This thread should be closed down and taken down, it's utter nonsense from a clueless player.
- 11
My Totally Not Subjective Land Doctrine Rankings
- Thread starter Ceorl
- 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.
Why? The Discussion is rather interesting.
Nonetheless...when choosing a doctrine you should always consider the following:
1. What are early game battlefields like and what are my lategame battlefields - e.g. Europe, South East Asia, etc.
2. What is my industry able to Support and how much can I split up production lines
3. Defensive or Offensive Approach
4. Estimated Manpower needed and lost
5. Who am I up against ( Orgwall, Airforce, Tanks ...)
Meaning IF you play totally defensive on small fronts then GBP might be viable. In other cases not so much. MW would be rather useless if you plan to defend against a massive Wall of men.
- 3
- 1
I agree what most people say about GBP. If you want to micro your divisions, the doctrine is garbage.
However I cant deny that my most successfull Barbarossa was with GBP. Did a rp-run as the Kaiser where he dismissed Guderians ideas and wanted to double down on WW1-style warfare. The result was a 26w INF+ART+HARM + standard support,build with GBP. 1 big FM-plan on the entire front with an offensive arrow pointed on Moscow. My boys walked all the way across SU in one full frontal assault with almost no losses.
However I cant deny that my most successfull Barbarossa was with GBP. Did a rp-run as the Kaiser where he dismissed Guderians ideas and wanted to double down on WW1-style warfare. The result was a 26w INF+ART+HARM + standard support,build with GBP. 1 big FM-plan on the entire front with an offensive arrow pointed on Moscow. My boys walked all the way across SU in one full frontal assault with almost no losses.
- 1
Thanks to everyone for the responses. I tried to keep the original post from becoming too much of a wall of text and much more remains to write about as everyone has shown.
@Voigt
Good points. However, Armor while powerful dies in cities, mountains, mud or if you've lost the air war. You will inevitably encounter those in a campaign and you need other troops, oftentimes Special Forces, to punch through. A good player knows this and will try to build his defense to negate an armor heavy attack. More importantly, if you want to win the air war I'd say at least 50% of your MFs (minimum 50 total) need to be dedicated to fighters (In SP only, MP appears to require careful intel observation to determine enemy army comp). Air combat is doomstack absurd and likely will benefit from an overhaul. But. for now, with that massive investment the rest of your Armed Forces are getting scraps and powerful armor risks sucking up too much remaining MF to ensure proper full combat width deployments.
@Iskulya
Also good points, but not using the front line planner is leaving money on the table by forsaking the planning bonus (It is one of the primary MWD bonuses after all). If you've gotten to the point where you can consistently win despite that self imposed handicap than I salute your skills.
For us lesser mortals, I recommend everyone use the front line planner unless you intend to micro a completely static defensive position. Yes the AI struggles with deployments and no one in their right mind allows the AI to execute the battle plan. But, as you point out, a player can still micro for better deployments and imo that is jsut as micro heavy as not utilizing the planner at all. The additional player based decay is legitimate but the powerful bonus remains and I'd rather capitalize on it than dream of what might be.
As to EAI, first I think it helps to provide background in a post like this both to show a poster's strength and weaknesses. I also suspect many players are unaware of the mod, as I was, and I want to plug it. You are correct EAI is not perfect, but it helps boost the AI compared to vanilla.
@pheonicia
If you haven't tried expert AI give it a whirl. You'll be surprised how alot of your vanilla tactics go to die in that mod. I would never let the AI launch attacks with EAI.
@Putuna
I can't speak to MP. What I can say is allowing an EAI German AI to properly launch Operation Barbarossa is a pretty fearsome and a good challenge for moderately skilled SU players. I beat the AI by holding the relatively narrow Eastern Europe front rather than allowing breakthroughs and combat into Russia itself. GBD is well suited to that strategy. I also recommend you try a MAD Japan and attack with 25 battalion infantry divisions. With Yasuji Okamura and Supremacy of Will, a Japan player has access to a very nasty and cheap infantry division (FYI although the bonuses states "Defense +10%" this does boost breakthrough). As stated above, for a pure infantry division MAD is better than SFD, and is an excellent division comp for fighting in Asia and the Pacific.
@xsmilingbanditx
If you allow the German AI to properly build for Barbarossa (i.e. agree to Molotov Pact and don't backstab), the SU will be badly outfactoried. Try to build proper armor divisions and you may find yourself not capitalizing on SU's biggest advantage, manpower, and fielding an army too small for the massive Eastern Front. Further, with EAI, your armor divisions will get shredded attacking into properly prepared infantry positions. A good armor division most emphatically does not succeed in any and all circumstances.
That said, I totally agree with your 5 point bulletin on what to consider. The only thing I would add is a player should also consider what Military Staff bonuses a nation can add to its division templates.
@tksolway and donald dawkins
I find Org is overrated. At the end of the day it matters only if you've got two relatively equally matched divisions slugging it out. What matters far more is having better attack/defense/breakthrough than the opposing division. Your better dice rolls which shred that higher ORG division to pieces. To gain that advantage against good enemy army comp with Elite difficulty penalties requires a player to scrap and beg for every last shred of bonuses present within the game system which Mobile Infantry forsakes in favor of greater ORG. If you can consistently win with MWD Mobile Infantry I suggest you pump up the difficulty settings. If you can consistently win with MWD MI on the highest difficulty settings than I salute your skill.
To be fair, there is a very valid ORG wall strategy you can pursue. I personally don't like it as it usually puts you on the back foot attrition wise which will require additional good play (i.e. a German rescue) to plug the gap.
@blahmaster6k
I respectfully suggest crunching the numbers again. You may be surprised that SFD, while very powerful is now somewhat overrated after the Superior Firepower nerf. Attack is the most important stat, but only up to a point. Attack/Defense/Breakthrough all work in conjunction. As you know, if an attacker has a good attack but poor breakthrough and a defender has enough defense to equal the attacker's attack but superior attack to the attacker's breakthrough than, absent additional factors such as HP, ORG, Air Support, etc., the Defender will win that fight. A doctrine, GBD, which arguably boosts all three in equal measure is superior to a doctrine which only boosts one, SFD.
On higher difficulties, a player is likely to be out teched and/or outproduced by the AI. In those situations, I need combat boosts in the near future: weeks and/or months. Not the years required for SFD to truly shine. In that gap, which can be a good chunk of the game, GBD is very strong.
@Jays298
Ironically, you are incorrect, time is on Germany's side currently under the current rules. It has more than enough strength to conquer Europe and, thanks to very generous logistical rules, sit within Fortress Europe and build an overwhelming advantage against all comers. Usually, absent player intention, the German AI has a good chance of winning the war.
@eastcoastceojam
Only the poorest manpower nations need help with Manpower beyond Conscription Laws. Certainly not India. For example, with Service by Requirement, France will have enough manpower to last the campaign for a modest 10% production penalty. If things go pear shaped All Adults Serve will get you to the end win or lose. I recommend looking at what your minor has in its Military High Command to boost battalions and then build around that. For example, Mexico has one of only two Cavalry Genius MHCs in the game. This can allow you to explore fun Cav/Mot/Mech combos that almost no one else can efficiently utilize.
@Altobelli
Thanks for the chuckle. There is always merit in a civil discussion even if one of the participants is misinformed. Please feel free to share details of your position if you are interested.
@Voigt
Good points. However, Armor while powerful dies in cities, mountains, mud or if you've lost the air war. You will inevitably encounter those in a campaign and you need other troops, oftentimes Special Forces, to punch through. A good player knows this and will try to build his defense to negate an armor heavy attack. More importantly, if you want to win the air war I'd say at least 50% of your MFs (minimum 50 total) need to be dedicated to fighters (In SP only, MP appears to require careful intel observation to determine enemy army comp). Air combat is doomstack absurd and likely will benefit from an overhaul. But. for now, with that massive investment the rest of your Armed Forces are getting scraps and powerful armor risks sucking up too much remaining MF to ensure proper full combat width deployments.
@Iskulya
Also good points, but not using the front line planner is leaving money on the table by forsaking the planning bonus (It is one of the primary MWD bonuses after all). If you've gotten to the point where you can consistently win despite that self imposed handicap than I salute your skills.
For us lesser mortals, I recommend everyone use the front line planner unless you intend to micro a completely static defensive position. Yes the AI struggles with deployments and no one in their right mind allows the AI to execute the battle plan. But, as you point out, a player can still micro for better deployments and imo that is jsut as micro heavy as not utilizing the planner at all. The additional player based decay is legitimate but the powerful bonus remains and I'd rather capitalize on it than dream of what might be.
As to EAI, first I think it helps to provide background in a post like this both to show a poster's strength and weaknesses. I also suspect many players are unaware of the mod, as I was, and I want to plug it. You are correct EAI is not perfect, but it helps boost the AI compared to vanilla.
@pheonicia
If you haven't tried expert AI give it a whirl. You'll be surprised how alot of your vanilla tactics go to die in that mod. I would never let the AI launch attacks with EAI.
@Putuna
I can't speak to MP. What I can say is allowing an EAI German AI to properly launch Operation Barbarossa is a pretty fearsome and a good challenge for moderately skilled SU players. I beat the AI by holding the relatively narrow Eastern Europe front rather than allowing breakthroughs and combat into Russia itself. GBD is well suited to that strategy. I also recommend you try a MAD Japan and attack with 25 battalion infantry divisions. With Yasuji Okamura and Supremacy of Will, a Japan player has access to a very nasty and cheap infantry division (FYI although the bonuses states "Defense +10%" this does boost breakthrough). As stated above, for a pure infantry division MAD is better than SFD, and is an excellent division comp for fighting in Asia and the Pacific.
@xsmilingbanditx
If you allow the German AI to properly build for Barbarossa (i.e. agree to Molotov Pact and don't backstab), the SU will be badly outfactoried. Try to build proper armor divisions and you may find yourself not capitalizing on SU's biggest advantage, manpower, and fielding an army too small for the massive Eastern Front. Further, with EAI, your armor divisions will get shredded attacking into properly prepared infantry positions. A good armor division most emphatically does not succeed in any and all circumstances.
That said, I totally agree with your 5 point bulletin on what to consider. The only thing I would add is a player should also consider what Military Staff bonuses a nation can add to its division templates.
@tksolway and donald dawkins
I find Org is overrated. At the end of the day it matters only if you've got two relatively equally matched divisions slugging it out. What matters far more is having better attack/defense/breakthrough than the opposing division. Your better dice rolls which shred that higher ORG division to pieces. To gain that advantage against good enemy army comp with Elite difficulty penalties requires a player to scrap and beg for every last shred of bonuses present within the game system which Mobile Infantry forsakes in favor of greater ORG. If you can consistently win with MWD Mobile Infantry I suggest you pump up the difficulty settings. If you can consistently win with MWD MI on the highest difficulty settings than I salute your skill.
To be fair, there is a very valid ORG wall strategy you can pursue. I personally don't like it as it usually puts you on the back foot attrition wise which will require additional good play (i.e. a German rescue) to plug the gap.
@blahmaster6k
I respectfully suggest crunching the numbers again. You may be surprised that SFD, while very powerful is now somewhat overrated after the Superior Firepower nerf. Attack is the most important stat, but only up to a point. Attack/Defense/Breakthrough all work in conjunction. As you know, if an attacker has a good attack but poor breakthrough and a defender has enough defense to equal the attacker's attack but superior attack to the attacker's breakthrough than, absent additional factors such as HP, ORG, Air Support, etc., the Defender will win that fight. A doctrine, GBD, which arguably boosts all three in equal measure is superior to a doctrine which only boosts one, SFD.
On higher difficulties, a player is likely to be out teched and/or outproduced by the AI. In those situations, I need combat boosts in the near future: weeks and/or months. Not the years required for SFD to truly shine. In that gap, which can be a good chunk of the game, GBD is very strong.
@Jays298
Ironically, you are incorrect, time is on Germany's side currently under the current rules. It has more than enough strength to conquer Europe and, thanks to very generous logistical rules, sit within Fortress Europe and build an overwhelming advantage against all comers. Usually, absent player intention, the German AI has a good chance of winning the war.
@eastcoastceojam
Only the poorest manpower nations need help with Manpower beyond Conscription Laws. Certainly not India. For example, with Service by Requirement, France will have enough manpower to last the campaign for a modest 10% production penalty. If things go pear shaped All Adults Serve will get you to the end win or lose. I recommend looking at what your minor has in its Military High Command to boost battalions and then build around that. For example, Mexico has one of only two Cavalry Genius MHCs in the game. This can allow you to explore fun Cav/Mot/Mech combos that almost no one else can efficiently utilize.
@Altobelli
Thanks for the chuckle. There is always merit in a civil discussion even if one of the participants is misinformed. Please feel free to share details of your position if you are interested.
- 3
@Ceorl For MP you roughly do 50% Mils planes, 30% Tanks, 20% rest.
It is often better to just encircle cities instead if trying to take them with tanks.
Breaktrough only matter if you don't have enough reserves to keep a Force Attack going.
Minimizing losses is always a secondary goal beside achieving your primary goal, like overcoming a fortified/entrechned defensive line. Still an important secondary goal, but also still secondary.
With 100% reliability tanks survive decently long in bad terrain.
It is often better to just encircle cities instead if trying to take them with tanks.
Breaktrough only matter if you don't have enough reserves to keep a Force Attack going.
Minimizing losses is always a secondary goal beside achieving your primary goal, like overcoming a fortified/entrechned defensive line. Still an important secondary goal, but also still secondary.
With 100% reliability tanks survive decently long in bad terrain.
- 2
Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't talking about prioritizing MW as the SU. You can, though because you can build up such a huge amount of Industry it's absurd. And you don't really need the manpower bonuses the MA provides (which imho is the best bonus of it).
About Tanks and Infantry: Well then EAI uses Modifiers/Buffs/Changes that just nerf stuff that should not be nerfed. If you drive a Tank Division into an Infantry Division of that time no matter how well dug in it is (Mountains and Cities aside) were just absolutely flattened by tanks. In late '44 and '45 when the Panzerfaust came up and other things were improved that was a different matter.
I got to say I haven't played with EAI for a while because more often than not those mods change the rules the AI plays by even more than the vanilla game does (attrition *cough*) and I don't like that. Gives me a feeling of Total War games
@Voigt
Agree that taking terrain and objectives is more important than attrition losses and that you can brute force your way through a defensive line if needed. But there's no elegance and style to the brute. Just a dressed up butcher playing soldier as you decide to Cold Harbor the objective and treat the game as the pure math it is.
I will remind you though that 100% reliability does not mean no breakdowns. You can push reliability as high as you want and you can still watch your tanks disappear fighting in mud.
@xsmilingbanditx
I agree the SU has a vast industry potential but you need time to develop it, particularly given your relatively poor infrastructure, and time is something the SU does not have. I have never been able to out industry Germany once it takes Europe and I suspect I never will.
I double checked Chondrite's EAI notes and I don't see anything to support your statement regarding combat nerfs (as to attrition, I believe EAI gives the option to reduce it for the AIs since they don't really understand the concept).. Yes EAI changes things but nothing to drastically affect tank combat. Armor divisions will absolutely flatten almost any defensive force on Plains terrain, as armor should. However, armor effectiveness rapidly drops off in rough terrain not only because of the reduced attacker modifiers but also because of the negative terrain attack modifiers that hit armor very hard. Personally, I like the gameplay mechanic. Armor is not a cure all but rather part of a combined arms approach.
Agree that taking terrain and objectives is more important than attrition losses and that you can brute force your way through a defensive line if needed. But there's no elegance and style to the brute. Just a dressed up butcher playing soldier as you decide to Cold Harbor the objective and treat the game as the pure math it is.
I will remind you though that 100% reliability does not mean no breakdowns. You can push reliability as high as you want and you can still watch your tanks disappear fighting in mud.
@xsmilingbanditx
I agree the SU has a vast industry potential but you need time to develop it, particularly given your relatively poor infrastructure, and time is something the SU does not have. I have never been able to out industry Germany once it takes Europe and I suspect I never will.
I double checked Chondrite's EAI notes and I don't see anything to support your statement regarding combat nerfs (as to attrition, I believe EAI gives the option to reduce it for the AIs since they don't really understand the concept).. Yes EAI changes things but nothing to drastically affect tank combat. Armor divisions will absolutely flatten almost any defensive force on Plains terrain, as armor should. However, armor effectiveness rapidly drops off in rough terrain not only because of the reduced attacker modifiers but also because of the negative terrain attack modifiers that hit armor very hard. Personally, I like the gameplay mechanic. Armor is not a cure all but rather part of a combined arms approach.
Adaptable exists, and most players playing a major will have used the tools at their disposal to grind out a general and field marshal both with the trait, as well as many others, to make terrain penalties mostly irrelevant. Rivers? Makeshift Bridges. Forts? Tanks destroy them already, and then you can put Siege Artillery on top of that for even faster destruction of forts. Only real problem is marshes and jungles because they make your general sick, but they're easy enough to go around and there aren't many of them in relevant places.
Honestly, I can't believe it's 2020 and someone is seriously arguing in favor of Grand Battleplan in vanilla and advocating against the use of tanks.
Why not? It is all a matter of choice and playstyle.
- 2
- 1
Interesting and I do see the logic behind this and I do imagine this works quite well against the AI and I will have to try out Mass Assault Japan as much as it makes me squirm . I do not however think it would work too well in MP. I just don't see how that could give Japan enough soft attack to break through the Singapore defensive line and I certainly don't see that breaking through the Dacca line with that. The only doctrine I have had success with as Japan in MP has been GBP going the side that gets you more planning bonus. You can then combine that planning bonus with your generals that you grind from China to give your infantry some nasty attacking power. I would recommend you try and MP match as well that way you could really see the full potential of tanks!
Sorry then, seems like I misunderstood your earlier Statement about Infantry and Tanks.
Attrition is a different matter. The AI seems to play by different rules here already. As much as I so not like that, anybody having played EU4 knows what happens otherwise
@blahmaster6k
We think differently. You appear to list all that can potentially happen, while I focus on what already exists. For example, yes Adaptable is a great trait but it takes a good while to acquire. Within the early game the only two places you can reliable grind out the trait are Spain and China but I've found acquiring Adaptable to be pretty hit or miss and certainly not reliable enough to plan on acquiring in time for the rest of WW2 to break out. Same logic with the other traits you list. And very tank types have positive modifiers against forts. If you're playing regularly with SHTs then you and I have different gaming experiences
I am arguing for GBD on Elite Difficult EAI Modded Games where resources and tech are so limited against reasonably optimized enemy AI play that many games become about making the best with what one has rather than building perfection. I am also not arguing against tanks, I build them too, but I find tanks more niche. For example, as a contrast to Voight's numbers earlier in the thread, in my current successful SU game, 44% of my 158 MFs are dedicated to fighters (mostly because I can only import so much aluminum past German subs) and a modest 15% toward tank production.
@Shaka of Carthage
Well said. This is all about having fun.
@Putuna
Thanks for the MP offer but I'll probably pass. I have a buddy who plays MP and the time commitment is well daunting. As to a MAD Japan, nothing says you can't build other equipment as needed but I believe a MAD nation should focus on infantry. If you run into a nasty defensive line use your superior numbers and flank it, or in Malaysia's case blockade and starve the non-British Malaysia defenders. MAD is surprisingly well suited to naval invasion.
@xsmilingbanditx
Agreed about the AI. I've never seen anything definitive showing the AI cheats but it always sustains land combat losses that would bankrupt a player several times over.
We think differently. You appear to list all that can potentially happen, while I focus on what already exists. For example, yes Adaptable is a great trait but it takes a good while to acquire. Within the early game the only two places you can reliable grind out the trait are Spain and China but I've found acquiring Adaptable to be pretty hit or miss and certainly not reliable enough to plan on acquiring in time for the rest of WW2 to break out. Same logic with the other traits you list. And very tank types have positive modifiers against forts. If you're playing regularly with SHTs then you and I have different gaming experiences
I am arguing for GBD on Elite Difficult EAI Modded Games where resources and tech are so limited against reasonably optimized enemy AI play that many games become about making the best with what one has rather than building perfection. I am also not arguing against tanks, I build them too, but I find tanks more niche. For example, as a contrast to Voight's numbers earlier in the thread, in my current successful SU game, 44% of my 158 MFs are dedicated to fighters (mostly because I can only import so much aluminum past German subs) and a modest 15% toward tank production.
@Shaka of Carthage
Well said. This is all about having fun.
@Putuna
Thanks for the MP offer but I'll probably pass. I have a buddy who plays MP and the time commitment is well daunting. As to a MAD Japan, nothing says you can't build other equipment as needed but I believe a MAD nation should focus on infantry. If you run into a nasty defensive line use your superior numbers and flank it, or in Malaysia's case blockade and starve the non-British Malaysia defenders. MAD is surprisingly well suited to naval invasion.
@xsmilingbanditx
Agreed about the AI. I've never seen anything definitive showing the AI cheats but it always sustains land combat losses that would bankrupt a player several times over.
- 3
To be fair, this entire thread is based on their experiences with eaimod, but then it also means that the conclusions aren't applicable to most players since it changes game balance a lot.
- 1
So these are, practically verbatim, my points. GBP just doesn't respect any form of micromanagement. And it's not, @Ceorl, a matter of lesser or other mortals, (please, no sarcasm, he responded to your post, he deserves a fair hearing) it's just that the game's ability to fight your battles for you (which is, sadly, what the game wants to do; the player sets out his strategic / operational intent and then the front and the tactical level is managed by the game) is woeful. Bone-headed at best, suicidal at worst. I don't mind micromanaging because it is often the only way, particularly as the UK / Japan (with whom I tend to play) of getting anywhere, particularly with long frontlines where you need to cleverly manage your (usually limited) troops. GBP doesn't reward this. I tend to favour SFD because I cannot trust the AI.
I do find it horrifying that this WW2 game is at its weakest at running a land war. I know that this isn't "Hitler: Total War" but it could and should be better.
Could I ask that you calm down and keep your inflammatory opinion to yourself, please. @Ceorl has as much right to make a post as you and I; he has clearly provoked a debate that is interesting, and that there is no consensus perhaps shows that his posing the question was not without merit. The only way in which this forum is a fun place is if users behave with a pretty basic level of courtesy and respect. Unless I am missing something and you're old (online) friends, I submit that your post above, throwing insults around, lacks either.
Last edited:
- 1
May I ask what makes you to think so?
As Austria-Hungary (well, yes I'm running it again... and again) I'm usually going MW with Volkssturm and Non-Discriminatory Conscription. Not because I'm taking heavy casualties, but to get manpower to field enough divisions to secure the Balkans (down to Kreta) while fighting in Italy, Germany, Spain and in the Mediterranean against Allies and Axis.
Well, the conscription law Service by Requirement would give a plus of 5% too, but with some malus (10% less production; esp. the -10% to dockyards hurt). And the right side of MW just gives us some more organization on top of much organization and another (not needed) 20% breakthrough. So it looks like it's just a trade off between less production and more organization.
By the way, you don't need lots of heavy tanks. You just need enough ;-) And strategic redeployment is your friend.
The USSR pretty much needs to supply reductions of left side mass assault. It's literally made for them. Grand battle plan would be my second choice for it though.
Superior firepower is the US doctrine. It gives them the best marines and the US has to do a lot of naval invasions. It also has great tank divisions. It works for both Europe and the pacific.
I would never consider going Mass Mobilization as Japan. There is no reality where you can out org-wall china. Right side grand battle plan gives supply reduction and actual combat bonuses toward infantry. It's my preferred infantry army doctrine. 25% night attack is a large bonus. You already get Large bonuses to recovery rate, you don't need more. Really only China and the USSR are suited for mass mobilization.
You're right that you only need a certain amount of break through, if you have extra you can push through bad terrain or fight many divisions with only one tank division. It may not be suited for everywhere but its not the weakest and far from bad. Tanks are great. I don't think you apricate force concentration as much as you should.
Italy can safely go with superior firepower. Italy doesn't have the industry or men to waste it all in mass charges through the desert.
I'll point out that the game considerers artillery an infantry division, so anyone with an infantry expert has for your purposes an artillery expert.
You seem to be really hung up on what high commands a country has. You're right to pay attention to them but don't go Mass Assault every time you see an infantry expert. Everyone uses infantry. Some doctrines don't give many combat bonuses to infantry so you could use the advisor to cover your weaknesses.
Is GBP- left the best for cavalry divisions? Cause it has bonuses for all army.
I'm stacking military high command and general bonus.
My template is 4cav/3inf/2arty for 20 width and double for 40 width.
Later after unlocking 1941 heavy tank, I'll take out 1 cav for HARM. So the template will be 7cav/6inf/3arty/1rocket/1HARM
Also should I need to add maintenance for this template.
Thank you generals.
I'm stacking military high command and general bonus.
My template is 4cav/3inf/2arty for 20 width and double for 40 width.
Later after unlocking 1941 heavy tank, I'll take out 1 cav for HARM. So the template will be 7cav/6inf/3arty/1rocket/1HARM
Also should I need to add maintenance for this template.
Thank you generals.
There are a few things I want to point out, which might influence OP's and others' lists:
- You can, with extremely painful and tedious micromanagement, constantly recreate spearhead orders and maintain full planning bonus w/o decay for troops used offensively. In MP you'd need to have pro Starcraft levels of APM to do it without pausing, but in SP the test is against your patience. If you do it, GBP can maintain fairly devastating offensive bonuses any time it needs them.
- OP is overrating the advisors contributing to armies...or rather not fully understanding how they work. Which is understandable, because it's opaque. These bonuses work at the division (NOT battalion!) level, so what matters is what the sum of battalions add up to create. You can test this when making division by looking at what the default icon becomes. Oddly, artillery and cavalry divisions are also "infantry" divisions, but infantry divisions don't count as either of the others from what I can tell. It is possible to comprise divisions of a mixture of cav/infantry and have it still count as "cavalry" for example.
- It is also possible to make "infantry" or "cavalry" divisions with substantial armor (split between SPG, TD, and regular armor) inside, which still gets bonuses from infantry/cavalry MHC. Similarly, you can stuff a division with mostly infantry or cavalry but use just enough tanks to make it an armor division, thereby applying the "armor" MHC bonuses to the infantry/arty/etc in the division. So MHC availability doesn't matter for doctrine choice quite as much as it seems at first glance...though due to speed consideration for MW and infantry width awkwardness in MA it's still not completely irrelevant.
- 1
@pheonicia
EAI does change the game, but I wouldn't say alot. Mostly it tightens up enemy division construction and makes only a few balance changes such as significantly increasing fort costs.
@Le Jones
GBP is not more or less micro intensive than the other land doctrines. You lose the planning bonus quicker through manual attacks but you still have the planning bonus to begin with. That said, I agree with you the game's goal (which I agreed with) of allowing the player to concentrate on the strategic while the AI handles tactics never worked out. The big wars in this game can be a real slog but I find that in part is due to a lack of division morale. You can simply throw your men into the meat grinder endlessly so long as you have manpower and equipment with nary a complaint.
@STABBY5
You are correct about artillery, more about that below, but I wasn't arguing go MAD as soon as you see an Infantry MHC. Rather, I believe anyone who takes MAD really need an Infantry MHC to get the most use out of it since MAD is clearly built around an all infantry battalion division. Despite my artillery error, that opinion still stands.
@Jimmyfeellucky
Depends on what you mean by cavalry (definitions in this game are so tricky). Assuming you mean Cavalry/Motorized/Mechanized Division, MWBI is the probably the best as it gives the most specific bonuses. SFD would be next. GBD could work but cavalry are supposed to be fast which does not play to GBD's strengths. MAD obviously isn't a great fit.
Also the speed of a division is based on the slowest battalion, so there is no reason to play cavalry or HARM into an otherwise foot slogger force (both the infantry and artillery have the same speed). Check the division template and you'll see the cavalry and armor provide no speed bonus.
@TheMeInTeam
Well shoot, here I was thinking I had finally figured out how MHC leaders work and you go and prove me wrong. I can see it now reading the descriptors. I had seen discussions of this on the forum but missed the connection. Thanks to you and Stabby5 for the correction. To be honest, I'll need to revise the list as SFD benefits alot more from any Division specific MHC than I realized. Makes the Artillery MHC an odd duck then though. You'd have to put a crap ton of artillery, and much less HP, to become an Artillery Division. At least GBD got an exploit I didn't know about.
EAI does change the game, but I wouldn't say alot. Mostly it tightens up enemy division construction and makes only a few balance changes such as significantly increasing fort costs.
@Le Jones
GBP is not more or less micro intensive than the other land doctrines. You lose the planning bonus quicker through manual attacks but you still have the planning bonus to begin with. That said, I agree with you the game's goal (which I agreed with) of allowing the player to concentrate on the strategic while the AI handles tactics never worked out. The big wars in this game can be a real slog but I find that in part is due to a lack of division morale. You can simply throw your men into the meat grinder endlessly so long as you have manpower and equipment with nary a complaint.
@STABBY5
You are correct about artillery, more about that below, but I wasn't arguing go MAD as soon as you see an Infantry MHC. Rather, I believe anyone who takes MAD really need an Infantry MHC to get the most use out of it since MAD is clearly built around an all infantry battalion division. Despite my artillery error, that opinion still stands.
@Jimmyfeellucky
Depends on what you mean by cavalry (definitions in this game are so tricky). Assuming you mean Cavalry/Motorized/Mechanized Division, MWBI is the probably the best as it gives the most specific bonuses. SFD would be next. GBD could work but cavalry are supposed to be fast which does not play to GBD's strengths. MAD obviously isn't a great fit.
Also the speed of a division is based on the slowest battalion, so there is no reason to play cavalry or HARM into an otherwise foot slogger force (both the infantry and artillery have the same speed). Check the division template and you'll see the cavalry and armor provide no speed bonus.
@TheMeInTeam
Well shoot, here I was thinking I had finally figured out how MHC leaders work and you go and prove me wrong. I can see it now reading the descriptors. I had seen discussions of this on the forum but missed the connection. Thanks to you and Stabby5 for the correction. To be honest, I'll need to revise the list as SFD benefits alot more from any Division specific MHC than I realized. Makes the Artillery MHC an odd duck then though. You'd have to put a crap ton of artillery, and much less HP, to become an Artillery Division. At least GBD got an exploit I didn't know about.
- 1
That is one use for it. If I do Deep battle, I use the extra 8 width to put in two artillery, AA, and AT. I've used tanks in the extra 8 width for great effect too on either side of it. Making the infantry blocks as china with infantry buff is a great synergy as you've said.