Realistic Land Doctrine ideas

[sekelsenmat]

Hello, I think there are a number of problems with the current Land Doctrines, although I don't have a full picture of how it should be, so I thought I'd post here so that other people can add their ideas too, for a kind of brainstorming.

Basically my issues with Land Doctrines are:

1> "Superior Firepower" gives a Soft Att bonus to everything except Artillery. USA had a much better artillery then other countries, not better tanks & infantry, with a huge emphasis on "Superior Firepower" and "Casualty Avoidance", which meant more artillery and more shells per barrel, about the inverse of the current approach. I think it should be:
Artillery (Support & Line) & SPG soft attack +10%
Supply Consumption +10%

With more ammo being used to suppress the enemy and barrage it, you consume more supply. This inversion would also make it more attractive for rich countries, not poor ones like now.

2> Most "Motorized" doctrines give bonuses for Leg Infantry, and there are some Leg Inf-only bonuses. Together with more common and superior Leg Inf advisors, basically Motorized is inferior to Leg Inf and even to Cavalry in everything except speed. Somehow in real history Motorized british infantry was vastly superior to Leg Italian infantry. Leg German Infantry was good, however, so this isn't clear-cut, but still I'd expect Motorized to at least be a little better then Leg when attacking.

2.1> "Mass Motorization" change
from All Infantry & Mot/Mech: Organization: +10
to Mot/Mech: Org +10, Breakthrough +10%, Soft Att +5%

2.2> "Mobile Defense"
from All Infantry & Mot/Mech: Defense: +10%
to Mot/Mech: Defense: +10%

This would also again make Superior Firepower more of a rich-country thing.

2.3> Mechanized Offensive
from: Tanks Breakthrough +10%
add: Mot/Mech Breakthrough: +30%

reason: The symbol is a Mech, but adds nothing to Mech.

2.4> "Delay" in SF
from: Leg infantry: Organization: +10
to: All Infantry & Mot/Mech: Org: +10

2.5> "Infantry Offensive"
from Leg infantry: ...
to All Inf & Mot/Mech: ...

I fail to see how a doctrine could buff only leg infantry since motorized infantry doesn't fight inside the trucks ... it fights outside like normal infantry, but the trucks allow reinforcements to be brought to key sectors much faster.

3> Support Companies are too weak

My solution would be to add to every doctrine 1 or 2 of these somewhere, except SF:
Support Companies: Organization: +10

4> Infantry equipment progress is unrealistic, but doctrines are underwhelming, when in reality letaly of inf equip didn't increase much, but better doctrines often made a lot of difference.

My solution would be to change Inf Eq soft attack from: 3/6/9/12 to 4/6/8/10

And in every doctrine tree add twice (once in middle, and again in the end): All Infantry & Mot/Mech: Soft Att: +10% to keep the amount of soft attack the same overall

5> SF "Dispersed Support" vs "Integrated Support" has no basis in reality. SF should have line art improvements in the main branch, and the choice should be between "Defensive Focus" and "Offensive Focus".

6> "Mass Assault" should help more industry poor countries. I'd like it to have a -10% Inf Equipment cost. Not sure if it is possible to have it in a tech.

7> If GBP Left is to remain the british/french doctrine I'd propose this change to make it represent better their artillery focus:

"Assault Concentration"
from: Max planning: +10%
to: Artillery (Support & Line) & SPG soft attack +10%
Supply Consumption +10%

8> Maybe part of the tank stats should be moved to doctrines, but nerfing the base stat (not sure which one? Soft/Hard Attack?) but with a corresponding increase in doctrines to compensate and bring it back to the original value.

This is to represent how the French had tons of tanks, but without doctrine, they didn't know how to use them properly.

 

[SophieX]

1. I really like it, when people make a proposal to change things and give an explanation not only why and how is could be done, but also showing a deep-thinking before posting. Thumbs up!

2. I totally agree with the most of your proposals, however there are a very few where I have still to think about.
( No. 2.1, 2.2 and 4 ).

 

[master_templar]

I think these are great suggestions, and alot more realistic that the default ones which are more focused on flavor and balance I feel.

I don't know if I like increasing base stats like soft attack with doctrine but I really like Superior Firepower increasing supply consumption also as it makes it more of a trade off.

 

[blahmaster6k]

The problem that leads to Superior Firepower being the best doctrine 90 percent of the time is the fact that not all stats are created equal - soft/hard attack and defense are more valuable than breakthrough, max planning, and other stats that are offered. That's not to say that other stats increased by doctrines like recovery rate, reinforce rate, org are unimportant, but having extra attack and defense both lets you inflict more casualties, and take fewer, which usually affect the war more. You can make encirclements with tanks just as easily with SF as MW, you just need slightly different templates to make up for the lower tank org in SF. Having more soft attack means your divisions can get attacks over enemy division defense easier, and having more defense means it will take more effort for the enemy to do the same to you.

The best land doctrine mods I've seen give every doctrine bonuses to soft/hard attack and defense somewhere in the tree, the difference between these bonuses is in the type of units given the bonuses, and the amount of bonuses given. For example, Mobile Warfare might get +20% soft and 15% hard attack for tanks and +10% soft attack for infantry, and 10% extra infantry defense, but Superior Firepower might get soft/hard attack bonuses of 20% for infantry and 5% for tanks, and 20% infantry defense bonuses. (making these numbers up as I don't remember specifics).

 

[ctl3]

I don't think add attack to all doctrine is a good idea. Theoretically other doctrines offer different method to boost attack: grand battle plan gain attack bonus from battle plan, mass assault gain bonus by adding more battalions. The reason superior firepower is OP in my opinion, is simplicity. You do not make effort to utilize the bonus of superior firepower because those soft attack multiplier apply to all unit, any time. On the other hand, you have to setup battle plan to make grand battle plan work, you need huge amount of manpower and equipment to make mass assault work. sekelsenmat have a good point: the best way to rebalance superior firepower is to make the bonus harder to come by or create some handicap.

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

Yeah it always amused me how Mass Assault stated that a lot of good enough equipment is better but actually gave nothing even relatively close to this. only -supply but that is all. Trash doctrine with only good features of org regain and tactic.

 

[Hoi Neuling]

You can try to Mod it.

Many good Mod-Ideas which are played by the Gamers as well as regulary Upgraded for the new Versions get more or less in the Patches or DLC´s (like the Agency) and other things like Speeches, Musik, Synthetic Ressources etc.

 

[Zauberelefant]

The problem that leads to Superior Firepower being the best doctrine 90 percent of the time is the fact that not all stats are created equal - soft/hard attack and defense are more valuable than breakthrough, max planning, and other stats that are offered. That's not to say that other stats increased by doctrines like recovery rate, reinforce rate, org are unimportant, but having extra attack and defense both lets you inflict more casualties, and take fewer, which usually affect the war more. You can make encirclements with tanks just as easily with SF as MW, you just need slightly different templates to make up for the lower tank org in SF. Having more soft attack means your divisions can get attacks over enemy division defense easier, and having more defense means it will take more effort for the enemy to do the same to you.

The best land doctrine mods I've seen give every doctrine bonuses to soft/hard attack and defense somewhere in the tree, the difference between these bonuses is in the type of units given the bonuses, and the amount of bonuses given. For example, Mobile Warfare might get +20% soft and 15% hard attack for tanks and +10% soft attack for infantry, and 10% extra infantry defense, but Superior Firepower might get soft/hard attack bonuses of 20% for infantry and 5% for tanks, and 20% infantry defense bonuses. (making these numbers up as I don't remember specifics).

It's also Important where in the tree things happen. MW has strong tactics early on, way before other doctrines.

 

[lingo74]

I really like your idea of superior fire power containing a little debuff in there, honestly I think it’d be cool if the doctrines weren’t just a series of buffs but also contained drawbacks in certain areas.

 

[Col.Klink]

I don't think add attack to all doctrine is a good idea. Theoretically other doctrines offer different method to boost attack: grand battle plan gain attack bonus from battle plan, mass assault gain bonus by adding more battalions. The reason superior firepower is OP in my opinion, is simplicity. You do not make effort to utilize the bonus of superior firepower because those soft attack multiplier apply to all unit, any time. On the other hand, you have to setup battle plan to make grand battle plan work, you need huge amount of manpower and equipment to make mass assault work. sekelsenmat have a good point: the best way to rebalance superior firepower is to make the bonus harder to come by or create some handicap.

If you think about it the only good doctrine options in game are mass mobilization and superior firepower. The former being the best defensively and the latter just being easier to use but both being equally as ic intensive. Which is crazy to think about.

The problem isn't just that superior firepower doesn't have to do anything like deal with increased supply consumption to gain it's bonuses, its that the defensive and planning bonuses of the other two doctrines are utterly worthless.

Think about the bonuses from grand battleplan which theoretically are ideal for low IC countries unlike mass mobilization and superior firepower. Straight out of the gate the 10 entrenchment bonus grant's it a 20% defense bonus over superior firepower. But then you consider, if you have to advance to exploit a breakthrough, that defense bonus vanishes. If you have to move to counter a breakthrough that bonus vanishes. If the enemy pushes you just a little that bonus vanishes and then you will completely and totally lose the war. (if you got pushed to begin with, imagine how bad things will be once you lose your bonuses. )

and the superior planning level of grand battleplan or the faster planning of mobile warfare is even *more* worthless. The root of it's worthlessness is that you cannot order a unit to plan for an offensive unless it's on the front line. So all your opponent needs to do is tie your front down with cheap units and wolla, suddenly you cannot plan AT ALL! So now your grand battleplan bonuses might as well not exist. Worst part of this is a mass mobilization player can continually lock you down like this thanks to recovery rates while conducting planning of their own. So you don't get your 70% or so offensive bonus while they get a 30% planning bonus thererby countering your defense bonus.

This is worsened by the fact that when they do achieve breakthrough the recovery bonus they have allows them to keep this up, so when you move your army around to counter the breakthrough they keep getting attacked so now you can't even build up your defensive entrenchment bonuses and you begin to start losing hard.

The mobile warfare faster planning speed is just as worthless because again, you can't plan while being attacked. You can't plan from rear echelon positions either. So in the end your only choices in this game are superior firepower if you got the materials for large volumes of artillery or mass mobilization. The other options are just garbage because their best advantages are so situational that they might as well not exist. Nobody is just going to let you sit there mid war and build up a planning bonus to destroy them.

 

[Col.Klink]

Yeah it always amused me how Mass Assault stated that a lot of good enough equipment is better but actually gave nothing even relatively close to this. only -supply but that is all. Trash doctrine with only good features of org regain and tactic.

With the combat width reduction you fit more of honestly everything in a division. So mass mobilization gains superior soft attack compared to mobile war and grand battle WHILE having much higher org than superior firepower and incredible recovery rate.

Grand battle loses once its pushed a little and entrenchment bonus vanishes. Mass mobilization reinforce rate and recovery rate allows you to have fewer units on the defense while still grinding your opponent down by cycling divisions into the battle. Defeated divisions return so quickly its mind numbing. Unlike grand battle these supreme defense advantages stay no matter how much ground the enemy takes, thereby allowing real effective defense in depth.

Its a trade off with superior firepower. Superior firepower will have much more soft attack if you have the raw material to make artillery but mass mobilization will have like twice the org of a superior firepower division that outclasses it in soft attack.

The other two doctrines are just worthless. Breakthrough from mobile warefare doesn't win battles. Soft attack does. Planning bonuses are worthless.

 

[SophieX]

The other two doctrines are just worthless. Breakthrough from mobile warefare doesn't win battles

I disagree.

You are not regarding speed, org and tactics of MW. Strong factors to encircle and overrun.

Soft attack does.

only against soft targets....

In my opinion it is quiet difficult to say this or that doctrine is better or worse. It depends heavily on your "starting-country" ( ressources IC, MIC etc ) and your playing-style ( for example I micro everything, and good speed and org are my weapons ). I never had any probs with MW when playing majors.

 

[Col.Klink]

I disagree.

You are not regarding speed, org and tactics of MW. Strong factors to encircle and overrun.


only against soft targets....

In my opinion it is quiet difficult to say this or that doctrine is better or worse. It depends heavily on your "starting-country" ( ressources IC, MIC etc ) and your playing-style ( for example I micro everything, and good speed and org are my weapons ). I never had any probs with MW when playing majors.

I gotta examine the tactics. Those are far more important than I had realized as a noob. I confess I have a preference for mass mobilization tactics that play with combat width.

I find the speed isn't that useful. The enemy always seems to be able to throw just enough on the way that if I try an encirclement where each arm tries to penetrate more than 2 territories they run out of fuel first. They can theoretically move faster but not while fighting. So instead of one big encirclement I do several all at once encircling 2-3 territory wide sections of the front while the mass infantry attacks not to win but preventing the enemy from organizing against my movements. Basically locking em down.

Also I say soft attack is the winner bc you want to sick your breakthrough troops at the enemys weekest points. Don't target armor to defeat for an encirclement, the clock is ticking. Moreover dont use armor to defend against armor. Just have a motorized mobile reserve of anti tank divisions with signal companies. They attack with tanks and you stop em cold.

I just cant find any real useful advantages to mobile war that aren't found elsewhere at the very least.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I gotta examine the tactics. Those are far more important than I had realized as a noob. I confess I have a preference for mass mobilization tactics that play with combat width.

I find the speed isn't that useful. The enemy always seems to be able to throw just enough on the way that if I try an encirclement where each arm tries to penetrate more than 2 territories they run out of fuel first. They can theoretically move faster but not while fighting. So instead of one big encirclement I do several all at once encircling 2-3 territory wide sections of the front while the mass infantry attacks not to win but preventing the enemy from organizing against my movements. Basically locking em down.

Also I say soft attack is the winner bc you want to sick your breakthrough troops at the enemys weekest points. Don't target armor to defeat for an encirclement, the clock is ticking. Moreover dont use armor to defend against armor. Just have a motorized mobile reserve of anti tank divisions with signal companies. They attack with tanks and you stop em cold.

I just cant find any real useful advantages to mobile war that aren't found elsewhere at the very least.

MW's armor org bonus allows for harder, higher armour tank divisions, which in turn increases damage Output by ~50% and halves damage taken. A MW armour division is a terrifying opponent, faster than any other, better suited for breakthrough, less piercable than other tank formations. And it uses tactics other branches get 4-6 levels later, like blitz, breakthrough, backhand blow. An industrialized country early waging war should take MW.

 

[Col.Klink]

MW's armor org bonus allows for harder, higher armour tank divisions, which in turn increases damage Output by ~50% and halves damage taken. A MW armour division is a terrifying opponent, faster than any other, better suited for breakthrough, less piercable than other tank formations. And it uses tactics other branches get 4-6 levels later, like blitz, breakthrough, backhand blow. An industrialized country early waging war should take MW.

I don't see any bonus to a units armor rating in the doctrine tree. And tbh the difference between moving at 8 km/h and 8.8 km/h (medium tanks) is in practice non existent. It gets MASSIVE bonuses to breakthrough but that's just not as awesome as you'd think. Its your ability to avoid attacks not to attack meaning it doesn't resolve the contest quicker. The longer the contest is, especially when you have penetrated the front and are now fighting their impromtu reserves in the rear the worse it will go for you. This is breakthrough, you need to dish damage out so you win NOW and that sir is superior firepower.

Everything you'd want to do with mobile war is simply done better by superior firepower. A measly 0.8 kmh boost is not going to make up for having less soft attack.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I don't see any bonus to a units armor rating in the doctrine tree. And tbh the difference between moving at 8 km/h and 8.8 km/h (medium tanks) is in practice non existent. It gets MASSIVE bonuses to breakthrough but that's just not as awesome as you'd think. Its your ability to avoid attacks not to attack meaning it doesn't resolve the contest quicker. The longer the contest is, especially when you have penetrated the front and are now fighting their impromtu reserves in the rear the worse it will go for you. This is breakthrough, you need to dish damage out so you win NOW and that sir is superior firepower.

Everything you'd want to do with mobile war is simply done better by superior firepower. A measly 0.8 kmh boost is not going to make up for having less soft attack.

You are fooled by the apparent lack of armour bonus in the tree. But if we agree that a division needs org in order to function Well, the only source of org for non-MW divisions is infantry. Or mot inf. The downside to them is that they cost you armour rating and hardness. The MW doctrine org bonus to tanks allows for more tanks in the mix, which in turn means extreme breakthrough, higher hardness, higher armour, higher attack ratings per combat width.
And the 2(!)x10% speed bonus isn't so measly, once you add in designers, engine upgrades and advisors, you can at least as Germany get past 13 km/h easily with MARM, which is nothing to sneeze at.
And then there are the soft bonuses: less org loss when moving, higher reinforce rate, high org regain for tanks, which offsets a lot of the Problems SF tank units have.

Pound per pound, a German tank division can outperform any other tank formation of same combat width against a determined opponent. Unless we're talking Vanilla AI, but then why bother?

 

[sekelsenmat]

With the combat width reduction you fit more of honestly everything in a division. So mass mobilization gains superior soft attack compared to mobile war and grand battle WHILE having much higher org than superior firepower and incredible recovery rate.

The reduced combat width is only for regular inf, so it only helps defensive divisions, not offensive divisions like tanks+motorized. So even though you get more soft attack, it is not in the units which are supposed to attack. Unless you are role playing as China and using regular inf to attack.

The worse doctrine is clearly GBP. The planning bonus takes so long to rise that the enemy brings in more divisions and entrenches, so it is counter productive to wait for it. The right branch has supply and night attack bonus, but it has some bonuses to leg infantry would would be better in motorized and misses out on "Breakthrough" the best tactic in the game.

 

[mursolini]

Soviet doctrine needs only a single buff, make it`s bonus to infantry width apply to Motorized.

For SF - I would just remove most bonuses it gives to non-motorized troops, on the logic that mass usage of ammo, mandates motorization, otherwise supply becomes unbearable. Also, might add bonuses to logistical company to somewhat compensate for needing to have most of your army motorized.

MW is pretty good, maybe a bonus to mobile artillery and a bonus to supply grace are required to make it equal to SF.

 

[sekelsenmat]

Soviet doctrine needs only a single buff, make it`s bonus to infantry width apply to Motorized.

For SF - I would just remove most bonuses it gives to non-motorized troops, on the logic that mass usage of ammo, mandates motorization, otherwise supply becomes unbearable. Also, might add bonuses to logistical company to somewhat compensate for needing to have most of your army motorized.

MW is pretty good, maybe a bonus to mobile artillery and a bonus to supply grace are required to make it equal to SF.

Adding MA combat width reduction to motorized is a great idea, just wonder if only for the left side or both.

As for SF the idea is good, although it might be a problem that then it wouldn't buff Marines, which are necessary for island-hoping. I wonder how to explain why it would buff Marines but not Leg Infantry .... surely a good start would be for SF to stop buffing tanks and buff artillery more. USA tanks weren't superior in any way.

A MW bonus for mobile artillery would be highly ahistorical. Germany's artillery was inferior to American, and also wasn't that motorized. Maybe ORG+Soft Att bonus for support battalions like SF has, indicating it is for rich countries which use a lot of support battalions.

 

[SophieX]

Germany's artillery was inferior to American,

Do you refer to the numbers and the use or to the cannon itself?
For the first I totally agree; for the second I doubt that there were great differences ( but I'm not 100% sure ).