I really like the way land doctrines are made in the HoI3. You can research all kinds of doctrines, which each kind giving bonuses to specific units. This way even if you have big armoured forces and research blitzing techs you have to research mass assault for infantry organisation and morale. And also superior firepower for air support and artillery co-operation.
If its organised like this in AoD I would like it. Same applies to naval doctrines. The air doctrines were already fine in the vanilla imo.
If I understand correctly what is being suggested here it should be pointed out that the function of adding combat bonuses specific unit types already pretty much exists in HOI II DD, it's just that it is not used, I think because its broken. Unit specific bonuses do not take hold unless the game is saved and rebooted.
I also think any temptation toward breaking up the doctrines again into component parts as it was in HOI I, and now in HOI III should be avoided. This feature of HOI II DD facilitates game play immensely, and is a unique feature of HOI II DD that makes it distinct from the other games.
Not that having detailed tech trees is a bad thing, and I really loved playing with the tech trees in HOI I, but in the end it was tedious and boring after you knew how to work it, and consolidating them in HOI II turned out to greatly increase game playability, and game playability is a serious selling point for HOI II.
Making this game mini-HOI III might not be the best approach. A new game should be distinct, and accent the best qualities of the engine, which in this case is higher granularity and playability.
Because in real life the doctrines could (and did) evolve in different directions depending on what opposition you faced, how your units performed and what your leaders believed. In HoI2 your doctrine will always evolve in a predetermined way, but not in HoI3.
The Techteam specialities will still be there to limit over-research and doctrines are still pretty expensive to research.
I would argue that locking each country into its doctrine, and limiting their ability to change doctrine is an excelent approach. Restrictions, often enhance game play because they force players to make strategic choices.
Further, doctrines evolved out of past military practice. German practices evolved out of their WWI practice, and their previous military tradition, as did the doctrine of their opponents. This gave their military specific qualities. Military organizations have an large amount of bureaucratic inertia, and can't simply pick up and change overnight. Yes, they changed their practice with experience, but the changes they made were made in the context of past practice.
For example, it could be argued that German "firebrigades" (small to medium sized ad-hoc fighting formations used often later in the war) are possible in the context of the German military practice and tradition of devolving greater command decision making power to the lower echelons of command, of a similar kind as they did in WWI where they allowed command and control over artillery to be attached at the divisional level, as opposed to the corps level, like the British, who continued to apply a much more rigid structure of command and control throughout WWII.
Rigid command structures have their advantages, while flexible ones have other advantages. When under serious pressure, I don't think the British would have even considered creating "firebrigades", but rather would have withdrawn, summoned their resources, and aimed for a well co-ordinated and pre-planned counter attack. That was more in line with the Montgomery command style. And it should be remembered that Montgomery was a product of the British officer training system, and while versed in combined arms warfare, also was a big believer the principle of attrition and amassing hugely superior force and then overwhelming the enemy, en masse, not entirely out of line with the principles handed down to him from World War One.
Are there any plans to improve the balance of the land doctrine in AoD?As they are now in Armageddon anything other than Spearhead and the ridiculously overpowered Infiltration Assault is generally ignored,especially as most tech teams setup for other Grand Battle Plan doctrine can easily switch to Infiltration.
I don't also entirely agree that some doctrine trees are useless in HOI II DD. For example, many people think that the American tech from Superior Firepower Doctrine is the worst doctrine. Having studied it, I have concluded that it is actually quite a useful doctrine in some respects. People note that in the early going it is certainly deficient in Organization, Morale, and Combat Event bonuses, In this they are right, but this analysis doesn't take into account that it also allows for mass spamming of infantry unparalleled by any other doctrine.
It is certainly not very useful if you have a low manpower country and will hit a ceiling, or the core of your force will be your scenario start army, but for a country which is building an army, it has its uses. I would even consider it as an option for China in 1936 in order to take advantage of China's huge reserve of MP. I would certainly
not choose any other doctrine for the USA, unless I was planning on going to war in 1939.
Its an excellent example of how doctrines can be equal(ish) and different and shape the strategic choices toward a more historical end.
The present system might use some tweaking here and there, but the object should be to make the different but equal(ish).
For example, in the East is Red, I modded the Russian Tech Tree from the Mobility Focus Doctrine so that I could remove the entire GDE maluses system from the Soviet Union. Using the present system it is very possible to "shape" the historical development of each nation.
