point, since the resource needed for developing applied technology and military doctrines are very different. Whenever you shift the slider, you would get a temporary org and morale hit to simulate the confusion with the new doctrines. On the other hand I don't think there should be a time limit on how often doctrines can be changed, at least not a long limit.
What this would create is, in essence, a truly dynamic doctrine model that could simulate all kinds of combinations. It would make it possible, for example, for the Soviet to develop blizkrieg doctrine. But this wouldn't become an unrealistic exploit because they need an army that corresponds to the doctrine to be really effective. For example, they would lose much of their numeric advantage if they go for "quality" over "quantity", and their thrust would be penalized without CAS support. It may feel fantastic, but I don't see why a Soviet player should not be allowed to build a German army if he is willing to bear the heavy cost and to sacrifice the Soviet's natual suitability to a human wave doctrine.
As I said, I came up with this idea when reading Anou's post. He proposed a "doctrinal evolution in response to enemy" design, where there would need some kind of real combat experience to unlock certain doctrine trees. That was a good idea, I thought, but it's still fundamentally static, based on a static tech tree. Doctrines are fundamentally fluid thoughts that really shouldn't be modeled as "technology". And as Anou pointed out, doctrines are always formulated in response to certain enemy tactics. But instead of having pre-scripted "triggers" that unlock certain doctrines, this design would basically give the decision to the player. Let the player design their own doctrine and make the evolutionary response. This doctrine design process would become very much a game in itself, which is very fitting for a war game. This way there is never an end in the doctrinal evolution, but a continuous tweaking process to suit the present needs -- much like how it works in real life.
I want to propose a new doctrine system that would fit better with the new "model-less" tech model. This doctrine wouldn't have a tech tree at all, but instead more of a "slider" setup. You would have sliders like "centralization-decentralization", "quality-quantity", "mobility-firepower", "line defense-defense in depth", "big guns-carriers", and multi-pronged sliders like "CAS-tactical-str bombing", "infantry-mech infantry-armour", "encirclement-assault-delay" and so on and so forth.
These sliders would of course be classified into different major and minor categories; broad categories like air/land/sea, and detailed categories like philosophy (quantity-quality, mobil.-fire), offensive tactics, defensive tactics, unit mix, etc.
These sliders basically work together to form your "doctrine". For example, the blitzkrieg would basically equate to an emphasis on mobility and quality in philosophy, favours "breakthrough" event for offensive tactics, heavy element of armour in unit mix, and CAS in the air branch.
The effects of the sliders are manyfold, but for the most part it would provide bonuses when you are in combat condition that fits your doctrine and penalty when it doesn't. For example, if you have high emphasis on quantity, you would get a bonus when you outnumber the enemy, but penalized if you are outnumbered. If you favour centralization, then the HQ's would give better bonus whereas decentralized doctrines may give command limit bonus, thus reducing the need of HQ's. If your inf-mech-armour slider is balanced, you would get a bonus if your troops are similarly balanced and penalty when it's not. Line defense emphasis would make your forts and entrenchment more effective, whereas defense-in-depth would give reorg and supply bonus for retreating armies. The "event" sliders are more straight forward: it simply increase the chance of certain battle events over others.
But the exact bonuses and penalties would require great care in balancing. For example, if you have your slider all the way toward infantry in unit mix, you should probably get some degree of bonus, but really not much since infantry is the basic troop type. On the other hand it makes no sense to be penalized for having armoured divisions -- they should simply perform less effectively than if you had your slider more toward armours. These are all details that would need to be worked out.
The doctrine sliders should probably somewhat detached from the research system. To move the sliders, you'd need to spend some leadership and practical experience (as mentioned in the DD), and possibly research point. Even though IMO it doesn't make that much sense to spend research point, since the resource needed for developing applied technology and military doctrines are very different. Whenever you shift the slider, you would get a temporary org and morale hit to simulate the confusion with the new doctrines. On the other hand I don't think there should be a time limit on how often doctrines can be changed, at least not a long limit.
What this would create is, in essence, a truly dynamic doctrine model that could simulate all kinds of combinations. It would make it possible, for example, for the Soviet to develop blizkrieg doctrine. But this wouldn't become an unrealistic exploit because they need an army that corresponds to the doctrine to be really effective. For example, they would lose much of their numeric advantage if they go for "quality" over "quantity", and their thrust would be penalized without CAS support. It may feel fantastic, but I don't see why a Soviet player should not be allowed to build a German army if he is willing to bear the heavy cost and to sacrifice the Soviet's natual suitability to a human wave doctrine.
As I said, I came up with this idea when reading Anou's post. He proposed a "doctrinal evolution in response to enemy" design, where there would need some kind of real combat experience to unlock certain doctrine trees. That was a good idea, I thought, but it's still fundamentally static, based on a static tech tree. Doctrines are fundamentally fluid thoughts that really shouldn't be modeled as "technology". And as Anou pointed out, doctrines are always formulated in response to certain enemy tactics. But instead of having pre-scripted "triggers" that unlock certain doctrines, this design would basically give the decision to the player. Let the player design their own doctrine and make the evolutionary response. This doctrine design process would become very much a game in itself, which is very fitting for a war game. This way there is never an end in the doctrinal evolution, but a continuous tweaking process to suit the present needs -- much like how it works in real life.
Last edited:
)
