Freeform doctrine model

[out]

I'd argue that in Korea any struggles the US had with the Chinese were the result of political limitations on military conduct, not chinese strategy or tactics.

The Chinese had similar political limitations, that's why they had to limit the invading force to a small (by Chinese standard) "volunteer" army. And according to American officers' own accounts, the Chinese certainly had very effective tactics throughout the war in North Korea.

Your proposition is too theoretical, why can't USA have strong firepower (which is for arm and art brigades) and some sort of human wave (for infantry) since they have high IC to have high quality and much MP to have the masses.

This is already answered by The RC above. Firepower and humanwave are diametrically opposed. You simply cannot possibly apply both of these doctrines at the same time, that'd just result of some sort of mass execution. Just like you can't execute sealane interdiction and fleet in being at the same time: your fleet can't very well be in when it's out there interdicting.

IMHO sliders make everything to simple. Its not like that IRL.

I cannot understand why some of you keep coming back to the same point. If you think carefully, the sliders and current tree system are really different only in one fundamental respect: with sliders, it's possible to "switch" doctrines.

That's all really.

Let's say if you're allowed to change doctrine in the tree system, wouldn't you say that you should lose all bonuses confered by the abandoned doctrine?

Many of the objections on the faults of the sliders are already present in the tree system. With the tree, you can also only have one doctrine at a time, one for the whole army. You also can't have both firepower and human wave, you also can'to have one set of bonuses if you want anther set. It's still too "simple" because it doesn't model all the tactical intricacies. These are all things that are fundamentally unchanged from the tree system. The sliders setup make these things more obvious, but it did not introduce these issues.

I'm not saying the sliders system is perfect, but I really believe that it's an improvement from static trees. The only thing that it might "detract" from the tree system is that it lacks the "overall improvement over time". But units and commanders already gain experience individually, and the nation as a whole will also gains leadership and practical experience in HoI3. So I think this aspect is already well accounted for and doesn't really need more buffing. As I proposed, shifting the sliders should cost leadership and practical experience (I never said money), this all balances out very well: it's just as if you've gone back down on the tech tree and going up another path.

 

[unmerged(128095)]

The idea that you can change an overall doctrine shift is interesting, but in my opinion unrealistic IMO, and here is why. A military doctrine is a pretty static thing, i.e. not something that changes very quickly. The theory of blitzkrieg really started to be developed in the 20's, and unlike in the tech development of HoI 2, was not something that was developed over the course of 6 months in 1941, but was theorized and practiced (with the equipment available) well before the start of the war. Secondly, a nations overall doctrine is taught to the new officer corps, of which each successive class advances through the ranks.They tend not to 'rock the boat' when it comes to thinking outside the box of a guiding doctrine, especially in peacetime. Granted, once the bullets start flying, they do tweek the system to meet new and unexpected curcumstances and opposing tactics, but overall, the guiding doctrine is very slow to change. The saying that the generals plan to fight the last war is not very far off the mark in most cases.

 

[Merrick Chance']

In Vietnam, the Vietnamese had a significantly better doctrine. The Maoist doctrine of guerilla warfare is intensely hard to beat once it gets to it's 2nd and 3rd stages, especially when you don't have a good government in the country in question.

 

[out]

A military doctrine is a pretty static thing, i.e. not something that changes very quickly.

What you say is true only for some countries. Granted that would include most countries with a long military continuity. But military establishment is often vulnerable to civilian government's interference. And since the player already plays something of a state god with power to decide election outcome, I don't see why military tradition should be able to resist the player's will.

In any case, most countries had doctrine shifts during the war, most notably Germany, USSR and Japan. China, too, ended up using strategies that were very different from what they taught in the academies. All of them had to change because their old doctrines were no longer feasible, and a slider system can be used to model this reality.

Yes, drastically changing military doctrine is unrealistic. So is China declaring war on USA in '36, but do you think that should be forbidden? The freeform model, properly balanced, would not reward reckless doctrine shifts. I envision most of the slider moves to be gradual tweaks. Perhaps after 4 years of war, your doctrines would be quite different, but that's very reasonable if the situation warrants. Provided that your strategic situation doesn't change in a hurry, your doctrinal "school" isn't likely to change much, either.

I see this model as a good solution for accomodating both historicity and fantastic what-ifs.

 

[bz249]

In Vietnam, the Vietnamese had a significantly better doctrine. The Maoist doctrine of guerilla warfare is intensely hard to beat once it gets to it's 2nd and 3rd stages, especially when you don't have a good government in the country in question.

Yet the Vietnam war was won by a concentrated attack of 17 regular NVA division supported by massive artillery and armor formations... so the decisive last phase was a very traditional maneuver. Modeling this the HOI engine is more than capable of.

 

[Battlecry]

The freeform model, properly balanced, would not reward reckless doctrine shifts. I envision most of the slider moves to be gradual tweaks. Perhaps after 4 years of war, your doctrines would be quite different, but that's very reasonable if the situation warrants. Provided that your strategic situation doesn't change in a hurry, your doctrinal "school" isn't likely to change much, either.

I see this model as a good solution for accomodating both historicity and fantastic what-ifs.

This is perhaps what I like most about such a system - if you pour enough effort into it (which should be a ton), and give it the time necessary (6-8 years, or more), then you can truly create the doctrine you want, rather than just those provided by Paradox. It also allows for more nuances relating to experience - to put it simply it opens up a whole realm of detail, while not being more complex for the player.

 

[Merrick Chance']

Yet the Vietnam war was won by a concentrated attack of 17 regular NVA division supported by massive artillery and armor formations... so the decisive last phase was a very traditional maneuver. Modeling this the HOI engine is more than capable of.

That's the way it's supposed to happen. You utilize guerilla warfare when you can't beat the opponent in a head on fight. The only reason South Vietnam existed as a nation after the 50's was because of US intervention. The 17 divisions couldn't have stood up in full on battle against the US military

 

[unmerged(128095)]

Yes, drastically changing military doctrine is unrealistic. So is China declaring war on USA in '36, but do you think that should be forbidden? The freeform model, properly balanced, would not reward reckless doctrine shifts.

Exactly. Personally, I like playing the 'what if' aspect of this game, but whithin the context of the start date. In the case of Germany, the basics of the Blitzkreig doctrine was well established by then, so training (organization) and weapon development was geared towards that doctrine. Leadership too was based on that. Would Guderian or Rommel have been as effective a leader under a human wave doctrine?

Secondly, you should be able to play as China, but go with a blitzkrieg doctrine, but there should be severe penalties, not only in organization but in leadership skills until you can research the doctrine.

I do have one suggestion though for the developers regarding the doctrine tech screen. It would be nice to have additional doctrine for later in the war. A couple of 'what if' type options. What if Germany a core hardcore Germans did retreat to the Alps and continue a guerilla war, hoping that the East and West did end up fighting each other in '45, or what if the Germans had won in Europe, where would their doctrine have gone from that point. The same would be true for the rest of the major powers, and how things turned out in the first half of the '40s. A few more options for development to follow if a. the Axis wins, or B, they lose and the cold war fires up. (maybe for the first expantion?)