We've had lots of threads about which land doctrine trees are better than which, but how about the paths within individual doctrines? Some are straightforward, some are much more complex. For simplicity I've only listed tactics the other path doesn't get.
Mobile Warfare Paths
1. Mobile Infantry vs Blitzkrieg
MI: 10% faster mot/mech, 0.2 mot/mech recovery rate, 10 infantry organisation, 25 mot/mech organisation, 3 tank organization.
B: 6 tank organisation, +20% tank breakthrough, 0.2 tank recovery rate, 5 mot/mech organisation, and the breakthrough tactic.
This is one of the path choices where I'm unsure which is better. Mobile infantry is obviously much better for motorised and mechanised, but blitzkrieg is obviously better for tanks. Given that I always use the two together, I think that you'd have to make a tank division and compare its final stats under each doctrine path to get an answer. One part of mobile infantry seems pointless - the 10% faster motorised and mechanised - since tank speed is what's going to limit your tank divisions, not the motorised.
Mobile infantry has one important advantage over blitzkrieg - the 10 infantry organisation. Blitzkrieg doesn't modify normal infantry at all. On the other hand, mobile infantry doesn't get the breakthrough tactic, which is an excellent tactic, but I don't really know the tactics system enough to know how big an advantage getting a good one is.
2. Desperate Defense vs Modern Blitzkrieg
DD: 5% recruitable population, 10% more effective partisans and guerilla tactics.
MB: 10 inf/mot/mech organisation, 5 tank organisation, +20% tank breakthrough, 0.2 tank recovery rate, and the backhand blow tactic.
Pretty straightforward - do you need more manpower? Then go to Desperate Defense. Otherwise go to Modern Blitzkrieg. Maybe desperate defense has some niche usefulness in specific circumstances, but I think I'd always go Modern Blitzkrieg - I took this doctrine tree to make my tank divisions better, after all.
Superior Firepower Paths
1. Dispersed Support vs Integrated Support
DS: 0.2 line artillery recovery rate, 10% line artillery soft attack.
IS: 20 support battalion organisation, 50% support battalion soft attack.
This basically comes down to how many support battalions you're going to use, plus which ones. Let's consider a 7 infantry/2 artillery division using dispersed support, and one that's the same but also has a support artillery battalion and is using integrated support. The artillery from the first division has 66 soft attack for 252 cost (3.8 cost per attack), while the artillery from the second division has 81.6 soft attack for 336 cost (4.1 cost per attack) which would imply that the first division is more efficient. Then there's the recovery rate advantage dispersed gets, which is a pretty big increase (0.1 to 0.3).
On the other hand, if you're also using lots of other support battalions - hospitals, maintenance, logistics and so on - or if you're not using much line artillery, Integrated Support is probably better.
2. Airland Battle vs Shock and Awe
AB: 10% hard attack, 10% tank hard and soft attack, 2% reinforce rate, 5 frontline battalion organisation, 20% air support.
SaA: 15% soft attack, 10% hard attack, 2% reinforce rate. 1 recon company reconnaissance, 10 inf/mot/mech organisation, 0.05 inf/mot/mech recovery rate, 2 tank organisation, 0.05 tank recovery rate.
This really looks like an "advanced military vs primitive military" choice. Airland battle assumes you have a lot of tanks and planes and buffs those, shock and awe is more general. I usually go with shock and awe since I value soft attack over hard attack - I only play singleplayer though.
The 1 recon company reconnaissance is a bonus I have no idea about. It's dependent on you actually using that support battalion, and it's very hard to tell if it's doing anything at all.
Grand Battleplan Paths
Assault vs Infiltration
A: 15 mot/mech organisation, 10 infantry organisation, 30% max planning, 10% faster planning, 2 tank organisation, 10% breakthrough, 2% reinforce rate, breakthrough and overwhelming fire tactics.
I: 5 mot/mech organisation, 10 infantry organisation, 10% infantry breakthrough, 3 tank organisation, 0.1 tank recovery rate, -10% supply consumption, 25% land night attack, 2% reinforce rate, 1 recon company reconnaisance.
At first I used to think assault was the "advanced military" track here with infiltration being the "mostly infantry" path, but infiltration doesn't actually give your infantry a lot specifically - you get the same organisation and breakthrough bonuses for infantry from both paths.
The main differences between the two trees seem to be that assault gives you good mot/mech organisation, and more and faster planning. Infiltration gives you 10% less supply consumption and 25% more night attack. Given that night is about a third of the day, the night bonus comes out to about an 8% general combat bonus, which is pretty nice.
On the other hand, why are you in the Grand Battleplan doctrine if you're not going to use planning a lot?
Mass Assault Paths
Deep Battle vs Mass Mobilisation
DB: -20% supply consumption, 5 tank organisation, 0.1 tank recovery rate, 10% tank breakthrough, 10 max planning, -0.4 infantry width, 5 infantry organisation, 15 mot/mech organisation, 0.1 mot/mech recovery rate, 10% inf/mot/mech breakthrough, -25% organisation loss when moving.
MM: 30% better partisans, -10% attrition, 10 inf/mot/mech organisation, 2 tank organisation, 0.3 infantry recovery rate, 0.2 army recovery rate, -0.4 infantry width, 5% recruitable population.
This one's pretty straightforward, deep battle being a mixed doctrine with a focus mostly on tank divisions in poorly supplied areas, while mass mobilisation is mostly focused on infantry regenerating their organisation quickly, and resisting attrition.
I'd probably recommend deep battle for if you're planning to make heavy use of tank divisions - its bonuses are much better in that area. Mass mobilisation has the edge for infantry armies, though funnily enough cannot get as many infantry into a combat zone as deep battle can with its 20% supply bonus.
I actually want to try a playthrough with Deep Battle and logistics companies now, a 50% supply bonus in 1942 sounds pretty cool.
Mobile Warfare Paths
1. Mobile Infantry vs Blitzkrieg
MI: 10% faster mot/mech, 0.2 mot/mech recovery rate, 10 infantry organisation, 25 mot/mech organisation, 3 tank organization.
B: 6 tank organisation, +20% tank breakthrough, 0.2 tank recovery rate, 5 mot/mech organisation, and the breakthrough tactic.
This is one of the path choices where I'm unsure which is better. Mobile infantry is obviously much better for motorised and mechanised, but blitzkrieg is obviously better for tanks. Given that I always use the two together, I think that you'd have to make a tank division and compare its final stats under each doctrine path to get an answer. One part of mobile infantry seems pointless - the 10% faster motorised and mechanised - since tank speed is what's going to limit your tank divisions, not the motorised.
Mobile infantry has one important advantage over blitzkrieg - the 10 infantry organisation. Blitzkrieg doesn't modify normal infantry at all. On the other hand, mobile infantry doesn't get the breakthrough tactic, which is an excellent tactic, but I don't really know the tactics system enough to know how big an advantage getting a good one is.
2. Desperate Defense vs Modern Blitzkrieg
DD: 5% recruitable population, 10% more effective partisans and guerilla tactics.
MB: 10 inf/mot/mech organisation, 5 tank organisation, +20% tank breakthrough, 0.2 tank recovery rate, and the backhand blow tactic.
Pretty straightforward - do you need more manpower? Then go to Desperate Defense. Otherwise go to Modern Blitzkrieg. Maybe desperate defense has some niche usefulness in specific circumstances, but I think I'd always go Modern Blitzkrieg - I took this doctrine tree to make my tank divisions better, after all.
Superior Firepower Paths
1. Dispersed Support vs Integrated Support
DS: 0.2 line artillery recovery rate, 10% line artillery soft attack.
IS: 20 support battalion organisation, 50% support battalion soft attack.
This basically comes down to how many support battalions you're going to use, plus which ones. Let's consider a 7 infantry/2 artillery division using dispersed support, and one that's the same but also has a support artillery battalion and is using integrated support. The artillery from the first division has 66 soft attack for 252 cost (3.8 cost per attack), while the artillery from the second division has 81.6 soft attack for 336 cost (4.1 cost per attack) which would imply that the first division is more efficient. Then there's the recovery rate advantage dispersed gets, which is a pretty big increase (0.1 to 0.3).
On the other hand, if you're also using lots of other support battalions - hospitals, maintenance, logistics and so on - or if you're not using much line artillery, Integrated Support is probably better.
2. Airland Battle vs Shock and Awe
AB: 10% hard attack, 10% tank hard and soft attack, 2% reinforce rate, 5 frontline battalion organisation, 20% air support.
SaA: 15% soft attack, 10% hard attack, 2% reinforce rate. 1 recon company reconnaissance, 10 inf/mot/mech organisation, 0.05 inf/mot/mech recovery rate, 2 tank organisation, 0.05 tank recovery rate.
This really looks like an "advanced military vs primitive military" choice. Airland battle assumes you have a lot of tanks and planes and buffs those, shock and awe is more general. I usually go with shock and awe since I value soft attack over hard attack - I only play singleplayer though.
The 1 recon company reconnaissance is a bonus I have no idea about. It's dependent on you actually using that support battalion, and it's very hard to tell if it's doing anything at all.
Grand Battleplan Paths
Assault vs Infiltration
A: 15 mot/mech organisation, 10 infantry organisation, 30% max planning, 10% faster planning, 2 tank organisation, 10% breakthrough, 2% reinforce rate, breakthrough and overwhelming fire tactics.
I: 5 mot/mech organisation, 10 infantry organisation, 10% infantry breakthrough, 3 tank organisation, 0.1 tank recovery rate, -10% supply consumption, 25% land night attack, 2% reinforce rate, 1 recon company reconnaisance.
At first I used to think assault was the "advanced military" track here with infiltration being the "mostly infantry" path, but infiltration doesn't actually give your infantry a lot specifically - you get the same organisation and breakthrough bonuses for infantry from both paths.
The main differences between the two trees seem to be that assault gives you good mot/mech organisation, and more and faster planning. Infiltration gives you 10% less supply consumption and 25% more night attack. Given that night is about a third of the day, the night bonus comes out to about an 8% general combat bonus, which is pretty nice.
On the other hand, why are you in the Grand Battleplan doctrine if you're not going to use planning a lot?
Mass Assault Paths
Deep Battle vs Mass Mobilisation
DB: -20% supply consumption, 5 tank organisation, 0.1 tank recovery rate, 10% tank breakthrough, 10 max planning, -0.4 infantry width, 5 infantry organisation, 15 mot/mech organisation, 0.1 mot/mech recovery rate, 10% inf/mot/mech breakthrough, -25% organisation loss when moving.
MM: 30% better partisans, -10% attrition, 10 inf/mot/mech organisation, 2 tank organisation, 0.3 infantry recovery rate, 0.2 army recovery rate, -0.4 infantry width, 5% recruitable population.
This one's pretty straightforward, deep battle being a mixed doctrine with a focus mostly on tank divisions in poorly supplied areas, while mass mobilisation is mostly focused on infantry regenerating their organisation quickly, and resisting attrition.
I'd probably recommend deep battle for if you're planning to make heavy use of tank divisions - its bonuses are much better in that area. Mass mobilisation has the edge for infantry armies, though funnily enough cannot get as many infantry into a combat zone as deep battle can with its 20% supply bonus.
I actually want to try a playthrough with Deep Battle and logistics companies now, a 50% supply bonus in 1942 sounds pretty cool.
