Realistic Land Doctrine ideas

[Sloeberjong]

I think doctrines should be changed more than just these (good) suggestions. What I miss with doctrines is downsides. I think doctrines should deal penalties for certain choices. OP started with some good ones like SF costing more production. The same goes for the other doctrines. I miss the trade-off. I might go for the mass assault which will benefit the use of a lot of (crowded) divisions but at the cost of morale? Maybe requiring the use of that doctrine to invest in MP (making those guys a bit more usefull in that respect.

Well, I think you'll get what I mean.

 

[SophieX]

I miss the trade-off. I might go for the mass assault which will benefit the use of a lot of (crowded) divisions but at the cost of morale?

You made a very good point here!
I think the differences between doctrines should be greater than they are at the moment; which can be achieved by doing what you have proposed.
Only as an example on the run:
MW: more speed and morale; less firepower
SF: more firepower less speed.
MA: more infantry-units less morale
GBP: no idea; never used.

 

[Zauberelefant]

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 ).

US artillery used sophisticated technology, like time on target (coordinated battery or even batallion fire to Hit the target at the exact same Moment, basically a tube artillery katyusha), later proximity fuses for airbursting shells, and their logistics were second to None.
Oh, and airplane observers for their battalions, plus Radio for everyone instead of landline. And everything motorized.

They were a decade ahead, at least, of the Wehrmacht.

 

[sekelsenmat]

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 ).

I'm not exactly sure, because most sources use generic terms like "better system", but it wasn't just the numbers and the infinite supply of ammo, they also had better recon and fire direction.

>>>A component by component examination of American and German artillery shows that almost from the beginning of America’s participation in the conflict the U.S. Army had the superior system. American artillerymen did not try to combat the enemy’s artillery by building bigger guns. The approach from the beginning was to build a better system and it worked. That was clear to thoughtful observers at the time. Viewing the Italian campaign, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel commented, “The enemy’s tremendous superiority in artillery, and even more in the air, has broken the front open.” During the Normandy campaign, Rommel added, “Also in evidence is their great superiority in artillery and outstandingly large supply of ammunition.” By any reasonable standard, especially during the latter part of World War II, the American artillery arm was very clearly superior to that of the Germans.<<<

>>>The effectiveness of American artillery, even at this early stage of American involvement, impressed Rommel. In an 18 February 1943 letter to his wife, he described the fighting in and around what American historians have called the Battle of Kasserine Pass. In part he commented “an observation plane directed the fire of numerous batteries on all worthwhile targets throughout the zone.”<<<

U.S. and German Field Artillery in World War II: A Comparison – The Campaign for the National Museum of the United States Army

armyhistory.org

And that's not even considering the proximity fuzed shells introduced in the Battle of the Bulge.

The "outstandingly large supply of ammunition" is why I think SF should give a +10% supply usage, which you have to compensate using Logistics company.

The soviets had the opposite situation. Although they had tons of artillery guns, they often had little ammo.

 

[Gort11]

It's pretty silly to put stuff like "Mass motorisation" in the Germany's tree when they did the exact opposite of that.

Their strategy was more "Selective motorisation" - concentrating what few motorised vehicles they had into individual divisions rather than spreading them out across the whole army, and leaving most divisions to march on foot and use horses for supply.

-----

What might be a fun idea for HoI4 is if each nation got its own doctrine trees for land, air and navy. Then the doctrines can reflect the actual challenges that that country faced in those fields. For instance the Soviets might start with some kind of "horrible logistics" penalty baked into their starting land doctrines, which they can spend resources to alleviate, or choose to accept and focus their efforts elsewhere.

It'd be a lot of work though, although some of the work's already been done since certain doctrines are already supposed to be the doctrine that a particular country uses.

 

[Zauberelefant]

It's pretty silly to put stuff like "Mass motorisation" in the Germany's tree when they did the exact opposite of that.

Their strategy was more "Selective motorisation" - concentrating what few motorised vehicles they had into individual divisions rather than spreading them out across the whole army, and leaving most divisions to march on foot and use horses for supply.

-----

What might be a fun idea for HoI4 is if each nation got its own doctrine trees for land, air and navy. Then the doctrines can reflect the actual challenges that that country faced in those fields. For instance the Soviets might start with some kind of "horrible logistics" penalty baked into their starting land doctrines, which they can spend resources to alleviate, or choose to accept and focus their efforts elsewhere.

It'd be a lot of work though, although some of the work's already been done since certain doctrines are already supposed to be the doctrine that a particular country uses.

To be fair, "mass motorization" does not really do anything that requires actual motorization. It's a silly name, but the right branch's theme appears to be mechanized assaults rather than tank breakthrough, so its ahistorical anyways.

 

[mursolini]

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

Not sure if that even matters.

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.

Not sure why US marines should even have a buff.

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.

Yes, but:
1. German motorized artillery had both pretty reasonable hardware and managed to support tank and mechanized formations pretty well, was pretty well-coordinated by radios and combined arms approach in armored divisions was instrumental to their early success.
2. German heavy artillery was top-notch, at least till 1942.
3. US doctrine bonus would still be higher, but will come later in tree.
4. German artillery was probably best of European ones in early war at least

As for just guns, we already have tech for that, so if war isn`t going well, Germans will be scrapping old guns, like they did.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Not sure if that even matters.

Not sure why US marines should even have a buff.

Yes, but:
1. German motorized artillery had both pretty reasonable hardware and managed to support tank and mechanized formations pretty well, was pretty well-coordinated by radios and combined arms approach in armored divisions was instrumental to their early success.
2. German heavy artillery was top-notch, at least till 1942.
3. US doctrine bonus would still be higher, but will come later in tree.
4. German artillery was probably best of European ones in early war at least

As for just guns, we already have tech for that, so if war isn`t going well, Germans will be scrapping old guns, like they did.

German artillery was outclassed by the british, US and even soviet artillery branches, as early as 1940/41. I think that the effectiveness of Panzer divisions does not run counter to that.
I think German arty is the Baseline, all others get bonuses sooner or later.

 

[Harin]

I'm not exactly sure, because most sources use generic terms like "better system", but it wasn't just the numbers and the infinite supply of ammo, they also had better recon and fire direction.

>>>A component by component examination of American and German artillery shows that almost from the beginning of America’s participation in the conflict the U.S. Army had the superior system. American artillerymen did not try to combat the enemy’s artillery by building bigger guns. The approach from the beginning was to build a better system and it worked. That was clear to thoughtful observers at the time. Viewing the Italian campaign, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel commented, “The enemy’s tremendous superiority in artillery, and even more in the air, has broken the front open.” During the Normandy campaign, Rommel added, “Also in evidence is their great superiority in artillery and outstandingly large supply of ammunition.” By any reasonable standard, especially during the latter part of World War II, the American artillery arm was very clearly superior to that of the Germans.<<<

>>>The effectiveness of American artillery, even at this early stage of American involvement, impressed Rommel. In an 18 February 1943 letter to his wife, he described the fighting in and around what American historians have called the Battle of Kasserine Pass. In part he commented “an observation plane directed the fire of numerous batteries on all worthwhile targets throughout the zone.”<<<

U.S. and German Field Artillery in World War II: A Comparison – The Campaign for the National Museum of the United States Army

armyhistory.org

And that's not even considering the proximity fuzed shells introduced in the Battle of the Bulge.

The "outstandingly large supply of ammunition" is why I think SF should give a +10% supply usage, which you have to compensate using Logistics company.

The soviets had the opposite situation. Although they had tons of artillery guns, they often had little ammo.

What an excellent article.

Since the game abstracts ammunition into the equipment costs, it might make sense to add a +10% cost to artillery in the SF tree to reflect that any nation that uses this doctrine is going to pay more in ammunition, spare parts, worn out barrels, etc..

Also, to simulate the American's superior ammunition, artillery coordination, spotter planes, communication systems, Time on Target attacks, a 500% or more abundance of ammunition, etc... maybe the Americans need a set of Focuses, Decisions, or something else that they can invest in that will make their artillery much more powerful, due to all the above abstractions put into their artillery system, but also cost much more since those advantages have serious costs associated with them.

 

[Yanotoshi]

Adding a logistic support company, like proposed, would give actually the 10% bonus from the right SF tree side. It just reduces the choices for the rest of the 4 slots. But if you play historical, it might reflect a solid division build.

 

[Col.Klink]

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.

Your breakthrough divisions needn't be your exploitation divisions. For breakthrough you just need something that can break the enemy line immediately before the enemy can roll a reinforce. After that the chaos is such that you don't need such overpowering units and it helps just to have more light 12km/h+ units scattering EVERYWHERE behind the enemy line cutting off movement and supply of as many units as possible rather than seek further pitched battle. A great combo is light tanks (or mediums depending on year, enemy level of equipment) + mot for exploitation and heavy tanks + infantry + heavy SP art for breakthrough.

 

[Crecer13]

I know for sure that the USSR must change its ground doctrine. From the "Mass Assault" to the "Deep Battle", this doctrine has evolved since the 20s. Perhaps she should be the fifth doctrine.

The conceptual basis of the theory of deep offensive combat is a massive impact on the entire tactical depth of the enemy's defensive orders with the aim of encircling and destroying it. To do this, use:
- a breakthrough of the enemy’s continuous front in certain selected directions, which is carried out by a sudden attack of infantry and tank units, with dense fire support by artillery,
- the introduction of mechanized and cavalry units (success echelon) at the breakout site for encompassing strikes against targets in the depths of defense,
- air strikes on reserves and rear of the enemy in combination with parachute assault forces to maintain high speed forward movement of strike groups

So the doctrine may not be purely specialized in one type of troops: tanks / mechanized troops, artillery, infantry. And to have specializations for tanks, artillery and paratroopers in one doctrine, but possibly at the expense of defense, because the main priority was a counter attack and a further attack.

I hope when the USSR DLS arrives, the changes for the USSR ground doctrine also come.

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

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.

Yes I know how it works and why people people often kick SOV players for changing docrtines. And why this doctrine is good for one thing - holding the line with suffering huge losses but still holding with interchanging divisions rotation. Which is still very very very bad for other part of the game - advancing.
It is normal for multiplayer USSR to sit with pure INF on river line doung ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and waiting until D-Day but in Singleplayer it is a major flaw - in SP it is always better to take SF becuase most players are playing this game to actually advance, not sit for several years wasting GER manpower and equipment. Which is why MA is flawed as a Land Doctrine.
Also, tactic that gives you +50width to utilize your advantage fires VERY rarely even with maxed Recon.
And more INF brigades per division means more INF equipment - with AI being horrendously bad at building enough INF equipment and constantly running with abysmal deficites.

 

[Col.Klink]

Yes I know how it works and why people people often kick SOV players for changing docrtines. And why this doctrine is good for one thing - holding the line with suffering huge losses but still holding with interchanging divisions rotation. Which is still very very very bad for other part of the game - advancing.
It is normal for multiplayer USSR to sit with pure INF on river line doung ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and waiting until D-Day but in Singleplayer it is a major flaw - in SP it is always better to take SF becuase most players are playing this game to actually advance, not sit for several years wasting GER manpower and equipment. Which is why MA is flawed as a Land Doctrine.

Considering how hopelessly outclassed the ussr is by germany if people wait till 1941 for such a war... just holding the line regardless of doctrine is like the best that can be expected tbh.

I mean by that point doesn't germany have like twice or three times the ic that the ussr has?

 

[Zauberelefant]

Considering how hopelessly outclassed the ussr is by germany if people wait till 1941 for such a war... just holding the line regardless of doctrine is like the best that can be expected tbh.

I mean by that point doesn't germany have like twice or three times the ic that the ussr has?

If the soviet Player is savvy and going for a CIC buildup, the Germans are facing a peak SU, and of course the allies.

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

If the soviet Player is savvy and going for a CIC buildup, the Germans are facing a peak SU, and of course the allies.

...which is forbidden by 90% of MP house rules. Early wars for USSR? Forbidden. Help for China? Limited. Strats? Forbidden. Deleting your army? Forbidden for most. Volunteers? Send only what we alloweed or be kicked. You are not building up river line? Kicked. Took wrong decisions? Kicked!
Even with converting all MIC to CIC GER will still have overwhelming industrial advantage.

 

[Zauberelefant]

...which is forbidden by 90% of MP house rules. Early wars for USSR? Forbidden. Help for China? Limited. Strats? Forbidden. Deleting your army? Forbidden for most. Volunteers? Send only what we alloweed or be kicked. You are not building up river line? Kicked. Took wrong decisions? Kicked!
Even with converting all MIC to CIC GER will still have overwhelming industrial advantage.

Deleting your army isn't doing any good, maybe these servers need to update their rulesets - and you are not obliged to join a server that restrictive.
Is a CIC buildup for soviets really forbidden? Because that pretty much shoehorns the soviet experience into holding the line and waiting for dday. I wouldn't bother playing under these rules.

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

Deleting your army isn't doing any good, maybe these servers need to update their rulesets - and you are not obliged to join a server that restrictive.
Is a CIC buildup for soviets really forbidden? Because that pretty much shoehorns the soviet experience into holding the line and waiting for dday. I wouldn't bother playing under these rules.

Sure, I am not obliged nor forced to play there but a sessions with enjoyable rules are hard to start. people have children, families, different time zones, work etc. So either wait until all your friend gather for a session or stroll opened online games in a lobby.
With Non-exploitive CIC Soviet buildup, intended by the game right now, you end up with five-six times less industry than Axis. So you end up sitting in a rivr line fighting tank breakthroughs until Dday.
The reason i quit MP and spend most of my playtime in SP.

 

[mursolini]

German artillery was outclassed by the british, US and even soviet artillery branches, as early as 1940/41. I think that the effectiveness of Panzer divisions does not run counter to that.
I think German arty is the Baseline, all others get bonuses sooner or later.

In what way we're Soviets and UK superior to Germans in artillery?

I know for sure that the USSR must change its ground doctrine. From the "Mass Assault" to the "Deep Battle", this doctrine has evolved since the 20s. Perhaps she should be the fifth doctrine.

The conceptual basis of the theory of deep offensive combat is a massive impact on the entire tactical depth of the enemy's defensive orders with the aim of encircling and destroying it. To do this, use:
- a breakthrough of the enemy’s continuous front in certain selected directions, which is carried out by a sudden attack of infantry and tank units, with dense fire support by artillery,
- the introduction of mechanized and cavalry units (success echelon) at the breakout site for encompassing strikes against targets in the depths of defense,
- air strikes on reserves and rear of the enemy in combination with parachute assault forces to maintain high speed forward movement of strike groups

So the doctrine may not be purely specialized in one type of troops: tanks / mechanized troops, artillery, infantry. And to have specializations for tanks, artillery and paratroopers in one doctrine, but possibly at the expense of defense, because the main priority was a counter attack and a further attack.

I hope when the USSR DLS arrives, the changes for the USSR ground doctrine also come.

Deep battle is just continuation of their doctrine from 20s, on new technological level.

It still relied on massive concentration and numerical advantage of 7-10times, but utilized a lot of armor and artillery as well as fast exploitation was possible due to far more numerous trucks.

Soviets also had reasonably large paratrooper branch, however it's didn't achieve and particular success, so it's not very famous, unlike German and US paratrooper branch.

 

[Zauberelefant]

In what way we're Soviets and UK superior to Germans in artillery?

Deep battle is just continuation of their doctrine from 20s, on new technological level.

It still relied on massive concentration and numerical advantage of 7-10times, but utilized a lot of armor and artillery as well as fast exploitation was possible due to far more numerous trucks.

Soviets also had reasonably large paratrooper branch, however it's didn't achieve and particular success, so it's not very famous, unlike German and US paratrooper branch.

The british had advanced artillery tactics and used 8 gun batteries, which in north africa led to German POWs asking if they could see the "belt-fed artillery" they believed the brits had.

The soviets had simply tons of guns, dual use guns like the 76mm, and a doctrine which put emphasis on planned bombardements. Also more support artillery on corps and army levels. Add in the Katyusha, and the Germans are outclassed.