What are the benifits for each considering in most cases it depends on which doctrine better fits your circumstance, however what are the strong points over each other?
Mobile Warfare VS. Superior Fire Power
- Thread starter Triton1037
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Superior Firepower has the most stats for production cost, it has decent defense aswell. I think overall it is the best doctrine, with integrated support your support art/rocket gives you like 100+SA for 0 width which can be exploited by attacking with 8x 10 wdith divisions, extremely good on invasions (cant really defend vs that).
Mobile is only good if you will have tons tanks and must be on offense (breakthrough), once you lost initiative with mobile your tanks are way worse on defense(than superior firepower tanks). You must do big surrounds (speed buffs from mobile) and wipe large stacks of enemy army.
Mobile is basicly good only for Germany, Soviet is debatable but I prefer Superior there with right/left choices.
Mobile is only good if you will have tons tanks and must be on offense (breakthrough), once you lost initiative with mobile your tanks are way worse on defense(than superior firepower tanks). You must do big surrounds (speed buffs from mobile) and wipe large stacks of enemy army.
Mobile is basicly good only for Germany, Soviet is debatable but I prefer Superior there with right/left choices.
Germany is the only candidate for mobile doctrine. As Germany you get ministers like Guderian and Brauchitsch who grant additional speed bonuses and Rommel who massively pimps tanks. Combine those buffs with the mobile doctrine and youz gotz uber tanks both in terms of combat prowess and speed.
Medium tanks with lvl. 5 engines and all aforementioned boosts easily reach a speed of 12 km/h (which is 50% more than standard!).
You can use that lighting speed to overrun and encircle the enemy. Against the Soviets you can kill millions of troops in one campaign by sheer speed advantage. With every other country I'd go superior firepower though.
Medium tanks with lvl. 5 engines and all aforementioned boosts easily reach a speed of 12 km/h (which is 50% more than standard!).
You can use that lighting speed to overrun and encircle the enemy. Against the Soviets you can kill millions of troops in one campaign by sheer speed advantage. With every other country I'd go superior firepower though.
Don't forget about Mass Assault. That huge bonus to man power if highly attractive to many nations. Mass Assault and Superior Firepower are my two favorites. Grand Battle Plan I find totally useless to my play style. I've only ever used Mobile with Germany so not sure how other countries would benefit from it.
Mass Assault with Russia or China is super cool and so much fun. Grand battle plan is the most boring of all. It works with Japan the most because you'll have more fortified beaches than any other nation and the additional entrenchment is gold. For any kind of flexible, mobile attacking force that path is a bummer though. It takes forever to conduct offensive campaigns.
I'm surprised btw that a lot of people are hating on mass assault. They're probably forgetting that a nation like China can't produce more than rifles and superior firepower only shines when having enough IC to provide mass artillery. Even Russia can benefit from it due to endless manpower and endless frontlines despite having the IC to go firepower.
Mobile warfare for tanks, Superior Firepower for Artillery, Mass Assault for infantry and Grand Battleplan for defence or if you like planning.
In more depth:
Mobile warfare gives the best Tanks, Organisation, Recovery and Planning speed.
Superior Firepower gives the most soft attack, hard attack and the best support battalions and artillery.
Grand Battleplan gives the best general (all unit) Defence and Offence bonuses, and the best planning.
Mass Assault gives the best infantry bonuses, supply situation, partisans and manpower.
In more depth:
Mobile warfare gives the best Tanks, Organisation, Recovery and Planning speed.
Superior Firepower gives the most soft attack, hard attack and the best support battalions and artillery.
Grand Battleplan gives the best general (all unit) Defence and Offence bonuses, and the best planning.
Mass Assault gives the best infantry bonuses, supply situation, partisans and manpower.
I don't like the design of the mass assault doctrine. Doctrines in general should make usage of things (like tank formations, mass production, or in case of mass assault, a large pool of manpower) more effecient, not create something out of the blue like giving you extra manpower because of what? "We like our troops to be cannon fodder, so we have more people because of that".
Well - many games use a rock, paper scissors design, otherwise everyone would take the same things wouldn't they? Right now if you want the best tanks you go mobile, if you want the best soft attack you go Superior Firepower, if you want the most manpower you go mass assault. I think those are all well balanced offering benefits and trade-offs which is a hallmark of good design.
Does anyone actually use Grand Battle Plan? I hear you Seattle on defensive bonus for Japan - but mass assault turns Japan into China/Russia in man power terms. Far more attractive than an entrenchment bonus on Okinawa (for me). If anything Grand Battle Plan might need some buffing. I guess in theory Grand Battle Plan could be helpful for Poland or France? I wonder if they can get far enough down that tech tree before Germany hits them though. And even more important - how does Grand Battle Plan match up with Mobile Doctrine?
Does anyone actually use Grand Battle Plan? I hear you Seattle on defensive bonus for Japan - but mass assault turns Japan into China/Russia in man power terms. Far more attractive than an entrenchment bonus on Okinawa (for me). If anything Grand Battle Plan might need some buffing. I guess in theory Grand Battle Plan could be helpful for Poland or France? I wonder if they can get far enough down that tech tree before Germany hits them though. And even more important - how does Grand Battle Plan match up with Mobile Doctrine?
Mobile Warfare: you want to encircle the enemy
Superior Firepower: you want to blow the crap outta them
broadly speaking
Superior Firepower: you want to blow the crap outta them
broadly speaking
I find Grand Battleplan Assault to be very useful for defending positions and attacking at the outset of hostilities, it doesn't offer a whole lot else though it does have the best INF and MOT Org bumps of any choice outside Mobile Warfare.
I play France almost exclusively now and I usually go either Grand Battleplan Assault (Left) or Mobile Warfare Mobile Infantry/Desperate Defense (Left/Left). Both have something to offer France, I'm not sure which is better all things considered. GBA gives France an absurdly high planning bonus of 135% when you get down that far, although 125% is the highest you're likely to get to at the outset of the war at least. That's a massive boost to SA, HA and Breakthrough and Trench Warfare is ideal for holding a static defense line like France will often be required to do if it survives, even more so with 1939 Engineers and Old Guard Defensive Doctrine field marshals which are all you have to start with.
Mobile Warfare Mobile Infantry/Desperate Defense is also particularly suited to France, which has the rubber to build plenty of motorized infantry which you can make downright dangerous with the massive motorized Org bumps which of course also help your better armored formations as well. It also gets you 5% more pop, just like the right side of Mass Assault, which is also exactly the sort of thing France needs. You also retain the +25% planning bonus unless you go 'Right' down the Revise Versailles tree (and get a 5 point div org bump which is useful too but not as much as the 1% pop, recovery bonus and retention of the planning bonus you get for going 'Left'). That 'Revise Versailles' tree also gives you two more Land Doctrine bonuses, making four total by the time you get to Army Reform, which means catching up isn't as hard as it might seem at first glance.
The level you're playing the game at and whether you're in multiplayer determines just how far you'll get and what you'll have to do to get there. A Veteran Multiplayer game would very likely force you to do Army Reform after the political tree (which must be done first as France as you're bleeding political points--you have to pay back negatives too) so you'll get further in some respects but you won't be able to build up as much and your research will be missing two slots until 1939.
I play France almost exclusively now and I usually go either Grand Battleplan Assault (Left) or Mobile Warfare Mobile Infantry/Desperate Defense (Left/Left). Both have something to offer France, I'm not sure which is better all things considered. GBA gives France an absurdly high planning bonus of 135% when you get down that far, although 125% is the highest you're likely to get to at the outset of the war at least. That's a massive boost to SA, HA and Breakthrough and Trench Warfare is ideal for holding a static defense line like France will often be required to do if it survives, even more so with 1939 Engineers and Old Guard Defensive Doctrine field marshals which are all you have to start with.
Mobile Warfare Mobile Infantry/Desperate Defense is also particularly suited to France, which has the rubber to build plenty of motorized infantry which you can make downright dangerous with the massive motorized Org bumps which of course also help your better armored formations as well. It also gets you 5% more pop, just like the right side of Mass Assault, which is also exactly the sort of thing France needs. You also retain the +25% planning bonus unless you go 'Right' down the Revise Versailles tree (and get a 5 point div org bump which is useful too but not as much as the 1% pop, recovery bonus and retention of the planning bonus you get for going 'Left'). That 'Revise Versailles' tree also gives you two more Land Doctrine bonuses, making four total by the time you get to Army Reform, which means catching up isn't as hard as it might seem at first glance.
The level you're playing the game at and whether you're in multiplayer determines just how far you'll get and what you'll have to do to get there. A Veteran Multiplayer game would very likely force you to do Army Reform after the political tree (which must be done first as France as you're bleeding political points--you have to pay back negatives too) so you'll get further in some respects but you won't be able to build up as much and your research will be missing two slots until 1939.
Grand battle for Germany can be extremely powerful, they have General Staff that massively increase planning speed. Imagine medium tank division with 110% bonus attack and breakthrough.
I've wondered about that. It would seem that GB either right or left would be ideal for a position which needs to amplify its limited manpower and resources (compared to the rest of the world--much of which it wants to conquer) and is often the initiator of hostilities thus would usually get the max benefit from the planning bonus and would be able to hold what it took easier once they got dug in. Certainly I can see why Mobile Warfare and Superior Firepower would also be attractive, but all things considered I'd truly hate to face a competent German player who knew how to get the most out of Grand Battleplan.
I'm going to contradict prevailing logic here and say do not go mass assault if you want more manpower. Go mass assault if you already have loads of manpower and want to use deep battle. If you want loads of manpower, generally going mobile warfare with mobile infantry (left) and desperate defence (left) will serve you better because it still gives a surprising number of boosts to leg infantry while also making tanks strong offensively.
Mass assault gives terrible combat bonuses compared to the other doctrines, and if you go down the right path (mass mobilisation) it's even worse because the only combat bonuses you do get are infantry based. That means you really have nothing which is good on the attack. What mass mobilisation does is make you pretty good at defence at a smaller research cost than other doctrines, so if you're expecting a really hard MP where you might not survive long enough to reach the end of another doctrine tree mass mobilization is a strong option. Any time you're not in a crappy position, though, you'd probably be better with Deep Battle or with another doctrine.
Deep battle is my favourite doctrine in the game though. It's really strong, especially for the Soviets.
Yup. The assault branch is kind of incredible for France (and Germany as well, for different reasons). It also plays really well with signal companies..
Infiltration is great for fighting in low supply. It gives some of the supply benefits of mass assault and most of its bonuses apply to cheap, low supply consumption units like infantry. Basically, it's the infantry spam doctrine for people who actually want to win.
Mass assault gives terrible combat bonuses compared to the other doctrines, and if you go down the right path (mass mobilisation) it's even worse because the only combat bonuses you do get are infantry based. That means you really have nothing which is good on the attack. What mass mobilisation does is make you pretty good at defence at a smaller research cost than other doctrines, so if you're expecting a really hard MP where you might not survive long enough to reach the end of another doctrine tree mass mobilization is a strong option. Any time you're not in a crappy position, though, you'd probably be better with Deep Battle or with another doctrine.
Deep battle is my favourite doctrine in the game though. It's really strong, especially for the Soviets.
Yup. The assault branch is kind of incredible for France (and Germany as well, for different reasons). It also plays really well with signal companies..
Infiltration is great for fighting in low supply. It gives some of the supply benefits of mass assault and most of its bonuses apply to cheap, low supply consumption units like infantry. Basically, it's the infantry spam doctrine for people who actually want to win.
Last edited:
I've faced it in MP.
Not my favorite doctrine, but I've seen situations where it works well. Clawing north during the Italian campaign is one situation where it might help.
To utilize GBP to the fullest, you need to have Defensive Doctrine FMs for the crazy dig-in bonuses. I'd ignore the Old Guard trait on the French/Italian FMs, that 25% XP penalty is negligible in the grander scheme of things. It is frustrating to see it in MP working against you, as your defensive units melt in the onslaught. It's main disadvantage is that it forces one to use Battleplans, so one must micro front assignments around it.
For Germany GBP is suboptimal. The planning bonus cannot be used to counterattack Allied landings in France ASAP. Using battleplans against the USSR will turn into a crazy mess after advancing like 3 provinces deep.
Mobile Warfare gives the highest ORG. One of the best defensive builds (e.g. France and USSR) is to have pure low-width INF and rely on massed CAS to do actual damage against tanks, and have your own tanks for counterattacks. The disadvantage of this strat is that it is easily countered by massed SpAA, and in a month ot two you can lose the 4k CAS you started the war with.
For Germany GBP is suboptimal. The planning bonus cannot be used to counterattack Allied landings in France ASAP. Using battleplans against the USSR will turn into a crazy mess after advancing like 3 provinces deep.
Mobile Warfare gives the highest ORG. One of the best defensive builds (e.g. France and USSR) is to have pure low-width INF and rely on massed CAS to do actual damage against tanks, and have your own tanks for counterattacks. The disadvantage of this strat is that it is easily countered by massed SpAA, and in a month ot two you can lose the 4k CAS you started the war with.
Plus it halves the combat penalty at night. With both night vision technologies, your army can fight around the clock at full efficiency.
I prefer this method my logic is if you blast divisions apart rather then encircling them the enemies equipment demand skyrocket as there units take casualties if you encircle and destroy a unit the demand for those equipment is gone if you blast half the enemy army below 50 percent strength they start to run ridiculous equipment shortages.
I could imagine that in MP it would work very well to give one major Axis nation the GP doctrine. GP is good for defence and breakthroughs. That player could for instance get the task of mass producing garrison units and take care of the entire defence of the faction (from Atlantic Wall to fortifying the Pacific islands for Japan). Axis will always need a ton of garrisons, so that player's contribution would be beneficial throughout the entire game.
For the breakthrough bonus that player could produce one single army that is specialized in breakthroughs via template+doctrine. That could serve as the can opener in each Axis campaign.
Probably better than every player on superior firepower, makes for more versatility.
you guys are forgetting that there is a "mobile infantry" branch for mobile warfare, so that doctrine is not just about tanks.
had to spend about a 100 hours to figure out which would be better for Italy, and it totally depends on play styles and what goals you set.
GBP is def better for defense. BUT. Italy giving up its huge real life BB building program and just building TRUCKS completely alters its ability to wage war. oh the possibilities!
had to spend about a 100 hours to figure out which would be better for Italy, and it totally depends on play styles and what goals you set.
GBP is def better for defense. BUT. Italy giving up its huge real life BB building program and just building TRUCKS completely alters its ability to wage war. oh the possibilities!