Dynamic doctrines.

[Alex_brunius]

Instead of having the various land doctrines "mature" at different times I suggest something radically new that won't punish non-historical playing.

First step is to introduce a new term called global experience. Its divided into 5 values.

Land exp
Bomber exp (air)
Fighter exp (air)
Capital exp (sea)
Raiding exp (sea)

All sides start with a global experiance of 1936 and won't recive any more until they go to war. To upgrade to a later year you have to earn a total sum of experiance based on the size of your army (land/sea/air nr of divisions). To qualify for 1937 you might have to get 5exp per unit on average.

The point is that a contry at war or with alot of standing army will be Ahead in doctrines while a country at peace with alot of drafted army will be behind.

The main point of this is to promote historical play like northafrican / italian campain before the mainlandings if your playing the allies, Or Finnish winter war + baltic states if your USSR. Events like participating in the spanish civil war could gain you a full year worth of global land an air experiance.

What year your currently on "experiance wise" would be displayed at the tech overview and each doctrine page.

I also think that researching crucial doctrine techs should give you blueprints for some unit researches. Blitzkrieg could give you tank blueprint and wolfpack could give you a sub blueprint. This way there would be a feedback and the more active combat your units see the easier it will be to have up to date doctrines and equipment for them.

 

[Myth]

I also had an idea for dynamic doctrines, though mine was based more on the ministers in power. I think that it makes more sense than your idea; just taking the USSR, their operational doctrine was quite advanced until the Purges, when having progressive ideas became a cause for being arrested and possibly shot. Within a year and a half of the invasion of Germany, they had rediscovered their old, pre-Purges doctrine and were improving upon it, these efforts culminating in the last two years of the war but really getting off the ground in late 1942 and early 1943.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I also had an idea for dynamic doctrines, though mine was based more on the ministers in power. I think that it makes more sense than your idea; just taking the USSR, their operational doctrine was quite advanced until the Purges, when having progressive ideas became a cause for being arrested and possibly shot. Within a year and a half of the invasion of Germany, they had rediscovered their old, pre-Purges doctrine and were improving upon it, these efforts culminating in the last two years of the war but really getting off the ground in late 1942 and early 1943.

Rather than unit experience I would have preffered to use their leaders exp, But it did prove alot more difficult to make fair and its very easy to abuse. So thats why I opted for the units exp.

The main differance with our suggestions is that yours give equal doctrine progress no matter if your at war or not. And thats what Im against. If your playing the USA in the beginning of of 1942 you should be at a severe disadvantage if facing Germany in a major battle not only because of individual unit/commanders experiance but also because doctrines isn't really researched unless your at war or actively planning to take part in one.

I want active wars (and what units you use most sucessfully) to help asociated research progress. You want to give ministers more importance, two completely different things.

 

[Myth]

Rather than unit experience I would have preffered to use their leaders exp, But it did prove alot more difficult to make fair and its very easy to abuse. So thats why I opted for the units exp.

The main differance with our suggestions is that yours give equal doctrine progress no matter if your at war or not. And thats what Im against. If your playing the USA in the beginning of of 1942 you should be at a severe disadvantage if facing Germany in a major battle not only because of individual unit/commanders experiance but also because doctrines isn't really researched unless your at war or actively planning to take part in one.

I want active wars (and what units you use most sucessfully) to help asociated research progress. You want to give ministers more importance, two completely different things.

The USA learned quickly though, and on a secondary front (Tunisia). The Germans can claim only one offensive victory over the Americans, at Kasserine Pass, and that wasn't really significant at all. The fact is that the USA had a fully fleshed out doctrine before they entered the war, it's just that some of it ended up being not that applicable. On one hand, your model wouldn't really be able to reflect this, whereas in mine at least they'd have a doctrine, though given the manner of their ministers (which imho would need to be more fleshed out as well, a handful of types per minister position isn't enough) they'd have a doctrine, but it would just be largely unsuited to the war they'd be trying to fight initially. If the Americans are at a disadvantage in early 1942, it's because their army is small, green and largely half-trained, facing veteran German divisions, but this would mean bumping up the value of experience in combat (which is something I've already done, from .5 to 1) rather than a lack of doctrine on the American side.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The american doctrine at the start of the war was that enemy armor should be dealt with by AT-guns in the infantery divisions, something that was completly wrong and didn't work out at all.
Their armored doctrine was light or medium tank not for defeating enemy tanks but for defeating infantry, also something that didn't really work out. Not until the end of the war with M4A1 shermans and only with air superiority could they contest the germans on mainland europe in a larger scale, mostly because of their flawed doctrine.

Their early victories was because their massive superiority in material, supplies and firepower support, not because of doctrine where they couldn't match germans until the very last months of the war. When the US entered the war they had some generals Ideas of how to defeat the enemy with superior firepower but only experience of the generals could mold this into a true working doctrine capable of victory in 1 vs 1 conditions on both the ground and in the air.

Sure the US entered the war with doctrines, but they were outdated and didn't work in practice. This is what I want to simulate.

 

[Myth]

But that's the thing, just because their doctrines were unrealistic or irrelevant doesn't mean that they didn't exist. With my system, the USA could build up a strong doctrine for AT and TD units, because of their ministers, only to find them to be largely irrelevant in the realities of war, due to the combat engine.

 

[Alex_brunius]

So you claim that the american doctrine at 1939 was equally sofisticated and researched as the german one just because they had the same amount of ministers? Or do you want there to be specific doctrines that are worthless into the game that no one will use? I don't really understand.

I propose that all doctrine paths are more equal at the same time, but limit research so that only the ones actually seeing action can improve them effectivly. If the americans would be at war earlier they would also have a more advanced and up to date doctrine ready sooner.

 

[Myth]

The Germans didn't really have much of an actual doctrine, though. At least, it can be (and has been, iirc) argued that the German method of war was an absence of doctrine. What I want is completely dynamic doctrine trees, their contents determined by the nation's ministers. It's all explained in my thread, and quite clearly I think. If you have a lot of (to use existing ministers as examples) armored spearhead advocates and fire support advocates, and someone who likes to build tanks as the armaments minister, then you'll have a tank-heavy doctrine path. If you have ministers who prefer infantry all around, then you'll have an infantry-focused doctrine path, etc. Of course, having more minister types would be preferable, but in essence it would make every nation's doctrines largely unique because of the largely unique set of ministers they have (and having more minister types would make the doctrines more unique as there'd be less overlap).

 

[Draigh]

I propose that all doctrine paths are more equal at the same time, but limit research so that only the ones actually seeing action can improve them effectivly. If the americans would be at war earlier they would also have a more advanced and up to date doctrine ready sooner.

Why not have both at the same time? Myth's system makes a lot of sense, so you can set your doctrine path through ministers, and seeing a lot of combat would simply increase the research speed...