I think there is a good way to finally get rid of the Doctrine question.
World War Two had six major titans, each with their own doctrine, style and equipment:
France
Japan
Germany
Britian
America
USSR
I think there should be six doctrines, each representing a titan:
Axis- Germany
Allies- America
Comintern- USSR
Pan-Asian- Japan
These doctrines already represent four titans, but the problem can be seen in the Allied doctrine. It is simply too large.
Therefore we can split the Allies doctrine to represent France and Britain:
Commonwealth- Britain
Pan-French- France
This would make Allies less and evenise the field, make the game more historic and fun
In HWW Commonwealth could be extended to:
Egypt
Canada
Australia
New Zea Land
India
South Africa
Maybe even Greece
Etc
Pan-French could extend to:
Canada (It can be either Commonwealth or Pan-French)
Belgium
Poland
Netherlands
Portugal
Denmark
Etc
Doing this would solve the following issues:
The Huge number of Allies in any map, specially 100 p
Historical issues
The fewness of Pan-Asian and to a lesser extent Axis since now Allies is split up and fewer
Funner
Etc
I know this is unlikely but please consider
Please log in to post a reply.
6 doctrines would be more than enough.
Even 4 doctrines could be enough, if we get country specifical modifikators, like delayed research, more expencive research, speed delay of research, cost and speed delay of recruitment for small nations.
your making it far more complicated than need be
Grand, France wasn't a titan during the war. German troops overran Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France in six weeks. They signed an armistice, basically leaving Britain as the only allied power, since the US wasn't in the war back then.
THIS IS 1939 the french army was the STRONGEST at that time the Germans won in 1940 becaus eof pincer attack
France lost because of polítics and bad leadership. In numbers and armament France was superior than germany by 1940.Aritemis wrote:
Grand, France wasn't a titan during the war. German troops overran Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France in six weeks. They signed an armistice, basically leaving Britain as the only allied power, since the US wasn't in the war back then.
new unit models for the new doctrines would be very cool, i finally wouldn't have to use spitfires for usa
So if I get hold of all nukes in the world then fall off a cliff, does that mean that I am a world superpower?
Technically. Many countries used French weapons in their armaments and followed the French doctrine too. A notable example is Belgium.
Every superpower could be humilliated if they had bad leadership. Soviet unión on the winter war Is a excelent example, even the US could be humilliated against a small country if the high command and polítics Is bad, united states on Vietnam Is an example of a superpower Beeing defeated against a small nation just because the polítics do not support the war effort.Aritemis wrote:
So if I get hold of all nukes in the world then fall off a cliff, does that mean that I am a world superpower?
not making it complicated my guy I am making it realisticGrandEmpire wrote:
your making it far more complicated than need be
I would also like to see a generalized doctrine, perhaps called "International," to serve as a "default" doctrine for lesser powers. Perhaps based on arms imports from other countries, or even just generic names such as "light tank," "improved light tank," etc.
There has never been a general doctrine before in World War II. Most countries received training and equipment from Japan, Germany, Italy, France, UK, or the USA.
exactly hence the six titans and six doctrines
But not all of them were solely acquiring arms from any single power. Finland, for example, was an absolute hodgepodge. Romania used some German equipment, but also had its own arms industry with its own weapons and vehicles. Italy, likewise, was hardly using German equipment as the bulk of its wargear like in this game. China was a mess of Commonwealth, American, and Czechoslovakian small arms with French, Soviet, and other armored vehicles sprinkled in.vietcong2005 wrote:
There has never been a general doctrine before in World War II. Most countries received training and equipment from Japan, Germany, Italy, France, UK, or the USA.
Then there's Czeckoslovakia, itself, that had an impressive arms industry. What about Yugoslavia? Its armored battalions were split between French and Czech vehicles, with German and British fighters and Italian bombers.
An International doctrine to apply to countries that were such a mix would only serve to add more variation to the game, and deserves a place just as much as any of the "titan" doctrines.
A "mixed" doctrine maybe? But then that doctrine would have no advantages and no disadvantages as it would be a mix of everything. So then would it also be called a "blank" doctrine as well?
with all the advantage and all the disadvantages.whowh wrote:
A "mixed" doctrine maybe? But then that doctrine would have no advantages and no disadvantages as it would be a mix of everything. So then would it also be called a "blank" doctrine as well?
I think such a doctrine should just be called "international," with penalties against research (as the countries with this hypothetical doctrine generally didn't have fully mature arms industries to compete with the "titans") and increased unit cost (as they're more dependant on international arms dealing and the prices thereof, rather than local industries).
In exchange, they could get a Pan-asian-like bonus to terrain, cheaper upgrades (international arms dealers compete fiercely for contracts to service their existant equipment) and cheaper trade fees that allow players more elbow room to manage resource imports and exports on the global market.
Axis - Power
Allies - Optimization
Comintern - Quantity
Pan Asian - Surprise
Pan French - Defense
Commonwealth - Innovastion
on what grounds would you give a French doctrine a defence bonus? I liked the resistance idea, even if strictly too early in 1939. So if you want to be strict to 1939 then the French defence was an utter disaster… Maginot line anyone?!
nah the maginot line did it's job. the fall of France was more due to the incompetence of the French high command.BishBashBosh wrote:
on what grounds would you give a French doctrine a defence bonus? I liked the resistance idea, even if strictly too early in 1939. So if you want to be strict to 1939 then the French defence was an utter disaster… Maginot line anyone?!
Please log in to post a reply.
