Superior firepower doctrine

[Denkt]

The least known doctrine, USA favorite doctrine that focus on a strong airforce and artillery. What do you think about this doctrine, in HOI2 quite a few countries used this doctrine although which countries are suited for this doctrine I don't really know.

Other then USA another country that may have used this doctrine in real life may be Sweden (who used it in HOI2 as far as I know). During the cold war Sweden did build up a very strong airforce for its size which is probably a charistic for superior firepower countries.

This doctrine is meant for somebody who want to invest alot of production into each soldier, it don't have the weakness of needing long planing like Grand Battle plan doctrine, not the weakness of poor direct fighting capacity as Mobility Focus and not dependent on massed battalions as Mass Assult. However Superior Firepower have the weakness of needing expensive stuff.

 

[Gort11]

Looks powerful. +20% soft attack will drain the enemy's manpower and equipment, and bonuses to artillery organisation will compound that.

 

[Secret Master]

Honestly?

In the hands of a player who commands enough industry and resources, it should be the "correct" answer. Whether it will be this powerful in the actual game is a question I cannot answer. But it clearly emphasizes things that were heavy hitters in the war. Sure, you can create and post 1,000 threads about "which tank is better" per day, but artillery killed more people than tanks ever did during this war.

The irony is that I think a properly prepared Soviet Union should utilize this doctrine as well. Germany may not have the resources to pull it off. France does not have the production, and I think Britain might benefit more from going a different path.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Honestly?

In the hands of a player who commands enough industry and resources, it should be the "correct" answer. Whether it will be this powerful in the actual game is a question I cannot answer. But it clearly emphasizes things that were heavy hitters in the war. Sure, you can create and post 1,000 threads about "which tank is better" per day, but artillery killed more people than tanks ever did during this war.

The irony is that I think a properly prepared Soviet Union should utilize this doctrine as well. Germany may not have the resources to pull it off. France does not have the production, and I think Britain might benefit more from going a different path.

It is not best solution always though. If you for example get surprised by enemy and just don`t have time to utilize your superior firepower, your men die just like anyone else. Every nation utilizes massive, superior firepower without needing doctorine for it. Superior firepower on other hand RELIES on superior firepower - but of course, army that relies on superior firepower but does not have it could just use other tactics, and army that does not focus on superior firepower could still use superior firepower.

So yeah, it is complicated, and there is no right answer. You could be right when you say that Soviets should use superior firepower doctorine - but in huge steppes of Russia, maybe mobile doctorine is better? Like i said, it is complicated and there is no right answer.
Maybe best WW2 doctorine is Italian doctorine. It was never properly used becouse Italian army... well, it was not most effective.

 

[Mannstien]

I was actually considering taking Britain down this path in a different scenario where I concentrate on a smaller army spread into two expeditionary/strike forces, one for Asia and one for the Med. depending on the hot spot along with an Air force designed around the army instead of strategic bombing and a strong Carrier based navy. The army composition would be made up of Infantry divisions at it's core but with a few Marine, Armored, Motorized, and Parachute divisions equipped with as many supports as are reasonable depending on the division type. Then a Garrison Army if you will that after success in taking N. Afrika and holding back the Japanese can then be brought up to strength for a continental invasion if the US is supporting well enough and the Russians have held their ground. It's always been a fun strategy to use in BICE so I definitely have to try it in HOI4.

 

[Viktor_Vertex]

Why do you think this is NOT good for France?
Except the defensive doctrine whatever is called, it seems to me that superior firepower has the most 'bang' per 'width' therefore being possibly useful for France, which fights on a limited, semi-narrow front...

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Why do you think this is NOT good for France?
Except the defensive doctrine whatever is called, it seems to me that superior firepower has the most 'bang' per 'width' therefore being possibly useful for France, which fights on a limited, semi-narrow front...

"human wave" could actually be good for France, since it does not mean you make suecidal charges, it would just mean your low quality units are more effective and you can use more units in the battle. If combat happens in narrow front, you might want to have -1 combat width (gamey term, but applies to RL as well)

 

[Raptor83]

where can I find details about "superior firepower" doctrines?

 

[Sleight of Hand]

"human wave" could actually be good for France

It worked at Verdun.

 

[TiberiusfromSWG]

It is not best solution always though. If you for example get surprised by enemy and just don`t have time to utilize your superior firepower, your men die just like anyone else. Every nation utilizes massive, superior firepower without needing doctorine for it. Superior firepower on other hand RELIES on superior firepower - but of course, army that relies on superior firepower but does not have it could just use other tactics, and army that does not focus on superior firepower could still use superior firepower.

So yeah, it is complicated, and there is no right answer. You could be right when you say that Soviets should use superior firepower doctorine - but in huge steppes of Russia, maybe mobile doctorine is better? Like i said, it is complicated and there is no right answer.
Maybe best WW2 doctorine is Italian doctorine. It was never properly used becouse Italian army... well, it was not most effective.

I looked and looked, well lets be honest a quick look over the Wikipedia page. i could not find anything about the Italian doctorine. cold you point me in the right direction. (unless that was sarcasm, my sarcasm meter has been off lately lol)

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I looked and looked, well lets be honest a quick look over the Wikipedia page. i could not find anything about the Italian doctorine. cold you point me in the right direction. (unless that was sarcasm, my sarcasm meter has been off lately lol)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344344/Italian-Army-in-Wwii

I highly recommend everyone to read that, even if it would be somewhat inaccurate it would provide unique look at Italy of WW2. Remember that new Italian doctorine was never properly used in practice. In practice Italy used their small binary divisions in frontal charges were casualties were heavy - not good idea. And different from their theoretical doctorine

 

[The_Meme_Man]

I pretty much will always use superior firepower doctrine more as a moral issue than a strategic issue. I very much value the lives of the soldiers than the cost of the equipment (though definitely impossible if I plan to play a weaker nation). Probably all the majors I will use that doctrine, and minors I will use the other three. Mass assault for Asian minors due to technological inferiority, Mobile Warfare and Grand Plan for the Western minors.

 

[CountZeppelin]

I pretty much will always use superior firepower doctrine more as a moral issue than a strategic issue. I very much value the lives of the soldiers than the cost of the equipment (though definitely impossible if I plan to play a weaker nation). Probably all the majors I will use that doctrine, and minors I will use the other three. Mass assault for Asian minors due to technological inferiority, Mobile Warfare and Grand Plan for the Western minors.

Seeing how much impact lack of supplies had on Da9l's advance in WWW Japan, I wouldn't say that Deep battle (the proper Mass assault branch) is for techonologically inferior nations. Bonuses to supply, combat width, and mobile infantry org should be really good for offensive operations. It also allows your commanders to use more tactics than Grand Battleplan. I believe it will require more resources though since you will need all the support companies you can get to maximize the effects.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Seeing how much impact lack of supplies had on Da9l's advance in WWW Japan, I wouldn't say that Deep battle (the proper Mass assault branch) is for techonologically inferior nations. Bonuses to supply, combat width, and mobile infantry org should be really good for offensive operations. It also allows your commanders to use more tactics than Grand Battleplan. I believe it will require more resources though since you will need all the support companies you can get to maximize the effects.

I know, I was just being broad.

And it should be like that, both realistically and for gameplay reasons. All these doctrines are based on the fact that the tactics did work when executed properly, and it would be horrible if there was a "meta doctrine" for gameplay purpose.

 

[Lither]

Superior firepower is such a brute force perspective. It's fundamentally similar to old-style attritional warfare, except replacing materiel for simple manpower.

HoI 2 had the best doctrines.

 

[Denkt]

All doctrines are based on older stuff. Mobility and firepower have been concepts known long before world war 2.

Superior firepower doctrine may actually allow you more mobility then the mobility doctrine because heavy firepower can quickly punch holes in the enemy defence line which your armor can exploit while your very strong airforce can cripple the enemy divsions mobility.

 

[Revolution 11]

Why do you think this is NOT good for France?
Except the defensive doctrine whatever is called, it seems to me that superior firepower has the most 'bang' per 'width' therefore being possibly useful for France, which fights on a limited, semi-narrow front...

Unless France does not have the production required to benefit from this doctrine. It may be that the Firepower doctrine has more benefits later down the line where as Grand Battle Plan gives good bonuses early in the line. You may need combat artillery in each division and France may have supply problems in 1939.

The way I understand it, Superior Firepower doctrine makes your divisions more dangerous and causes more enemy casualties but that is not the same as improving defense. You could kill more German soldiers this way with better divisions but lose the Battle of France even faster because of lower planning bonuses. The US does not have to worry about trading strategic depth for kills so it is more suited to them. France can not afford to lose certain provinces and should instead trade manpower for strategic gains and province defense.

I agree with your bang per width idea and narrow frontage but only if you don't have strategic depth at risk like France does.
My 2 cents.

 

[linen]

Is there a material cost to the doctrine ingame? i.e a division of equal size will require more equipment under superior firepower doctrine?

 

[Denkt]

I have not seen any penalty for any doctrine but they have different advantages such as mass assault need less supplies then the other doctrines.

 

[linen]

How do supplies work in HOI4? You don't have to dedicate factories (IC) do you?