Hearts of Iron IV - Development Diary 4 - Land Doctrines

[podcat]

There look very much like the talent trees in World of Warcraft.

Thanks, Blizzard makes some of the absolute most top notch interfaces and mechanics like that

 

[mursolini]

Are you saying that if it was only 3 doctrines per path you would not have complained about dumbing down, simplifying and just concluded that it was no progress since HoI2?

I didn`t say anything about "dumbing down" I complained that the PI can`t seem to find a suitable way to implement doctines in a better way, thus bouncing between extreemes.

I think that if there were only 3 doctrines per path everyone would have complained, and complained loudly, so obviously number of doctrines is also important.

As I said, what you care is about the number of doctrines, what i care about the way I customise my forces to fight the war according to my strategy.
That is why I find the lack of progress, while you find the 50% more techs and a few extra branches to be progress enough.

I don`t want to see you just "choose" to awesome in certain aerie. I want army to put effort and blood to understand the best possible way to fight in the situation.

Like German armor in battle of france wasn`t that good because Germans chose to. Germany had a war in Spain to draw on, then they had a Polish campaign, in which they found their armored division organisation to be night inadequate, and their armor uncapable of fighting reserves sitting around Warshaw for weeks, and then reorganised their armored divisions before battle of France. The result is what we know it was. But what if Germany would invade France first, without a test run on Poland? The results would be far worse. But in game, there is no such relation, and sadly, HOI4 is not going to intruduce one, it seems.

 

[Peacenik]

Player guidance good, return to HOI2 illogic bad

The doctrinal change idea is a great start. However, it feels like you are poking your finger out of the box. Why not just pop your head out and think outside of it? Why do doctrinal trees encompass the real-life doctrinal progressions of the big four, and thereby relegate doctrinal change to ‘player flexibility’?

If there is one real-life doctrinal progression that should be modeled as a change in doctrine, it is blitzkrieg to volkssturm. That is, Levée en masse of 13-55 year olds is no more a logical continuation of mobile warfare than of any other doctrine. If a practitioner of some other doctrine finds itself in a desperate struggle for survival of nation and party, why should they be less capable of going full meat shield doctrine? I propose a separate desperation mini tree.

 

[Klausewitz]

I have nothing against branches, but i thing it would be nicer if the branches where diversified according to different kinds of forces, for example 3 (shorter) trees for Infantry (Firepower, Shock, Infiltration), 3 trees for Armor (Infantry-/Cavalry tanks, combined arms groups, armoured spearheads) and 3 for the support arms (versatility, concentration and ?).
As it is now i have to, for good or bad, buy packages.
I would like it much better if i could swap out part of the package.

 

[Beagá]

I'm a little dissapointed by this DD. It seems doctrines remain a "tech" with predetermined paths, which a very bad way of implementing it. I though that new announced "institutional experience" will be tied in together with the current situation of the countly to allow for a dynamically changing doctrine. For example with Germany as above:

* Massed usage of armoured forces and shifts/improves the doctrine towards "blitzkrieg"-like
* however strain on manpower gives an option to invest in more defensive doctines
* massed attacks by the enemy lead to "kampfgruppe", mobile reserve and similar
* Running out of manpower shifts doctrines heavily towards volksturm.

It makes no sense for doctrine to improve just as fast for a nation that does is at peace and for a nation that fighting a war.

The whole notion of doctrine is VERY forced. Superior Firepower for example would imply the german and soviet artillery was inferior. That´s not the case - they just didn´t have the resources of its american couterpart. Infiltration is just as silly. No one did massed attacks at machine guns except the soviets, the concept was know to everyone.

It´s very simple, really - nations shoud learn to use weapons and in some cases have nation bonuses to areas.

 

[Darkrenown]

No, not really.
First of there was a high level of passive desertion and social pressure to stay out of danger.
In the areas that faced the Russians people were better motivated, but even there most rather run than be slaughtered (or, if they were lucky, captured and shot).
In the West a lot of Volkssturm battalions, organized by local dignitaries simply stayed at home or disintegrated as soon as it seemed possible.
The only real instance of everybody being drafted and everybody fighting was Berlin.
But then there was nowhere to run, no place to hide and a pretty pissed, brutal and raping enemy at the door, so there was not much point in not fighting.

I don't see how this is relevant, it just seems like you want to paint Germany in a better light for some reason.

So how pre-determined this game will be? Germans fought and lost. Volkstrum hardly is a military doctrine or even a strategy. Blitzkrieg failed in 41 or in 42 how you want it. So lets assume original tree ends there. However jumping from blitzkrieg to desperate defense is just plain silly. There were tens of battles after Stalingrad and before fight for Vaterland. In other word year 43 and 44. Correct me if I'm wrong but is modern blitzkrieg meant to be mainly offensive path and desperate defense purely defensive?

I honestly don't know if you're trolling me or still not getting it. One last time: Desperate Defense is the historical path that you can choose to take if you end up in the same desperate situation. It is NOT pre-determined that Germany will end up in such a situation though, which is why there is a different path which continues to focus on mobile warfare. Neither is purely offensive or defensive, but the former focuses on massed of low quality infantry and the latter continues to focus on mobile units.

 

[Daelyn75]

The whole notion of doctrine is VERY forced. Superior Firepower for example would imply the german and soviet artillery was inferior. That´s not the case - they just didn´t have the resources of its american couterpart. Infiltration is just as silly. No one did massed attacks at machine guns except the soviets, the concept was know to everyone.

It´s very simple, really - nations shoud learn to use weapons and in some cases have nation bonuses to areas.

Do you know what Land Doctrines are? It has nothing to do with weapons, equipment, or soldier quality, but it has everything to do with how they are used in battle. The USA would upon encountering stiff resistance call up artillery and air support/naval bombardment, where as the Germans would try to seek out weak spots and punch through, and surround that same resistance. It's the way they fought, not what they fought with.

Infiltration was the way the Japanese fought. And yes they did upon many occasions charge machine gun nests, to varying degrees of success.

 

[novapaddy]

I think what is shown is a good start, but only a start.

We have the land wars in Europe, Asia; the sea war in the Pacific Islands, the desert wars ...

I think you need to add more specialisms, like:

US Marine warfare that starts out with a very basicly trained and armed soldier, who over the course of the war, becomes much more specialised, better and heavier armed, and of course Combined warfare.

The Soviet Rifle Brigades/divs/armies, fast, powerful.
The massed artillery.
Land Doctrines, where are the political officers, the nkvd, guys who had no options, but were driven by fear.

Where is the clash between the German Army and Hitler wanting control over the forces. Where is the conflict?

Where are the specialised german units, the better training and equipment, the elite forces, driven by their belief systems.

Where are the Italians, the Romanians etc, who didn't want to fight at all?

Where are the Japanese forces, again a strong belief system that led to heroics on the battlefield, as well as other things.

I just think it would be better to add more specialisms in concert with what you have there already.

EDIT: And please please, not just the usa, russia and germany.

 

[Beagá]

Do you know what Land Doctrines are? It has nothing to do with weapons, equipment, or soldier quality, but it has everything to do with how they are used in battle. The USA would upon encountering stiff resistance call up artillery and air support/naval bombardment, where as the Germans would try to seek out weak spots and punch through, and surround that same resistance. It's the way they fought, not what they fought with.

Infiltration was the way the Japanese fought. And yes they did upon many occasions charge machine gun nests, to varying degrees of success.

The US did it because it had the weapons. Not because they read guides. Hilarious that you think Germany didn´t use artillery or air support...

As for the japanese, so what? Since when they were the only ones who fought like that? ALL Countries who fought in jungles LEARNED to fight the same way - loose formations. Again, see US in Vietnam. Or even the British in Burma later.

The suicide charges the japanese did aren´t "doctrine", they are fanaticism and should give maluses instead.

 

[mursolini]

Do you know what Land Doctrines are? It has nothing to do with weapons, equipment, or soldier quality, but it has everything to do with how they are used in battle. The USA would upon encountering stiff resistance call up artillery and air support/naval bombardment, where as the Germans would try to seek out weak spots and punch through, and surround that same resistance. It's the way they fought, not what they fought with.

Really? German army had great coordinations with mortars and artillery almost constantly supporting advance of infantry. Actually German infantry was so good early war, because it managed to coordinate it`s support weapons so well.
Need I mention that German army also relied heavilly on close coordination with Luftwaffe?

That is not strictly different from what Americans did. It is just that at certain stages of war Germans couldn`t do it because they were outmatched by firepower and air power of allies or Soviets.

 

[physics1915]

I think what is shown is a good start, but only a start.

We have the land wars in Europe, Asia; the sea war in the Pacific Islands, the desert wars ...

I think you need to add more specialisms, like:

US Marine warfare that starts out with a very basicly trained and armed soldier, who over the course of the war, becomes much more specialised, better and heavier armed, and of course Combined warfare.

The Soviet Rifle Brigades/divs/armies, fast, powerful.
The massed artillery.
Land Doctrines, where are the political officers, the nkvd, guys who had no options, but were driven by fear.

Where is the clash between the German Army and Hitler wanting control over the forces. Where is the conflict?

Where are the specialised german units, the better training and equipment, the elite forces, driven by their belief systems.

Where are the Italians, the Romanians etc, who didn't want to fight at all?

Where are the Japanese forces, again a strong belief system that led to heroics on the battlefield, as well as other things.

I just think it would be better to add more specialisms in concert with what you have there already.

EDIT: And please please, not just the usa, russia and germany.

These things don't really fit into the category of 'doctrine'.

 

[208]

Both the Assault branch of Grand Battleplan and the Deep Battle side of Mass Assault are generalist "everything gets better as we learn from our mistakes" paths that I don't feel lend themselves to splitting. If anyone has any good suggestions I'd consider it.

It seems to me it seems that the Soviet approach in the later years was basically an extension of "human wave", but applied to everything: huge groups of tanks, massed artillery divisions, etc. A lot of large organizational structures (for example, tank platoons that had like 10 tanks instead of the more typical 4-5), which I assume had to do in part with the lack of officers.

For "Deep Battle" then I could imagine a somewhat different alternative branch which focuses more on integrating combined arms on a much smaller scale, requiring significantly more leadership/officers and equipment but improving the performance of individual combined-arms divisions. Still somewhat general in nature, but focusing on improving divisions at the small scale rather than improving the sheer quantity/quantity of war material and high-level direction of the standard Soviet approach. Maybe it would be an option more feasible for a "Purge-less" USSR.

As for Grand Battle Plan, I don't know if it would really fit, but an idea I had is that one choice might focus on strategic mobility/offense and specialized forces (marines, paratroopers) whereas the other focuses more on infantry and being on the strategic defensive - better digging in, some infantry terrain bonuses, etc.

Neither is purely offensive or defensive, but the former focuses on massed of low quality infantry and the latter continues to focus on mobile units.

Would it be possible to have that offensive/defensive doctrine choice (i.e. a third branch) without the defensive choice essentially being the Armoured Warfare version of the Mass Mobilization dead-end?

 

[Darkrenown]

The whole notion of doctrine is VERY forced. Superior Firepower for example would imply the german and soviet artillery was inferior. That´s not the case - they just didn´t have the resources of its american couterpart. Infiltration is just as silly. No one did massed attacks at machine guns except the soviets, the concept was know to everyone.

"Superior Firepower: This is the American default path. This doctrine focuses on big, well-equipped, but expensive divisions and gains a bonus when fighting in areas with friendly air superiority. The first split offers the choice between adding more support units to each division, or focusing on independently deployed support brigades. The second split will let you pick between Airland battle (for increased cooperation with the air force for combat support) or Shock and Awe (which keeps the majority of your focus on ground-based firepower). "

Artillery isn't actually directly mentioned at all, so I don't see where you get the idea it is somehow demeaning German and Soviet Artillery. Rather the description says the overall divisions are large and well equipped, which they were. Infiltration is also not primarily based on charging into machinegun fire, but if you think no one except the Soviets ever assaulted a defended position in WWII you should probably read about...well, almost any battle to be honest, but let's take a Japanese example and say The battle of the Tenaru:

Just after midnight on August 21, Ichiki's main body of troops arrived at the east bank of Alligator Creek and were surprised to encounter the Marine positions, not having expected to find U.S. forces located that distance from the airfield. Nearby U.S. Marine listening posts heard "clanking" sounds, human voices, and other noises before withdrawing to the west bank of the creek. At 01:30 Ichiki's force opened fire with machine guns and mortars on the Marine positions on the west bank of the creek, and a first wave of about 100 Imperial soldiers charged across the sandbar towards the Marines.

Marine machine gun fire and canister rounds from the 37 mm cannons killed most of the Japanese soldiers as they crossed the sandbar.

It´s very simple, really - nations shoud learn to use weapons and in some cases have nation bonuses to areas.

So armies just hand out whatever weapons they have on hand to their units and say "Eh, whatever, figure it out"? They don't formulate doctrines and then arm and train their units to fight in a certain way? News to me!

 

[Secret Master]

It´s very simple, really - nations shoud learn to use weapons and in some cases have nation bonuses to areas.

Wait. You want nations to have special bonuses, but you also say this:

The whole notion of doctrine is VERY forced. Superior Firepower for example would imply the german and soviet artillery was inferior. That´s not the case - they just didn´t have the resources of its american couterpart. Infiltration is just as silly. No one did massed attacks at machine guns except the soviets, the concept was know to everyone.

So the doctrines are very forced, but just giving nations bonuses because they are country X isn't forced? That doesn't make any sense.

Besides, didn't someone say earlier that all doctrines give bonuses to various units? It's just that certain paths give bigger bonuses to specific units or leaders?

It's not like going the blitzkrieg route means you have no bonuses to artillery at all.

 

[L'Afrique]

So armies just hand out whatever weapons they have on hand to their units and say "Eh, whatever, figure it out"? They don't formulate doctrines and then arm and train their units to fight in a certain way? News to me!

You forget the most important part my friend: nation bonuses. To represent how germans born in the 1920s were all really good at driving tanks from a young age, whereas the their american counterparts each sprung out of the womb clutching a semi-automatic rifle and a followed by an artillery observation team.

 

[Daelyn75]

The US did it because it had the weapons. Not because they read guides. Hilarious that you think Germany didn´t use artillery or air support...

As for the japanese, so what? Since when they were the only ones who fought like that? ALL Countries who fought in jungles LEARNED to fight the same way - loose formations. Again, see US in Vietnam. Or even the British in Burma later.

The suicide charges the japanese did aren´t "doctrine", they are fanaticism and should give maluses instead.

Wrong on every count bro. You read too literally. Like if it's not directly said then it's not there? So land divisions in the game without an artillery brigade have no artillery right? Is this a problem with translation here? Land Doctrines are the way that militaries fought. Sorry if you have trouble believing it, but that is the case. Officers are educated in this way, time is spent having units out there training in this method. "Because they read guides" . . I almost don't want to respond to this.

The Japanese doctrine was infiltration where they would guess what . . infiltrate the enemy lines. HOI 2 Was modeled in this way, and this is the way they historically fought. I can pull up various history books that would validate this. Do you think the Devs just conjured that up for fun? Sorry man, but that was how they did it. Suicide charges are not part of the game. Bonsai charges are not suicide charges, sorry, but I think you watch too many movies and don't read enough.

 

[mursolini]

You forget the most important part my friend: nation bonuses. To represent how germans born in the 1920s were all really good at driving tanks from a young age, whereas the their american counterparts each sprung out of the womb clutching a semi-automatic rifle and a followed by an artillery observation team.

America should get national bonuses to medicine!

 

[Jorlaan]

I for one LOVE the look of this new doctrine system! It looks a lot like the one from the HPP mod for HoI 3 but updated with more options which is awesome.
I am really starting to get excited for this game now, this was something that was going to be a huge decider for me and I love it!

 

[D Inqu]

It seems to me it seems that the Soviet approach in the later years was basically an extension of "human wave", but applied to everything: huge groups of tanks, massed artillery divisions, etc. A lot of large organizational structures (for example, tank platoons that had like 10 tanks instead of the more typical 4-5), which I assume had to do in part with the lack of officers.

For "Deep Battle" then I could imagine a somewhat different alternative branch which focuses more on integrating combined arms on a much smaller scale, requiring significantly more leadership/officers and equipment but improving the performance of individual combined-arms divisions. Still somewhat general in nature, but focusing on improving divisions at the small scale rather than improving the sheer quantity/quantity of war material and high-level direction of the standard Soviet approach. Maybe it would be an option more feasible for a "Purge-less" USSR.

Nope it was the other way round. A soviet late war tank regiment was made up of 21 tanks - less than a German batallion. Soviet late war Tank Corps and Mechanised corps were smaller than a panzer division.

Due to suffereing from manpower shortages, the soviet late war doctrine favoured massed artillery, support, engineering, armor and small numbers of men actually going into combat.

Deep battle was a strategic concept, (not alternative, just higher level, converning with how army groups, groups fight, not how divisions/regiments fight). It called for deep breakthroughs into the enemy's key supply centers, industrial areas, denying him the ability of effectively wage war. The key aspect was that maintaining encirclements was seen secondary to that. It was seen that if finishing off a defeated division takes to much time, that time is best spent advancing forward.

 

[Daelyn75]

Really? German army had great coordinations with mortars and artillery almost constantly supporting advance of infantry. Actually German infantry was so good early war, because it managed to coordinate it`s support weapons so well.
Need I mention that German army also relied heavilly on close coordination with Luftwaffe?

That is not strictly different from what Americans did. It is just that at certain stages of war Germans couldn`t do it because they were outmatched by firepower and air power of allies or Soviets.

Yeah, really. I'd suggest you read up on what Blitzkrieg is. In no place did I say that the Germans didn't coordinate support weapons well, that in fact was the point of Blitzkrieg. It was very different from what the Americans did. All major nations at times used Blitzkrieg like strategies when able, but it wasn't the doctrine that their whole army was based on, which was in fact the case for Germany.

As I had said . . The USA when upon encountering resistance would use heavy firepower to break, and or weaken it. They did not base their doctrine around flowing tanks and mechanized units through weak spots to encircle and destroy like the Germans did. This was what happened to France in 1940 when Germany cut the allied force from the south and surrounded and destroyed them through Belgium and the Netherlands, and this is also what Germany did many times to the Soviets in 1941, and tried to do so with much smaller success in 1942 but then got caught up in Stalingrad and failed to follow the doctrine of Blitzkrieg because Hitler had to have Stalingrad at all costs.