I mentioned procedural doctrine trees in another thread of mine. I think this idea could definitely make HoI3 a very good game, with both the flexibility to anticipate ahistorical situations and simulate historical situations fairly well. I’ll quote what I wrote in the aforementioned thread before explaining it in more detail.
This idea could work a couple ways. One way would be the system mentioned in the aforementioned thread—Unified Minister/Doctrine Team and Tangential Ideas—and another thread of mine, on diplomacy, a general ministerial tier system. The second way works with the current simple HoI2 cabinet. I will explain the first in more detail, using the example of a hypothetical cabinet and how that a tree would be generated from such a composition before doing the same with the second.
Using The New Proposed Ministerial System
Let’s focus on land doctrines, as Germany, with the assumption of a two-tiered ministerial system in 1939. There are three ministries or organizations that would impinge on land doctrines significantly: the Defense/Armaments Ministry, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of Army Staff. For the sake and ease of argument, I will use ministers (or, in the case of the latter two, also leaders) from HoI2. Thus, the three men who comprise the notables of the Defense/Armaments Ministry: the head of the ministry is Gustav Krupp, a dedicated armored proponent and his two aids are Franz Xaver Ritter von Epp, a dedicated infantry proponent and Hermann Göring, a dedicated tactical air support proponent. Yes, I know that the Air Force Staff could also be involved due to Göring’s position in the defense/armaments ministry. Quiet. The Chief of the Combined Staffs is Franz Halder, of the school of fire support (armor and self-propelled artillery) and his two men are Heinz Guderian (the leader), an offensive doctrine, panzer leader (to take the two most important) and Walter Model (the leader), a defensive doctrine, panzer leader (to take his two traits). Finally, there is the Chief of Army Staff, Walther von Brauchitsch, who believes in armored spearhead doctrine and his own two men, Werner von Blomberg (the Chief of Army minister), a believer of the guns and butter doctrine and Fedor von Bock (the Chief of Army minister), a believer of the decisive battle doctrine. Great…so?
So let’s tally the influences up.
Armor – 5 supporters (Krupp, Halder, Guderian, Model, von Brauchitsch)
Infantry – 2 (von Epp, von Bock)
Close Air Support – 1 (Göring)
Offensive – 3 (Guderian, von Brauchitsch, von Bock)
Defensive – 2 (Halder, Model)
Logistic efficiency – 1 (von Blomberg)
So what does this mean? It means that Germany’s land doctrines will be armor heavy, though with enough of an infantry influence to make sure that some love goes that way as well and might lead to close armor-infantry coordination benefits. Göring is a bit outnumbered (but if the Air Force Staff is also pro-CAS then there’d be a greater chance of close ground-air coordination). The balance between offensive and defensive is pretty close, so the doctrine would increase the efficiency of both, those with a favor toward the offensive. Given how von Blomberg is at logistic efficiency, respectively, Germany’s logistics doctrine will be a shambles. Now, if the player isn’t satisfied with this arrangement, the answer is simple—wipe the slate clean; change ministers, change their subordinates, generally bring different people in. There’ll be a definite penalty of some sort, but that’s to be expected if you want a major change of policy like that. And since equipment in large part depends on doctrine and policy, this doctrine and policy is important to developing actual armored divisions as opposed to armored brigades to be parceled out to the infantry or a focus on technologically advanced and very powerful heavy or super-heavy tanks as opposed to easy to produce and relatively expendable medium tanks. And so on.
Using HoI2’s Current Ministerial System
In reality, this isn’t really all too different from the system just mentioned, but there are key differences. Obviously, the most blatant and important of these is that ministries and Armed Force Staffs are still comprised of only one person. However, there usually tend to be other choices (especially if you can choose amongst the leaders, though let’s assume that’s not the case in this). Right, land doctrines again, Germany again, HoI2 ministers again, but this time it’s 1936, for ease of argument. Again, it is the Defense/Armaments Minister, the Chief of Staff and the Chief of Army Staff. However, each of these probably has multiple choices for who to fill into each slot. That’s what we’re after here.
The Defense/Armaments Minster can be Werner von Blomberg (infantry proponent), Rudolf Hess (strategic air power proponent), Hjalmar Schacht (administrative genius), Franz Xavier-Schwarz / Johann Schwerin von Krosigk / Julius Curtius / Albert Kuntz / Konstantin Hierl / Alfred Hugenberg (all six resource industrialists), Robert Ley (corrupt kleptocrat), Fritz Thyssen (laissez faire capitalist), Franz Xaver Ritter von Epp (infantry proponent), Franz Seldte (military entrepreneur) and finally Gustav Krupp (tank proponent). And that’s only the acceptable political alignments (ie, Paternal Autocrat through to National Socialist)! The Chief of Staff could be Ludwig Beck (school of maneuver), Fritz Bayerlein (school of psychology), or Wilhelm Grüner (school of defense). The Chief of Army Staff could be Werner von Fritsch (armored spearhead doctrine), Erich Ludendorff (elastic defense doctrine), or Walter von Lüttwitz (decisive battle doctrine). Again, it is a tally up, but a far larger one.
Of course, whoever’s actually in the cabinet at the time has a much weightier influence. At the beginning of 1936 these lucky three are von Blomberg (infantry proponent), Beck (school of maneuver) and von Fritsch (armored spearhead doctrine). Let’s assume for the sake of argument that their views count for triple.
Armor – 4 (Krupp, von Fritsch)
Infantry – 5 (von Blomberg, von Epp, von Lüttwitz)
Offensive – 1 (von Lüttwitz)
Defensive – 2 (Grüner, Ludendorff)
Mobility – 4 (Beck, Ludendorff)
Morale – 1 (Bayerlein)
Logistics – 1 (Seldte)
And then there’s the following:
Screw the army, I want big bombers! (non strategic bomber research penalty) – 1 (Hess)
Meh I’m a genius I’ll do the best of a bad job (research bonus) – 1 (Schacht)
We’ll make sure the industry can do this (eventual production cost decrease) – 6 (Xavier-Schwarz, von Krosigk, Curtius, Kuntz, Hierl, Hugenberg)
I’m corrupt and will mess this up if possible (research penalty) – 1 (Ley)
The interaction here would result in a three that’s actually slightly more infantry than armor focused, which would probably lead to decent coordination between them. They’d value mobility, but in a defensive more than an offensive setting. Good morale and efficient logistics play a minor part. This then is further affected by the others—Hess and Ley slowing it down, Schacht speeding it up and the other six promising that once you actually begin producing units they’ll be a bit cheaper than before you research that policy.
In the end, though, the idea boils down to the same thing regardless of which system is used. The underlying idea is that the architects of policy—the ministries and the armed forces—are actually the architects of policy, rather than simply following a historical road set out for them every time. Given the broadly historical ministers and Chiefs of Staffs (ie, same effects rather than necessarily same people), the historical policy will result. But begin changing the people and you’ll get a different policy, even if only subtly.
I assume that the AI will probably have a hard time with this, but that really means that the AI should be improved rather than this idea bypassed, I hope.
This idea could work a couple ways. One way would be the system mentioned in the aforementioned thread—Unified Minister/Doctrine Team and Tangential Ideas—and another thread of mine, on diplomacy, a general ministerial tier system. The second way works with the current simple HoI2 cabinet. I will explain the first in more detail, using the example of a hypothetical cabinet and how that a tree would be generated from such a composition before doing the same with the second.
Using The New Proposed Ministerial System
Let’s focus on land doctrines, as Germany, with the assumption of a two-tiered ministerial system in 1939. There are three ministries or organizations that would impinge on land doctrines significantly: the Defense/Armaments Ministry, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of Army Staff. For the sake and ease of argument, I will use ministers (or, in the case of the latter two, also leaders) from HoI2. Thus, the three men who comprise the notables of the Defense/Armaments Ministry: the head of the ministry is Gustav Krupp, a dedicated armored proponent and his two aids are Franz Xaver Ritter von Epp, a dedicated infantry proponent and Hermann Göring, a dedicated tactical air support proponent. Yes, I know that the Air Force Staff could also be involved due to Göring’s position in the defense/armaments ministry. Quiet. The Chief of the Combined Staffs is Franz Halder, of the school of fire support (armor and self-propelled artillery) and his two men are Heinz Guderian (the leader), an offensive doctrine, panzer leader (to take the two most important) and Walter Model (the leader), a defensive doctrine, panzer leader (to take his two traits). Finally, there is the Chief of Army Staff, Walther von Brauchitsch, who believes in armored spearhead doctrine and his own two men, Werner von Blomberg (the Chief of Army minister), a believer of the guns and butter doctrine and Fedor von Bock (the Chief of Army minister), a believer of the decisive battle doctrine. Great…so?
So let’s tally the influences up.
Armor – 5 supporters (Krupp, Halder, Guderian, Model, von Brauchitsch)
Infantry – 2 (von Epp, von Bock)
Close Air Support – 1 (Göring)
Offensive – 3 (Guderian, von Brauchitsch, von Bock)
Defensive – 2 (Halder, Model)
Logistic efficiency – 1 (von Blomberg)
So what does this mean? It means that Germany’s land doctrines will be armor heavy, though with enough of an infantry influence to make sure that some love goes that way as well and might lead to close armor-infantry coordination benefits. Göring is a bit outnumbered (but if the Air Force Staff is also pro-CAS then there’d be a greater chance of close ground-air coordination). The balance between offensive and defensive is pretty close, so the doctrine would increase the efficiency of both, those with a favor toward the offensive. Given how von Blomberg is at logistic efficiency, respectively, Germany’s logistics doctrine will be a shambles. Now, if the player isn’t satisfied with this arrangement, the answer is simple—wipe the slate clean; change ministers, change their subordinates, generally bring different people in. There’ll be a definite penalty of some sort, but that’s to be expected if you want a major change of policy like that. And since equipment in large part depends on doctrine and policy, this doctrine and policy is important to developing actual armored divisions as opposed to armored brigades to be parceled out to the infantry or a focus on technologically advanced and very powerful heavy or super-heavy tanks as opposed to easy to produce and relatively expendable medium tanks. And so on.
Using HoI2’s Current Ministerial System
In reality, this isn’t really all too different from the system just mentioned, but there are key differences. Obviously, the most blatant and important of these is that ministries and Armed Force Staffs are still comprised of only one person. However, there usually tend to be other choices (especially if you can choose amongst the leaders, though let’s assume that’s not the case in this). Right, land doctrines again, Germany again, HoI2 ministers again, but this time it’s 1936, for ease of argument. Again, it is the Defense/Armaments Minister, the Chief of Staff and the Chief of Army Staff. However, each of these probably has multiple choices for who to fill into each slot. That’s what we’re after here.
The Defense/Armaments Minster can be Werner von Blomberg (infantry proponent), Rudolf Hess (strategic air power proponent), Hjalmar Schacht (administrative genius), Franz Xavier-Schwarz / Johann Schwerin von Krosigk / Julius Curtius / Albert Kuntz / Konstantin Hierl / Alfred Hugenberg (all six resource industrialists), Robert Ley (corrupt kleptocrat), Fritz Thyssen (laissez faire capitalist), Franz Xaver Ritter von Epp (infantry proponent), Franz Seldte (military entrepreneur) and finally Gustav Krupp (tank proponent). And that’s only the acceptable political alignments (ie, Paternal Autocrat through to National Socialist)! The Chief of Staff could be Ludwig Beck (school of maneuver), Fritz Bayerlein (school of psychology), or Wilhelm Grüner (school of defense). The Chief of Army Staff could be Werner von Fritsch (armored spearhead doctrine), Erich Ludendorff (elastic defense doctrine), or Walter von Lüttwitz (decisive battle doctrine). Again, it is a tally up, but a far larger one.
Of course, whoever’s actually in the cabinet at the time has a much weightier influence. At the beginning of 1936 these lucky three are von Blomberg (infantry proponent), Beck (school of maneuver) and von Fritsch (armored spearhead doctrine). Let’s assume for the sake of argument that their views count for triple.
Armor – 4 (Krupp, von Fritsch)
Infantry – 5 (von Blomberg, von Epp, von Lüttwitz)
Offensive – 1 (von Lüttwitz)
Defensive – 2 (Grüner, Ludendorff)
Mobility – 4 (Beck, Ludendorff)
Morale – 1 (Bayerlein)
Logistics – 1 (Seldte)
And then there’s the following:
Screw the army, I want big bombers! (non strategic bomber research penalty) – 1 (Hess)
Meh I’m a genius I’ll do the best of a bad job (research bonus) – 1 (Schacht)
We’ll make sure the industry can do this (eventual production cost decrease) – 6 (Xavier-Schwarz, von Krosigk, Curtius, Kuntz, Hierl, Hugenberg)
I’m corrupt and will mess this up if possible (research penalty) – 1 (Ley)
The interaction here would result in a three that’s actually slightly more infantry than armor focused, which would probably lead to decent coordination between them. They’d value mobility, but in a defensive more than an offensive setting. Good morale and efficient logistics play a minor part. This then is further affected by the others—Hess and Ley slowing it down, Schacht speeding it up and the other six promising that once you actually begin producing units they’ll be a bit cheaper than before you research that policy.
In the end, though, the idea boils down to the same thing regardless of which system is used. The underlying idea is that the architects of policy—the ministries and the armed forces—are actually the architects of policy, rather than simply following a historical road set out for them every time. Given the broadly historical ministers and Chiefs of Staffs (ie, same effects rather than necessarily same people), the historical policy will result. But begin changing the people and you’ll get a different policy, even if only subtly.
I assume that the AI will probably have a hard time with this, but that really means that the AI should be improved rather than this idea bypassed, I hope.
Upvote
0
