Question on doctrines in 1.9.3

[Vill4geidi0t]

I have a quick question on what the state of doctrines is. I had seen a recent thread where MW produces higher org, speed, and recovery, but SF integrated provides better soft attack and defense.

It seems that both GBP, and MA, are extremely niche with MW being a little less so.

Is superior firepower still all around the best doctrine? When might the other doctrines be better?

I feel like artillery causes so many casualties that SF allows you to crush vastly larger countries with the added bonus of heaps of xp for generals and field marshals, thus exacerbating the issue. Doctrines seem like they would be difficult to balance.

Also what is the best way to get xp on your generals and FM?

 

[desphorin]

In SP your analysis is basically nailed on. In MP, I know a lot of countries will need MA for the extra manpower (and better bonuses for a defensive role). You can also use GBP because if you request expeditionary forces from countries building MW/SF troops, you essentially get benefits from both doctrines.

I dont exactly know the best grinding method, but I try to attack the same province (for terrain, engineer, trickster) and stop the attack before the enemy retreats. Let it recovery and rinse and repeat. I do hope others who are more knowledgable in this can help out.

 

[Caeric]

In SP your analysis is basically nailed on. In MP, I know a lot of countries will need MA for the extra manpower. You can also use GBP because if you request expeditionary forces from countries building MW/SF troops, you essentially get benefits from both doctrines.

I dont exactly know the best grinding method, but I try to attack the same province (for terrain, engineer, trickster) and stop the attack before the enemy retreats. Let it recovery and rinse and repeat. I do hope others who are more knowledgable in this can help out.

Doesn't the bottom-left path of MW offer about as much additional bodies as MA? Or are the bonuses for MA better?

 

[desphorin]

Doesn't the bottom-left path of MW offer about as much additional bodies as MA? Or are the bonuses for MA better?

I probably should edit the original response, but MA is much better suited for defence. Italy is very well suited to do MA. Basically you let Germany do all the attacks, with the main task being garrisons and guarding D-day

 

[Vlad123]

I probably should edit the original response, but MA is much better suited for defence. Italy is very well suited to do MA. Basically you let Germany do all the attacks, with the main task being garrisons and guarding D-day

but this is boring in SP...but in MP i think divide the works run good

 

[Vill4geidi0t]

There seems to be a very strong preference for SF. I may try a MW game and see how it feels.

 

[Redbull0329]

Depends on your IC, manpower and playstyle. If you're using mostly infantry, go for SF and build 14/4 doomstacks. For tanks, both are viable. I noticed that mot inf is especially good with MW for the speed and org bonuses. That's your go-to doctrine for encirclements, because it gives your spearheads more time to hold the line.

MA is good if you need the manpower and has one really good tactic for defenders. But other than that, not very much to offer.

GBP is almost never worth it in SP - I like to micro my units and you lose the planning bonus very quickly that way. So you're left with sub-par units.

Also what is the best way to get xp on your generals and FM?

Use battleplans all the time. Be fighting all the time. Use volunteers. Switch your generals around to gain traits.

 

[cunningstunts]

Another option to consider for Germany is going MW right and then left for the manpower. This is useful because you can:

• Take Total Mobilisation, once you declare on the Soviets (-3% manpower)
• Take Women in the Workforce (+5% manpower)
• Stay on Extensive Mobilisation (don't need to change to the next level which gives you -10% production)
• Use the harsh occupation laws to extract as much IC and resources as you can
• Use Himmler for -25% damage to garrisons and +2% noncore manpower
• Build loads of divisions to garrison the important locations + any extra countries if you are playing ahistorically (Spain, Sweden, Portugal etc. - that's lot of extra coastline to defend)

I might be a bit off with the exact numbers because I was going by memory.

Basically the idea is to suck up the manpower losses from harsh garrisons and defend your vulnerable coastlines until you defeat the Soviets. You'll be building loads of infantry equipment and support equipment from early in the game anyway, meaning these productions lines will have full efficiency for almost the entire war. So you can afford to lose equipment from harsh occupation laws. Same principle with armoured cars, which you can use in the higher resistance countries like France, Poland and Russia.

 

[desphorin]

There seems to be a very strong preference for SF. I may try a MW game and see how it feels.

yea because SF tanks are actually better than MW tanks, so there is really no particular reason to go MW in SP

Compare 15-5 SF RL and 17-3 MW LR and you will see (you can go more tanks in MW because of extra org from motorised infantry)

 

[Vill4geidi0t]

yea because SF tanks are actually better than MW tanks, so there is really no particular reason to go MW in SP

Compare 15-5 SF RL and 17-3 MW LR and you will see (you can go more tanks in MW because of extra org from motorised infantry)

What's the source for this? I guess it's just disappointing that SF is just so much better. But I can imagine Germany getting very broken and the SU, if MW and MA were buffed.

 

[desphorin]

What's the source for this? I guess it's just disappointing that SF is just so much better. But I can imagine Germany getting very broken and the SU, if MW and MA were buffed.

Source? You mean the tank stats? They are in game, or you can use https://taw.github.io/hoi4/ to experiment

 

[Vill4geidi0t]

Source? You mean the tank stats? They are in game, or you can use https://taw.github.io/hoi4/ to experiment

Wow I never realized that website existed, thank you for sharing.

 

[STABBY5]

Compare 15-5 SF RL and 17-3 MW LR and you will see (you can go more tanks in MW because of extra org from motorised infantry)

Those are awful divisions. No org, no hp, and are extremely expensive. 10/10 and 13/7 are better. Keep in mind you can add SPGs for mobile warfare to improve soft attack.

 

[SophieX]

yea because SF tanks are actually better than MW tanks, so there is really no particular reason to go MW in SP

What do you mean with "better" ?

For any reasons, I couldn't "use" the website, you stated above; but I took a quick look into the technology-data and found two "things" where MW beats SF regarding tanks:
- higher org and morale
- higher breaktrough

In my opinion the first point -> morale is the key for tank warfare: tanks have to move; a stopped and waiting tank is useless. And when tanks move, they loose org, so one purpose of a tank-doctrine is to tone down that incoming "weakness".

I always use a template with 8 tanks, 4 mot/mech and 3 SPArt. ( compromising combatpower and supply )

 

[Kryndude]

I only play SP.

MW: best defensive infantry, can add more tanks or SPGs to armored divisions. #2
SF: good for using lots of support companies, attack bonus coupled with air superiority bonus allows for easy breakthroughs. #1
GBP: useless in SP, unless you feel pleasure watching the AI suicide attack into your lines until it runs out of manpower/equipment. #69
MA: even more useless in SP #999

As for naval and air, Trade Interdiction and Strategic Destruction or Battlefield Support depending on your preference.

 

[mursolini]

Another option to consider for Germany is going MW right and then left for the manpower. This is useful because you can:

• Take Total Mobilisation, once you declare on the Soviets (-3% manpower)
• Take Women in the Workforce (+5% manpower)
• Stay on Extensive Mobilisation (don't need to change to the next level which gives you -10% production)
• Use the harsh occupation laws to extract as much IC and resources as you can
• Use Himmler for -25% damage to garrisons and +2% noncore manpower
• Build loads of divisions to garrison the important locations + any extra countries if you are playing ahistorically (Spain, Sweden, Portugal etc. - that's lot of extra coastline to defend)

I might be a bit off with the exact numbers because I was going by memory.

Basically the idea is to suck up the manpower losses from harsh garrisons and defend your vulnerable coastlines until you defeat the Soviets. You'll be building loads of infantry equipment and support equipment from early in the game anyway, so these productions lines will have full efficiency for almost the entire war - you can afford to lose equipment from harsh occupation laws. Sample principle with armoured cars, which you can use in high resistance countries like France, Poland and Russia.

You can just use collaboration governments, reichscomissariats and your allies for manpower.

yea because SF tanks are actually better than MW tanks, so there is really no particular reason to go MW in SP

Compare 15-5 SF RL and 17-3 MW LR and you will see (you can go more tanks in MW because of extra org from motorised infantry)

MW tanks are better, because of insane recovery rate and notably higher move speed.

 

[Vill4geidi0t]

I will say that in my Austria Hungary game I have 1944 fighters and four 15-5 1943 tank divisions and the difference in tanks for MW and SF feels night and day. I have completed the entire MW tree, since AH has nice focus bonuses for it, and it feels like my tanks can just keep attacking non stop and they move so quickly that encirclements on the ai are absurdly easy to pull off. Blitzing in the Midwestern plains let bite off chunks of troops non stop.

I just capitulated the US in 1943. Just have to stab the axis in the back now.

Since your generals and FM get such high XP and with entrenchment bonuses I think the SF tree may be a little overrated, but I'm no expert. Talking from a purely SP perspective.

What's a better 40w tank template than 15-5 that won't get pierced?

 

[Fulmen]

GBP is almost never worth it in SP - I like to micro my units and you lose the planning bonus very quickly that way. So you're left with sub-par units.

On the contrary, SP is precisely the only environment where GBP can be worth it on a regular basis: in SP you can pause and spam singular province battleplans to your heart's content, achieving practically the same result as with manual orders, but with planning bonus and a lot more micro.

In MP you don't have that "luxury", if you can call it that.

 

[Kryndude]

In MP you don't have that "luxury", if you can call it that.

Certainly not. In fact, it's the oppositie. GBP requires prohibitive amount of extra micro to justify using in SP where you'll mostly be on the offensive against the AIs. In MP, defensive war is sometimes inevitable and I can see GBP being a legit pick for some nations.

 

[Fulmen]

Certainly not. In fact, it's the oppositie. GBP requires prohibitive amount of extra micro to justify using in SP where you'll mostly be on the offensive against the AIs. In MP, defensive war is sometimes inevitable and I can see GBP being a legit pick for some nations.

There's almost no scenario where you'd want to go GBP in MP outside nichés that rely entirely on holding provinces like France and China. The extra planning bonus decay from manual movement just kills an already anti-micro doctrine, and everyone who's played MP knows micro is king.

GBP had one thing going for it on the attack: extra planning bonus. That advantage evaporated the moment PDX penalised manual movement.