Hearts of Iron IV - Development Diary 4 - Land Doctrines

[vonhavoc]

a load of ****

Have fun worshiping the Red Army, you even ignore clear numbers. Don't bother replying to me anymore, you are too far gone for any kind of facts to work.

Back on the doctrine side, I remember reading about a couple of soviet paratroop operations in the southern part of east front after Kursk, at least during the winter. Were those more of a norm or an anomaly from then on?

 

[Klausewitz]

This came up in the Wunderwaffen thread and i think it might have some bearing here:
The German 88, along with its quite marvelous engineering, also achieved its spectacular successes against armor because German doctrine allowed for AA to be deployed forward and be use in any role desired (light AA was often used to repel infantry attacks or against the backside armor of tanks).
At the same time german AT guns were quite effective, but soviet AT, because they were also field artillery pieces, were arguably better.
This was also due to doctrinal decisions:
While the German AT guns evolved from the small 37mm gun and basically were the same principle (small bore, high speed) enlarge to counter stronger armor leading to AT with good penetration but bad anti-personnel and anti-fortification characteristics because the shells and therefore the explosive filler were relativly small.
The Russian guns, first- and foremost among them the 76 mm divisional gun, also knwon as the Zis-3 or more precisely the whole group of divisional guns (since the soviets also had the 'pure-AT' the Germans possesed) on the other hand were really field artillery pieces with an anti-tank shell (this idea: an artillery gun with an anti-tank shell, is basically the motto of all the great soviet AT guns), though that was made possible by the fact that the soviets possesed these special divisional guns (which the Germans did not) for doctrine reasons.
So as doctrine shapes how guns are used, the also shape what kind of guns are made in the first place:
The 88mm was able to fire parallel to the ground with no problems in recoil absorption which does not make a lot of sense for a pure AA gun, while the divisional guns were 'anti tank field guns' something few other armies possesed or called for.

 

[seattle]

Back on the doctrine side, I remember reading about a couple of soviet paratroop operations in the southern part of east front after Kursk, at least during the winter. Were those more of a norm or an anomaly from then on?

The Soviets had a massive paratrooper program well before the war. IIRC the most extensive one out of all nations worldwide. Long time ago, but I think it was documented in the BBC series "World at War". Regardless of how much they actually used them in the war, they definitely had the capability and training.

#88mm
This has to be factored in by simple giving the AA-brigade an AT bonus once the 88mm has been developed. It could also be triggered by the Afrika Korps because Rommel made its usage as an anti tank weapon popular.

 

[Klausewitz]

#88mm
This has to be factored in by simple giving the AA-brigade an AT bonus once the 88mm has been developed. It could also be triggered by the Afrika Korps because Rommel made its usage as an anti tank weapon popular.

It could also be used as an indirecte fire artillery, increasing soft attack...

 

[Chromos]

Sure, the 88 was devastating on buildings(especially wood) aswell.
On the other hand, we should not forget the reason to use the 88 at all in such roles. That was mostly becasue of soldiers found solutions with equpement they had at hand.
Other nations had also comparable guns, but didn't used them in same roles, because of other weapons at hand. So SOV used mostly the field Art guns it had in much larger amount.
US didn't used its 90mm AA because of most times they had enough TD nearby or air cover etc..
Germans were the ones that had to improvise many times with the equipment they could get their hands on in time., because on an overall shortage on many things.
So making the best out of a bad situation, should not be seen the same as having a general bonus maybe.

In game terms I would tie the usage of 88 to a doctrine and equioment tech. So if you have your AA units equiped with hvy AA guns, and have a doctrine to also use it against tanks, then your AA units gets also a bonus against tanks..
Similar could then be done for SOV wich could use its formidable 76mm ART also in AT role like historically, rasing HA and penetration value of ART unit.
Others like USA could do the same but also save the research and spend it elsewhere. That way you could catch up an equipment question with clever research(usage of given units).

 

[Porkman]

They said -and well may- make the leader-play more interesting, as they will be way less of them, now (thanks, pi!). They could all have a skillevel for each doctine-tree, plus various perks (like the traits, now) and experience, and whenever that reaches a threshold the HQ glows (think Civ4-promotion and, from here, great people: ) and you can pick a perk, or a skillevel in one of the doctrines for the commander (modifying the bonus the application of which conveys on the subordinated units, and the ´research´ rate of the HQ) or invest a ´lump sum´ into a doctrine-´tech´ (additionally to the accumulation that occurs otherwise through this HQ).

We could also have a ´general staff´ with limited seats into which you could call commanders, who would then add ´double´ (or so) to doctrine research, but would not be able to take command of an HQ in the meantime. This would help minors, who will have few HQs and troops to attach commanders to, to somewhat keep up in doctrines (and to reminscince HoI2 to some extent - think tech-teams). The general staff, then, should also be assigned a prefered tree and thus steer most countries on a one-tree-prefered track by default.

Anyway, under these premises, the screen we see at the beginning of this thread would be of pure informal function in the game. Or supplemented with a ´general staff´ panel. As is, there´d be nothing to do, on this screen, except for checking how things are going along (edit: and choosing the branches, i suppose, within each tree), as the research would happen in the HQs. I could imagine a similar system for all research, them being linked to factories and battle-experience. Ultimately, i hope we can get away without ´old school´ research points, or leadership, diplomatic points and victory points for that matter.

I love, love, love this idea!

Doctrines for units are determined by the generals in the command chain with some generals having skill in particular doctrines. Overall focus is determined by the General staff.

This could also help with keeping China historical since most of the high ranking generals had poor military educations and I could imagine China having a lot of "no doctrine" generals.

You should pretty up the proposal and start a general thread about it.

 

[Holy.Death]

In game terms I would tie the usage of 88 to a doctrine and equioment tech. So if you have your AA units equiped with hvy AA guns, and have a doctrine to also use it against tanks, then your AA units gets also a bonus against tanks..

Why bonus and not straight piercing upgrade?

 

[Jazumir]

I love, love, love this idea!

Doctrines for units are determined by the generals in the command chain with some generals having skill in particular doctrines. Overall focus is determined by the General staff.

This could also help with keeping China historical since most of the high ranking generals had poor military educations and I could imagine China having a lot of "no doctrine" generals.

You should pretty up the proposal and start a general thread about it.

Thx and done (well at least the later part - dunno if the ´pretty up´ part really worked, but uhem, well...)

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

The Soviets had mechanized corpses? This isn't the "Wunderwaffen"-thread, mind you!

for example they had so called cavalry mechanized units which consisted of both horse cavalry and armored vehicles. Do not get fooled by the fact that the Wehrmacht rarely used horse riders as combat units. The Red Army was more mechanized than Wehrmacht already in 1941. USSR suffered from serious lack of horses but it had loads of fuel. The Soviet logistic and mobility superiority was later even emphasised by obtaining vast amounts of lorries from the US while Germany was still heavily reliant on horses. I should also add that the "Russian winter" did at least as much harm to the Red army as it did to the Wehrmacht.

In 1939, Halder, seeing the terrible rate of vehicle production, ordered to partially de-motorize the army. Germany had around 100 thousand vehicles (after requisitioning all available private property) while France had 300 thousand. With the production of only 1000 vehicles monthly it was not enough to cover the losses. the German army in WW1 was using 1,400,000 horses, in WW2 2,700,000 horses. The Red army employed total 3,500,000 horses which is much lower advantage than it had in comparison to Germany in vehicles.

 

[illathid]

for example they had so called cavalry mechanized units which consisted of both horse cavalry and armored vehicles. Do not get fooled by the fact that the Wehrmacht rarely used horse riders as combat units. The Red Army was more mechanized than Wehrmacht already in 1941. USSR suffered from serious lack of horses but it had loads of fuel. The Soviet logistic and mobility superiority was later even emphasised by obtaining vast amounts of lorries from the US while Germany was still heavily reliant on horses. I should also add that the "Russian winter" did at least as much harm to the Red army as it did to the Wehrmacht.

In 1939, Halder, seeing the terrible rate of vehicle production, ordered to partially de-motorize the army. Germany had around 100 thousand vehicles (after requisitioning all available private property) while France had 300 thousand. With the production of only 1000 vehicles monthly it was not enough to cover the losses. the German army in WW1 was using 1,400,000 horses, in WW2 2,700,000 horses. The Red army employed total 3,500,000 horses which is much lower advantage than it had in comparison to Germany in vehicles.

That was a joke. As it was written it implied the soviets had mechanized dead bodies.

 

[DicRoNero]

Grand Battleplan: This could be thought of as the traditional doctrine path, and is the default choice for Britain, France, Italy...

Mass Assault: The default doctrine for the USSR and China. It focuses on using large amounts of Manpower

From what I saw in HoI3, Italy would be better off with Mass Assault, too :rofl: - thanks to the crappiest division composition (2x INF) and overall poor equipment. On a serious note, after doing some basic studies on Italian armament production in 1940-1943, I've got to give the Italians some credit: their soldiers performed not that bad for what they had at hands...

 

[Chromos]

Why bonus and not straight piercing upgrade?

If you use your hvy AA also in a direct fire AT role you also add HA chance to your units aswell.
So I think "piercing only" would be for balancing reasons then?
With "bonus" I meant whatever effect it should get to show the historical impact it had.

 

[Wminus]

Have fun worshiping the Red Army, you even ignore clear numbers. Don't bother replying to me anymore, you are too far gone for any kind of facts to work.

Vanhoc, your writing reeked of typical "blame it all on Hitler" Wehrmacht mental masturbation, not coherent thinking. Hardly a good standpoint to have when accusing others of being biased.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

I find the idea that the Soviet Doctrine tree is designed to be abandoned troublesome. It proved to be the most effective set of doctrines put into use during the most important and largest war in Modern history.

That their doctrine is designed to be abandoned induces eye rolling and is on the same level of silliness that people insisting the Western front decided the war elicit.

I don't see how the most decisive war winning doctrine of the entire war, and arguably the best doctrinal system ever developed (when combined with enlisting/conscripting mass) for fighting large scale total wars is designed to be discarded and used as a stop gap.

I get in a way what Paradox is trying to do, but shoehorning the "stop gap measures" employed by the Soviets into their doctrine tree is both incorrect and disingenuous to the actual Soviet Doctrine of WW2. Deep Battle was the Soviet Doctrine that was designed around leveraging their superior mass in the most efficient way. When war broke up they were simply not ready to put it into practice. When the war did end, there was not a more operationally capable military force in the world.

But Deep Battle is designed to be abandoned...In favor of what? Doctrines which other than the American tree are wholly unsuitable and proved to be so in WW2.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I find the idea that the Soviet Doctrine tree is designed to be abandoned troublesome. It proved to be the most effective set of doctrines put into use during the most important and largest war in Modern history.

After taking a quick look at the Soviet losses during the first year of Barbarossa I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion that Soviet doctrine during 1936-1942 was "the most effective set of doctrines put into use".

But Deep Battle is designed to be abandoned...In favor of what? Doctrines which other than the American tree are wholly unsuitable and proved to be so in WW2.

I think your missing their point. The short "mass mobilization" branch of the Mass assault doctrine is designed to be abandoned in favor for the longer Deep battle path which Paradox is calling:

the innovative Soviet Deep Battle doctrine, which makes use of the modern tools of war and boosts the capability of Armour, artillery, and mobile units.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

After taking a quick look at the Soviet losses during the first year of Barbarossa I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion that Soviet doctrine during 1936-1942 was "the most effective set of doctrines put into use".

Does blitzkrieg get to be judged by the bungled Balaton and Bulge offensives? Americans by the Casserine and British by Singapore?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Does blitzkrieg get to be judged by the bungled Balaton and Bulge offensives? Americans by the Casserine and British by Singapore?

Did any of these last for years of heavy combat and involve a vast majority of all divisions the nation engaged like Soviet overall combat performance from 1939 (Finland) - 1942 (winter) did?

I'm just pointing out that the way the Soviet doctrine tree seems to be designed is that you can get a few temporary mobilization bonuses by choosing mass mobilization early on, but once you are mobilized and want to start hitting back you will need to abandon it and instead choose the Deep Battle path.

Do you think that the Soviet changed their doctrine greatly ( and cut out parts of it ) based on their costly wartime experience between 1939 until 1942?

If your answer is yes then the Paradox doctrine tree designed lined out here makes perfect sense don't you think??


It also leaves the choice to you, you can choose Deep battle right away, but then you risk that Soviet will not be well prepared and able to replace the losses rapidly enough should the initial combat go badly.

 

[Secret Master]

If I read correctly, there are duplicate stuff in various doctrines, so even switching over may not completely negate every bonus the Soviets have going into 1942.

Part of the game may, in fact, be knowing when to swap doctrine paths. It could very well be that every doctrine and path has disadvantages depending on the current state of the war, and that you are expected to swap when conditions change, paying the cost.

 

[Big Nev]

Sure, the 88 was devastating on buildings(especially wood) aswell.
On the other hand, we should not forget the reason to use the 88 at all in such roles. That was mostly becasue of soldiers found solutions with equpement they had at hand.
Other nations had also comparable guns, but didn't used them in same roles, because of other weapons at hand. So SOV used mostly the field Art guns it had in much larger amount.
US didn't used its 90mm AA because of most times they had enough TD nearby or air cover etc..
Germans were the ones that had to improvise many times with the equipment they could get their hands on in time., because on an overall shortage on many things.
So making the best out of a bad situation, should not be seen the same as having a general bonus maybe.

In game terms I would tie the usage of 88 to a doctrine and equioment tech. So if you have your AA units equiped with hvy AA guns, and have a doctrine to also use it against tanks, then your AA units gets also a bonus against tanks..
Similar could then be done for SOV wich could use its formidable 76mm ART also in AT role like historically, rasing HA and penetration value of ART unit.
Others like USA could do the same but also save the research and spend it elsewhere. That way you could catch up an equipment question with clever research(usage of given units).

Whilst this is supposed to be about doctrines, I think it’s important to point-out that the US 90mm AA gun couldn’t be used against ground targets because it couldn’t depress far enough. Not because there were enough TDs around. The Brit 3.7” had recoil issues and would break itself.

The German 88 would not need to be developed (assuming same game start date) because it already had been in 1935. This was not a case of German troops “making do” or “improvising” as it was developed with the specific intention to use it against ground targets whereas the Brit’ & US “equivalents” weren’t.

Perhaps this is a doctrinal issue, but it’s a doctrinal issue that would “unlock” design & development. You can’t just research a doctrine to allow use of your [existing] AA guns against tanks. You need this first and only then can you start to research the new hardware capable of performing the function.

The USA did this and, IIRC, produced a 90mm AA gun that could fire horizontally by late 1944. The Brit’s tried & failed. Something to do with not having a big enough tractor to tow the thing.

The 88 wasn’t made famous against tanks by Rommel in North Africa. It was made famous against tanks by Rommel at Arras in Northern France. Although this was probably not the first time it was used in this roll in France. It may also have been used against armour in Spain (during the SCW) too but I can’t say for sure.

I’ve been lobbying for Mech-AA (for Germany at game start) with serious Piercing since before TFH was released.


Edit: I also think it’s important to point out that turning a heavy AA gun into an AT gun isn’t a simple matter. Certainly nothing like as simple as fitting a muzzlebrake to a 25pdr to up the maximum shell velocity from about 200m/s for HE to a respectable (for a howitzer) 530m/s with solid shot.

 

[nimrod123]

@big-nev

theirs a fairly simple answer to that, where you have a doctrine tree related to multipurpose equipment use. you give weapon systems buffs in their not intended roles, in exchange for negatives (for example, german 88's being overbuilt for AA roles).

the more you progress down the tree, the more generic the unit becomes, paying the price for being a jack of all trades. you then make the tree open to everyone (so not doctrine locked) that meets universal criteria (e.g. a certain level of education and industry)