Should Superior Firepower and Grand Battleplan also have manpower bonus at their end?

[Secret Master]

I don't think there should be any free manpower in the doctrine trees at all. There's too much free manpower floating around in the game already.

 

[sterrius]

Mass assault should keep the 5% manpower.
The whole right branch is around that and throwing man at the enemy.


Mobile warfare is the only really strange branch that needs a rework.
Instead of desperate defense mobile warfare could use some infantary bonuses on defense.

I would vote for + Entrenchment on first level. (around the same mass assault have).
Less manpower needed for occupation with that power that already deals with resistance. (Should give a small manpower boost but not a artificial one ).
And last level giving a small bonus to defense and breaktrough. (5% each ).
Throw a little extra org and recovery. (Inferior to modern blitzkrieg) to balance things out.

Basically would be the branch to hold. little to no offense.
Those would emulate well the defense the germans made on 44 and 45.

Also would actually make a interesting choice beetween Tanks vs Infantary.

 

[Dlin369]

I'd be fine with the manpower buffs in doctrine if they came with appropriate downsides. Like debuffs to production and combat efficiency. Or better yet, since it's doctrine, throwing increasingly untrained and desperate troops should add to the tactics pool less effective and desperate tactics that reflect your use of indiscriminate conscription or mass mobilizaiton

 

[Cavalry]

I'd be fine with the manpower buffs in doctrine if they came with appropriate downsides. Like debuffs to production and combat efficiency. Or better yet, since it's doctrine, throwing increasingly untrained and desperate troops should add to the tactics pool less effective and desperate tactics that reflect your use of indiscriminate conscription or mass mobilizaiton

They already have the disvantage of not having other buff from SF, etc...
As long as not everyone, every country would choose that buff then it is Ok!
If everyone choose that, we can look at it again.

The weakest of doctrines is the Mass Assault-Left (the Soviet doctrine), too low Org and little benefit. Even the Soviet should not choose it!

 

[bitmode]

But basically there's no functional difference between producing infantry equipment or infantry equipment and "ammo".

The very same argument used to be made against fuel. The difference between Superior Firepower and Mass Assault in terms of ammo versus equipment is just as compelling as Germany's fuel situation 1938 vs 1942.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Giving them an unfair advantage over other land doctrine paths and overall less land doctrine options to the players, since 2 of them are clearly superior.

You say that manpower existing in two doctrine trees makes them greatly overpowered compared to others and want to buff the others to compensate? I say that those doctrines with the manpower are far and away the worst doctrine paths in the game if you're trying to actually win a war efficiently.

This is just wrong. Volkssturm is so much worse than even just Modern Blitzkrieg, to say nothing of Superior Firepower existing. Mass Assault as a whole is pretty bad except in some niche situations and by no means better than any other doctrine at general combat. Extra manpower from doctrines is not really all that important to have to be honest, or worth the opportunity cost.

If you're going for a large-scale campaign of conquest as a manpower-restricted minor, there are ways to limit casualties such as using hospitals, making puppets of other nations and using their manpower, and requesting garrison support from your puppets. There's even an infinite manpower exploit in 1.9 if you're desperate and willing to cheese the game.

Bonus manpower in doctrines isn't going to help if your divisions can't hold the line because you're not using a doctrine that actually gives your troops useful stat bonuses.

There are exceptions, Superior Firepower is a no-brainer when playing USA, but can you say the same thing about most minor nations who desperately need manpower?

Actually, yes. Yes I can. Superior Firepower in vanilla, even after the nerfs in 1.9, is still by far the best doctrine for every nation, bar none. Soft attack is objectively the best stat in the game, and it's the only doctrine that provides it. Right-Left is the best doctrine for tanks in the game, giving them insane soft attack, as well as being the only land doctrine to give a bonus to air superiority, which provides more or less the same benefit to division speed as mobile warfare has in the form of penalties to enemy divisions, as well as debuffing enemy defense. Even if you don't use tanks, Superior Firepower Right-Right is the best doctrine for infantry in the game, providing better soft attack than any other doctrine.

This is why I propose to give a bonus of +5.00% manpower at the end of every land doctrine path, it will give a lot more variety in terms of tactics, since there won't be 2 paths greatly superior to others.

No. If anything else, like others have said, manpower bonuses should be removed from land doctrines, not added.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

they need to introduce ammo (and its production)

Provided it deemed necessary, a simple increase of in-combat attrition will have the same results, minus micromanagement.

 

[squid_hills]

I'm fine with keeping a manpower boost in Mass Assault. It's just about the only thing in that tree that's of any value. I'm fine with Mobile Warfare having a manpower bonus, because it's a noob crutch. I used to use MW and grab the manpower all the time as Germany. But then I learned how to actually play the game and mitigate manpower losses in the field and I haven't taken it in ages. New players can use it to stay in the game longer, while they watch Youtube videos and comb this forum for tactics and so on. Once they learn how to properly build a division and manage a war and mitigate casualties, they can safely ignore that branch of the tree. Think of it as an anti-frustration feature for new players.

If you're an experienced player, just don't take it. Stick to Superior Firepower and bury fools under the towering majesty of your soft attack bonuses. I know I will.

For what it's worth, I see the four doctrines in this way:

Mobile Warfare: "I'm new to the game, and don't know all the meta tricks and tips, but tanks are cool and there's some extra manpower here that I can grab without borking my production!' or alternately; "PANZERLIED!!"

Superior Firepower: "I've been playing this game long enough to know the meta"

Grand Battleplan: "F--k micro; I'm gonna go make a sandwich"

Mass Assault: "I've been playing this game long enough to know SF is better, but I thought I'd challenge myself this time"

In related news, I think keeping ammunition abstracted as part of the generic "supply" is a good idea. There is such a thing as making a game too complex. Yes, I'm looking at you, Master of Orion 3.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ Grand battleplan is the most micro-intensive option in terms of # of inputs needed to optimize its bonuses, since you have to constantly redo spearheads to keep planning bonus high.

Since units with superior firepower can be given to someone with GB as expeditionary to apply GB planning thresholds on top of SF units there is at least some justification for someone picking it. I don't like GB as much in SP because it's annoying to use, but it's not actually bad.

The non-manpower mass assault bonuses are nice and if they were available on infantry techs or something I'd cut some other tech choices to research them. It tends to be simply outclassed as a doctrine option however.

 

[ClavintheGreat]

Mobile Warfare: "I'm new to the game, and don't know all the meta tricks and tips, but tanks are cool and there's some extra manpower here that I can grab without borking my production!' or alternately; "PANZERLIED!!"

Superior Firepower: "I've been playing this game long enough to know the meta"

Grand Battleplan: "F--k micro; I'm gonna go make a sandwich"

Mass Assault: "I've been playing this game long enough to know SF is better, but I thought I'd challenge myself this time"

Gotta disagree with this. The way I see it, new players do choose to use Mobile Warfare, yes. However, they use it wrong. If used correctly it can be the best tree in the game by far. Also, one should never take the 5% manpower. 40w, 14/6 Medium Tank Divisions, already insanely powerful, become even better. For competitive multiplayer, if you are a country building tank divisions, i.e. South Africa, Canada, US, Germany, etc. you MUST take MW right-right. Will your infantry suffer? Sure, but they're just there to hold the line, not participate in any meaningful way other than to defend. Using infantry for offensive operations is wasteful, every factory you have replacing infantry equipment and artillery losses could be producing medium tanks. That's how new players misuse MW, they still attack with infantry and don't know how to optimize their production.

On to your other points. Superior firepower is good, great even, for countries not building 40w tanks. The soft attack bonuses are great, and the org from support companies will vastly improve the staying power of the few armored divisions you do have.

With staff office plan, and the reduction of the "invisible nerf" of planning decay from player orders from 8x to 3x, GBP became a lot more viable for countries. Is it still objectively the worst doctrine? Yes, but it has its uses in terms of supply reduction and the huge bonus to land night attack.

Hot take alert here, Mass Assault - Left Branch is the 2nd best option for Germany after MW - Right - Right. Especially for Germany players that are new to the game that skimp on tanks and decide to attack with infantry/artillery. The supply reduction, reduced division width for inf, and a variety of other factors, make this a very strong tree, especially for giant fronts. Assuming Germany has enough skill to take down Poland and France, their biggest challenge will be the Soviets, making the Eastern Front the determiner of the game.

 

[squid_hills]

^ Grand battleplan is the most micro-intensive option in terms of # of inputs needed to optimize its bonuses, since you have to constantly redo spearheads to keep planning bonus high.

You're right. I should probably amend my post to: "F--k micro, I'm going to make a sandwich.... OMG what the hell happened to my frontlines?!"

But I'm lazy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hot take alert here, Mass Assault - Left Branch is the 2nd best option for Germany after MW - Right - Right. Especially for Germany players that are new to the game that skimp on tanks and decide to attack with infantry/artillery.

Not that hot of a take. If MW didn't exist I expect you'd see this picked a fair amount for nations with the industry to use tanks. Supply is often the biggest constraint against concentrating firepower and you get a smattering of other useful bonuses. If MW didn't exist this would give the most tank org IIRC, and would also be your only remaining source of reducing org loss while moving. The tactics unlocked are among the best from doctrines too. It's just outclassed by MW in practice.

If you want to attack with infantry, however, MA left isn't that good. Infantry/arty do best with SF or GB left. GB gives breakthrough to army and stacks that with planning bonus' increase to breakthrough, so infantry attacking with GB take a lot less damage and at literal max planning GB left gives the most generic damage bonus of any doctrine path.

MA right got nerfed sadly, used to be you could stack it with commando trait and remove the vast majority of low-supply penalty (in SP this allowed some amusing moves with paradrops/naval invasions). Without that, you can use it to repeatedly hammer a single province and cycle infantry attacks out because it gives the highest recovery rate possible. That's not exactly a GOOD plan considering alternatives, but it can kind of work if you have CAS/air superiority.

 

[DicRoNero]

GB gives breakthrough to army and stacks that with planning bonus' increase to breakthrough, so infantry attacking with GB take a lot less damage and at literal max planning GB left gives the most generic damage bonus of any doctrine path.

How long does it take to get there to the max? Besides, it's only on offensive. Provided you need to hold the line, all that planning is quite a dead-weight.

 

[MR2]

How about offering a Hospital Support Company discount and/or bonus instead?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How long does it take to get there to the max? Besides, it's only on offensive. Provided you need to hold the line, all that planning is quite a dead-weight.

Strictly speaking, planning bonus itself is never dead weight as it's either highly beneficial or does nothing. The problem is the time cost to attain it. Infantry tends to have the defense to hold up, and GB does increase entrenchment which also improves damage. Main problem is if you have to org cycle you lose entrenchment. But at least sometimes opponent is faced with choice of attacking into entrenchment to prevent planning buildup or allowing for large planning bonus. Sounds better on paper than it works in practice, but it still has its place since any rando can take GB and then be fed units from better doctrines. Against AI it barely matters since the AI suicides all its stuff and leaves weaknesses in the line such that even infantry divisions can secure breakthroughs.

Building on my earlier assertion that this is the most micro-intensive doctrine choice, you can swap unit assignments to make the options "staff office plan" and "last stand" apply only to particular divisions as needed, limiting the point cost pressure on command points (it would be better if these buttons applied to selected divisions in general).

How long planning takes to build up is contingent on using staff office plan, doctrine choice, general traits (reckless, cautious, or neither), and general skill pips in that category. It can vary from 1-2 days to weeks. Furthering the annoyance is the fact that you can't force divisions to go to a spearhead order if it's in low supply without ordering them manually...which applies the less-bad but still-unjustified 3x decay rate and further delays the offensive needlessly. Also annoying is how they re-worked the strat redeployment toggle to prevent strategically redeploying into battles.

I get that such wasn't intended, but this should not block or cancel strat redeployment when the unit is not in combat or moving directly into a combat province. "Cure" was worse than the "disease", yet again. Making the game more annoying to interact with with a half-measure UI degradation rather than improving UI.

 

[sterrius]

Guys while there is some differences there is no weak doctrine.

Each doctrine need a slight different divisions. The 4 art infantary is just a basic template and should not be used for all 4 doctrines.