What do people think of the new air doctrine design.

[Denkt]

Not much have been said about this but one of the biggest changes I have noticed in the Wednesday stream is the new air doctrine tree design. Now it work much like the land and naval doctrines, you have to pick one out of 3 multi exclusive trees, each which seems to focus on a certain bomber:

• Strategic Destruction (Strategical bomber)
• Battlefield Support (Close air support)
• Operational Integrity (Tactical bomber)

What do you think?

 

[LordOfWar16]

As far as i know you dont pick one of the trees, but rather get one from the start depending on your country, just as with the land doctrine tree.

It seems like that the air doctrines are unique to their trees, unlike the naval and land trees which actually share some (not all) doctrines, only in different order.

Anyway, atleast the battlefield support and operational integrity seem to offer no choices early on in the doctrine tree. The Strategic Destruction tree however basicly as choices every 2 doctrines compared to the operational inegrity which is straight forward, atleast for the first 8 doctrines. Battlefield Support seems to only really have 1 choice in it and split into 3 branches which doesnt seem to exclude each other. That could just be an graphic bug of course and we dont know what is down the line since the tree cuts off.

I just hope that you can swap doctrines, rather than being forced into one by the game right from the start.

 

[Denkt]

The developers have said you can change your doctrine path.

"Swap out of it?" I hear you say. Yes, you can change your Doctrine path if you want

 

[jamesd]

I'm not a fan of the 3 separate branches for the army, navy or air force. Given enough time, training and experience to test theories armed forces can become proficient in all different types of operations. Re the air force, look at the US & UK in 1945. They had the most theoretically advanced strategic bomber fleets in the world and were dropping unprecedented numbers of bombs. They also had significant tactical bomber forces that could alternate between supporting front line troops and interdicting rear area choke points to impede enemy movement and supply. They also had masses of fighter bombers providing close support to ground troops and shooting up anything that moved.

I think that all doctrines on all trees should be the same, but the order should be rearranged to allow differing initial emphasis. For example lets say a nation wants to focus on Battlefield Support at the start of the game. Once they have completed those doctrines they have a choice between moving on to Strategic Destruction or Operational Integrity. The Strategic Destruction branch would have the operational integrity doctrines coming after the strategic ones and the Operational Integrity branch would have the strategic doctrines after the operational ones. This system would allow a nation committed to air power to fully support all operations by the end of the war, as long as they're willing to expend the research time.

 

[Denkt]

The point is that 3 separate tree force you to make the choice between focusing on your strategical abilities or on your battlefield support abilities. The point being that you have to trade one for the other, no matter how many resources you have.

 

[jamesd]

The point is that 3 separate tree force you to make the choice between focusing on your strategical abilities or on your battlefield support abilities. The point being that you have to trade one for the other, no matter how many resources you have.

I understand the point, but its purely a gameplay decision that is hugely divorced from the reality that nations could develop effective strategic, operational and support air doctrines.

 

[Denkt]

Podcat said they are making a game not a simulator.

 

[LordOfWar16]

The developers have said you can change your doctrine path.

That sounds to me more like changing your choice in one doctrine tree rather than chaning the doctrine tree itself, tho.

The point is that 3 separate tree force you to make the choice between focusing on your strategical abilities or on your battlefield support abilities. The point being that you have to trade one for the other, no matter how many resources you have.

Which is an good choice, since otherwise the USA could actually eventually become an total jack of all traits without any real disadvantage in any area.

I understand the point, but its purely a gameplay decision that is hugely divorced from the reality that nations could develop effective strategic, operational and support air doctrines.

Well, it depends. Dive bombing for example is something germany put alot of focus into, while the USA more focused on strategic bombing and ground attacking aircraft. As far as i know the USA mainly used naval dive bombers on their carriers against ships, rather than land based dive bombers. The point isnt that an nation cant be good at one thing, but rather that it simply isnt the best at something. The germans certainly knew better how to effectively use their dive bombers since they basicly used them through the entirety of the war right from the start, while the USA basicly had to built up its airforce while the war was already going on for several years. In 1939 the USA Airforce only consisted of about 800 fighters which were inferior to the spitfire, hurricane, bf110 and bf109.

 

[Denkt]

That sounds to me more like changing your choice in one doctrine tree rather than chaning the doctrine tree itself, tho.

An example would be Germany go from mobile warfare doctrine to grand battleplan doctrine.

 

[jamesd]

Podcat said they are making a game not a simulator.

Understood, but if I as a major power want to task people to develop effective doctrines in all 3 areas, why can't I do that?

One of HOI's persistent problems has been that major powers have had the ability to research everything and keep it more or less fully up to date. Rather than working to provide more options so that players (and the AI) need to make strategic choices with research that have real consequences, the option has been to limit choices so that country A is only really good at Strategic bombing while country B is only really good at Close Support. If countries are really good at all 3 air doctrines, maybe they haven't researched the latest tanks and ships or they've let their land doctrines lag well behind, giving them an advantage in the air but at costs elsewhere. In a true sandbox game we'd be able to do all 3, while the artificial limitation that exists is railroading and stereotyping countries.

 

[Denkt]

HOI2 did allow you to research all air doctrines, however that system was not interesting.

HOI3 did allow you to research all doctrines but they became generic stuff with a bonus in that area, complete lack of soul.

 

[Axe99]

I'm with JamesD on this - I can roll with the idea of nations being railroaded into their historical paths from the start (it can, appropriately, represent doctrinal inertia at game start), but had Germany had the time and inclination, I'm sure it could have developed strategic bombing to the level the Allies had, just like the Allies were pretty much the best-in-class in all of strategic, tactical and CAS operations by war end, because their resources allowed it and they focussed on air operations. If this isn't possible, then the design in HoI4 removes player choice (particularly given the limited branching paths in the air trees) relative to the likes of HoI3 and HoI2 (and probably 1, but memory fading and all that).

That said, I'm not critical of the devs for doing it. They need something that works for launch, and even if it means things are a bit off-kilter initially, I'm sure they'll fix it with time. If they don't make it flexible enough, I'm sure the tech trees will be fairly easy to mod as well, so we can get something we want (although I'm not saying I'll mod it, I think naval stuff will have me well busy enough already!)

Podcat said they are making a game not a simulator.

That's a nice catchphrase, but it's conceptually weak (I don't mean this in a nasty way, more a philosophical one ). Every game is a model of interactions, and every model of interactions is a simulator of something. HoI4 would be a simulator if it allowed us to build Worms-style sheep loaded with C4 that we could send off into enemy lines. It just wouldn't be a historical simulator, it'd be a silly simulator. Rather than saying "it's not a simulator" (which, as long as it's a model of behaviour, isn't technically correct), better to identify what kind of simulator it is. Eg, HoI is being designed to be a fun game first, so the simulation is happy to abstract (or, in some cases, distort) how things worked historically to make things more fun/accessible/user-friendly.

 

[LordOfWar16]

I'm with JamesD on this - I can roll with the idea of nations being railroaded into their historical paths from the start (it can, appropriately, represent doctrinal inertia at game start), but had Germany had the time and inclination, I'm sure it could have developed strategic bombing to the level the Allies had, just like the Allies were pretty much the best-in-class in all of strategic, tactical and CAS operations by war end, because their resources allowed it and they focussed on air operations. If this isn't possible, then the design in HoI4 removes player choice (particularly given the limited branching paths in the air trees) relative to the likes of HoI3 and HoI2 (and probably 1, but memory fading and all that).

It is a bid odd that atleast in the parts of the doctrine tree we see, the air doctrines seem to be the only tree specific doctrines. In the Land and Naval doctrine tree the trees share some of the doctrines, just in an different order. It could be that the end of the tree gets a bit more open. Overall, all of them seem to split at the bottom of the seen air doctrine tree.

The US might have been pretty good in most areas by the end of the war, but during the war they basicly lacked 3 years behind in combat experience. Theory and training works, but in the end the best tactics get developed on the battlefield. In 1936 there was practically no US airforce to speak of with only about 800 outdated fighter-aircraft availabel.

 

[Denkt]

They probably share some doctrines but they also have unique ones.

 

[jamesd]

The US might have been pretty good in most areas by the end of the war, but during the war they basicly lacked 3 years behind in combat experience. Theory and training works, but in the end the best tactics get developed on the battlefield. In 1936 there was practically no US airforce to speak of with only about 800 outdated fighter-aircraft availabel.

I think you've identified a significant problem with the current research speeds of doctrines. From the Word War Wednesday streams it looks like the UK was able to just reel off doctrine after doctrine, whereas I think doctrine research speed should be reduced if there's no experience in the area.

 

[LordOfWar16]

They probably share some doctrines but they also have unique ones.

From what i have seen there are 16 doctrines in each doctrine tree for the navy and the army, with some doctrines that exclude each others of course. That means that we are missing 6 doctrines in each airforce doctrine tree that we cant see because its cut off.

 

[Denkt]

I think you've identified a significant problem with the current research speeds of doctrines. From the Word War Wednesday streams it looks like the UK was able to just reel off doctrine after doctrine, whereas I think doctrine research speed should be reduced if there's no experience in the area.

I think this is handled by the experience of the generals, admirals and aces. Doctrines may need historical dates like all other technology.

 

[LordOfWar16]

I think you've identified a significant problem with the current research speeds of doctrines. From the Word War Wednesday streams it looks like the UK was able to just reel off doctrine after doctrine, whereas I think doctrine research speed should be reduced if there's no experience in the area.

I disagree. By the end of the second livestream johan only reseached 2 air doctrine, 2 naval doctrines and 3 land doctrines.

Besides that the tactics being unlocked, being the biggest benefit of doctrine research, wont give you any advantage if your generals are bad at combat and dont choose the right tactics for the right circumstances. Its basicly theoretical doctrine research, while your generals need to develop the practical usage of them in game. An army which developed advanced tactics in an war wont benefit largely from it if the general is an rookie.

 

[Denkt]

Besides that the tactics being unlocked dont bring you any advantage if your generals are bad at combat and dont choose the right tactics for the right circumstances. Its basicly theoretical doctrine research, while your generals need to develop the practical usage of them in game.

That is a really good argument because experience effects how often a general can pick a good tactic. I think something similar will happen in naval battles as well. I don't know the importance of aces however.

 

[Axe99]

It is a bid odd that atleast in the parts of the doctrine tree we see, the air doctrines seem to be the only tree specific doctrines. In the Land and Naval doctrine tree the trees share some of the doctrines, just in an different order. It could be that the end of the tree gets a bit more open. Overall, all of them seem to split at the bottom of the seen air doctrine tree.

The US might have been pretty good in most areas by the end of the war, but during the war they basicly lacked 3 years behind in combat experience. Theory and training works, but in the end the best tactics get developed on the battlefield. In 1936 there was practically no US airforce to speak of with only about 800 outdated fighter-aircraft availabel.

Aye, that's the thing. If the way it's set up means the US can start of with very limited doctrines, and through the course of the game (if it plays out somewhat historically) develop broad-ranging capabilities across all three, then it's all good. We still don't know yet, so it's a bit early to say. We'll see when we see - I doubt they'd create a situation where countries could 'only' be good at one of the three, so I expect it's a situation a bit more like the naval trees in the end.