Doctrines of the Titans- the solution

Well B was the plan for if London fell. The british government could have easily chosen to skip having a battle in London and just sabotaged all the industries.

I know this thread has been dead for a while now, but I thought of some ideas while it was on my mind.

It also dawned on me that as much as I feel these doctrines should be added, it's hard to do so in a historically accurate way that would actually help/change the game.

Anyway here are my ideas:

Commonwealth:

Option 1:

-25% Research Time

+15% Health

-20% Resource production and/or +25% Upkeep

I am not sure if the 20% reduction in resources is a bit too punishing, but I think that increasing upgrade costs would be worse, maybe it should be a 15% or 10% reduction, I also think that the Upkeep cost would not be a big enough penalty.

Commonwealth would also come with early access to Commandos, Paratroopers, Artillery, and possibly espionage and bonuses to those units

Entente (Pan French

-25% Construction time

- Maybe an extra construction space (so you could have 2 buildings being constructed at a time in cities)

-15% Sight range

+25% Research time

- Alternatively, All Entente doctrine units get 25% more defence strength when fighting (the opposite of attacking damage)

The problem is that construction isn't really very important, but if you required higher-level buildings for higher-level units, then this doctrine would have something going for it, but I hated that system.

3rd & 4th Options:

There are 2 other options, option 3: to combine these doctrines into one doctrine called "Colonial/Empires", where most air and sea sprites could be British and some land sprites for France/ because the later level stuff for the french research tree would be lacking since France capitulated. Or Option 4 which is no new doctrines and just new research trees and sprites for British and French Units.

Please post feedback.

I dislike option 3/4 for a number of reasons, among others because the French Navy and particularly the British Army played a major role in WW2. The British Army a greater role than the French Army; Somau S35s would be out of place at El Alamien.

And because the Allied doctrine nominally represents Britain and the US. The thumbnails for the battleship and fighter, and rocket arty and commandoes, are all British. Some units, like Bishop SP Arty, Achilles (M10) TD, and Land Mattress, are British design (in Achilles' case, based on US design).

Moreover, a lot of things on the Allied tree, like the Sherman Tank or the P-40, were used by both the US and British Empire. That they use the names and M-numbers implies this. That would complicate things.

I would vote to add a British doctrine, but four doctrines seems good. I'm pretty sure Bytro doesn't need it, however for the sake of discussion:

- Commonwealth would need navy and air buffs. I'd suggest on fighters and heavy bombers. The navy buffs should cover battleships and cruisers IMO as these were historically the RN's strengths.

- Medium tanks ought to be available on day 3 at latest but may be worse than others (IRL British many tanks were pretty good, but the popular narrative is otherwise)

- Mechanised infantry early.

I've even got a list of units down if you're interested.

I would be interested in the unit list if you don't mind.

Well, the best idea is to look at what the British did best in the war:

• The Navy
• Espionage
• Aircraft production - spitfires & Hurricanes, lancasters, the first jet, plane production was the country's biggest industry
• Artillery - the British artillery doctrine
• Volunteers and subjects from the colonies
• Tanks - Churchill MkIV, Crusader, the Commet

Though the British were great at a coordinated, planned attack against fixed positions, they were notably bad in the exploit phase. There are many anecdotes, when US and British troops worked together, how American soldiers where flabbergasted how, when a first success was achieved and the troops could move on, then British troops wanted to have a cup of tea first. Of course these are anecdotes, but I think the examples are plenty that the British land army wasn't very good in a quick-moving war: being trumped in Africa time after time again by the (relatively) tiny Africa Corps; losing the race to Messina against the Americans on Sicily despite having the shorter route; the many flaws and delays in the XXX corps advance to the encircled paratroopers at Arnhem, the list goes on.

The best way to represent this in the game would probably be a speed debuff; but the existing "Allies" doctrine already has it. I'd suggest "taking" it from there and give the "American" doctrine a different debuff; but unfortunately, this speed debuff also makes the Allied navy the worst one among the doctrines (there's no terrain or province ownership at sea to create other differences), which is exactly what you DON'T want for the British. Maybe this could be translated to something else, like a 60% (instead of usual 50%) speed penalty in enemy terrain?

I absolutely don't agree with your assessment of British armor, and neither did the commanders at the time. Tank commanders were told to avoid direct confrontations with German tanks after they were usually ass-kicked; doctrine was to have tank destroyers deal with enemy (medium and heavy) tanks. None of the tanks you mention were any match to their German contemporaries, let alone the Soviet designs which they never fought. "Underpowered and undergunned" seems to be the verdict of most historians.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Though the British were great at a coordinated, planned attack against fixed positions, they were notably bad in the exploit phase. There are many anecdotes, when US and British troops worked together, how American soldiers where flabbergasted how, when a first success was achieved and the troops could move on, then British troops wanted to have a cup of tea first. Of course these are anecdotes, but I think the examples are plenty that the British land army wasn't very good in a quick-moving war: being trumped in Africa time after time again by the (relatively) tiny Africa Corps; losing the race to Messina against the Americans on Sicily despite having the shorter route; the many flaws and delays in the XXX corps advance to the encircled paratroopers at Arnhem, the list goes on.

The best way to represent this in the game would probably be a speed debuff; but the existing "Allies" doctrine already has it. I'd suggest "taking" it from there and give the "American" doctrine a different debuff; but unfortunately, this speed debuff also makes the Allied navy the worst one among the doctrines (there's no terrain or province ownership at sea to create other differences), which is exactly what you DON'T want for the British. Maybe this could be translated to something else, like a 60% (instead of usual 50%) speed penalty in enemy terrain?

I absolutely don't agree with your assessment of British armor, and neither did the commanders at the time. Tank commanders were told to avoid direct confrontations with German tanks after they were usually ass-kicked; doctrine was to have tank destroyers deal with enemy (medium and heavy) tanks. None of the tanks you mention were any match to their German contemporaries, let alone the Soviet designs which they never fought. "Underpowered and undergunned" seems to be the verdict of most historians.

I will, however, defend British tanks (partially).

The best British tanks of the war were the Valentine, Churchill, Cromwell, and Comet. The Valentine was a reliable, heavily armoured infantry-support tank used successfully in the desert and by the Red Army as a light tank. The Churchill had heavy armour and good off-road capability, making it well-suited for close-quarters fighting in urban areas. The Cromwell was a fast, manoeuvrable tank with a powerful gun, making it ideal for tank-to-tank combat. The Comet was an improved version of the Cromwell with a more powerful gun.

However, not all British tanks were as good as these four. The Matilda, for example, was slow and had weak armor. The Crusader was also slow and had a weak gun. The A13 series of tanks, which included the Covenanter, Crusader, and Challenger, were all plagued by reliability problems.

Overall, British tanks in World War II were a mixed bag. Some were very good, while others were not so good. The best British tanks were able to hold their own against German tanks, but the British tank force as a whole was not as effective as it could have been.

Here is a table comparing the main British tanks of World War II:

Tank:Armour: Armamentpeed:Reliability: Notes:

So I'll give you the "under-armoured, under-gunned" quote.

Basically, I don't think British tanks were great, but they could hold their own.

And I also think that an increased speed penalty on enemy territory would be a very good idea.

Zaktty wrote:

I would be interested in the unit list if you don't mind.

In fact doctrines of the titans are very likely part of Call of War. I also agree with the table about British tanks of World War II

___________________________________________

https://remont1.pl/oferta/remonty-domow/

Zaktty wrote:

So I'll give you the "under-armoured, under-gunned" quote.