Allied Doctrine split: U.S. & Commonwealth

good idea

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

Research Cost/time: -25%

Aircraft Cost: -15%

Naval Cost: -15%

Upgrade Cost/time: +25%

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

Using these bonuses/penalties, commonwealth countries are always on the technological cutting edge

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

In addition, the tree itself should allow for hastened access to airborne infantry as well as commandoes

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

not many armored vehicles, heavily armored infantry

https://www.google.com/search?q=steel+not+flesh&oq=steel+not+flesh&aqs=chrome..69i57.6218j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/hijacked-history-why-think-know-160000841.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CSteel%20not%20flesh%E2%80%9D%20was%20the,50%2C000%20more%20than%20the%20Germans.

https://warisboring.com/a-lot-of-what-we-think-we-know-about-world-war-ii-is-wrong/

The second links cites the third link. It is based off of the work of James Holland.

The third link is from James Holland do not question it. James Holland is probably the best authority for Commonwealth warfare in the 1940s.

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

Where possible, naval and airforces will be used to support them

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

that any reference to Lend Lease should be subdued and kept to a minimum except where it is necessaryD

The British Army had relatively few armored divisions. Armored infantry, which is what the game calls mechanized infantry (and the real-world British called motorized) was the organic infantry units assigned to armored divisions. Heavily armored infantry was not a heavy numerical presence in the British army.

You can learn more here: http://www.kerynne.com/games/BritishMotorBattalion.html

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

You can learn more here: kerynne.com/games/BritishMotorBattalion.html

I will confess that I misread what you said. I thought you meant not many motorized but as your website shows the units were fully mechanized. I suppose we were both correct.

So perhaps damage disadvantage on mech infantry but cost decrease on mot infantry?

Just to support my point on a variety of mot infantry, this pic of a company in a british infantry regiment is from the website you shared. There is enough armored and motorized carriers for the entire company. Even if you can prove to me there isn't, the website shows that the sheer amount of support companies attached and the spare vehicle units would make up for any shortcomings.

The distinction between "motorized," "mechanized," and "armored" infantry is a confusing one. What this game calls Mechanized Infantry is what is known, in U.S. Nomenclature, as Armored Infantry. The Commonwealth called it Motorized Infantry.

What I was suggesting is that, in game terms, Mechanized research would come later and lag behind other powers, as commonwealth armies tended to have less battalions/regiments of this particular type.

The United States and the U.K. were both privileged in that even their basic foot-infantry battalions were effectively what the U.S. nomenclature calls "motorized," as in, equipped with wheeled transports. So, yes, a hypothetical commonwealth tree would have "motorized" infantry fully available.

I propose some more adjustments

As the nature of British tanks go, Medium (Cavalry) Tanks should gain a 5-10% Infantry/L. Armor boost for their performance in the Pacific and North Africa. While Heavy (Infantry) tanks would have 10-15% increased firepower but a 15% decreased movement speed due to their original intent.

Paratroopers would have a -1~-2 earlier unlocking date as well as a 20% boost in cities. While basic infantry should have a +1 later date to unlocking to balance out other nations.

Intercepters would be cheaper to build, while strategic bombers move faster.

British destroyers would have a +15% damage to submarines since they are equippd with sonar. British aircraft carriers will have +10% increased health to incorperate armored flight decks.

Rockets will also have a +2 later date to unlocking

As a side note, the battleship designs for Allies would have to change from the KGV design to probably an Iowa class.

Do note that the tree is Commonwealth, not British. Given the macro scale of the game, tactical minutia of military units matters less since these units represent the overall makeup of regimental/brigade sized units.

Those are still valid suggestions.

Such drastic buffs to commonwealth units makes them blatantly overpowered. Some of them don't even make sense, either. Infantry tanks get increased firepower? Why? Was the 2-pounder notably superior to comparable tank armaments of the time? In terms of hole-punching, sure. But not by all that much, considering period ammunition.

Increased effectiveness against submarines due to sonar? Sonar was pretty ubiquitous amongst all nations. Even the Japanese, who lacked Radar on their warships, had ample sonar capability. I could see giving them a bonus due to hedgehogs, but that wouldn't take effect until mid-to-late game upgrades of the destroyer. If we're to assume that day 1 is 1932, then day 8 is 1942 and that's when the hedgehog entered service.

Either way this is my conclusion for individual unit upgrades. We still need the overall doctrine bonus worked out though:

Militia:+2 day research

Infantry: +2 Day research delay and 15% slower movement speed

Mot Infantry: -2 day research bonus and 15% cheaper

Mech infantry: N/A

Commandos: +20% damage to all, 20% more HP and 15% faster move speed

Paratroopers: -2 day research bonus and 20% boost in cities

AT: 15% less damage to light armor

Arties: 15% more damage to infantry

SP arties: -2 day research bonus

AA: -15% damage

SPAA: +2 day research delay

AC: -15% speed

Light Tank: +2 day research delay

Med Tank: +5-10% Infantry and light Armor damage bonus

Heavy Tank: +15% HP

TD: -2 day research bonus

Interceptor: 15% cheaper to build

Tac bomber: N/A

Attack Bomber: +2 day research delay

Strategic Bomber: 10% faster and 10% more HP

Naval Bomber: N/A

Destroyer: 15% more damage to subs

Submarines: +2 day research delay and -10% speed

Cruiser: 15% less AA damage

Battleship: 10% cheaper

Aircraft Carrier: 15% more HP.

Flying bomb: +2 day research delay

Railroad gun: -10% HP

Rocket: +2 day research delay

Rocket Fighter: N/A

Rocket Artillery: +2 day research delay and +15% cost

SP Rocket artillery: +2 day research delay and +15% cost

Nuclear Bomber/Rocket: -2 day research bonus

Looking through this, I just realized that in its currently existing doctrines, the only disadvantages bytro gives to specific units are research delay disadvantages. Perhaps this could be refined within this doctrine unit draft. Also, this tree has too many units affected by it so perhaps I should calm down a bit during the next draft.

I don't know why you guys seem to have this thing for making commonwealth tanks do more damage, especially towards infantry. Commonwealth tank designs tended to be with small caliber guns that lacked good high explosive ammunition, meaning that they would be less effective against soft targets.

There are too many effects put on the units, the normal allies doctrine had 17 units affected with the other doctrines at a similar level. However the commonwealth has 29. I propose remove some non-research debuffs on the units.

I'll take off some tank buffs and arty buffs.

@Daniel_Phelps why don't you tell us what you are thinking?

whowh wrote:

@Daniel_Phelps why don't you tell us what you are thinking?

I think New World should stay at -10% speed debuff, this is to create diversity since Pan-asia already has -10% health.

I would also use the commonwealth flag for more liberty in choosing real life units.

TomtheBuilder wrote:

I think New World should stay at -10% speed debuff, this is to create diversity since Pan-asia already has -10% health.

I am mindblown by the chart. I would like to ask though where the tac bomber bonus got to. Some of the bonuses seem a bit excessive however. The +100% damage to planes for attack bombers is a bit strange if albeit true in the case of the planes you mentioned. Same for the +50% range for American fighter planes.

I consider myself well read in the technical-tactical characteristics of second world war equipment. However, RAF level bombers is something I am relatively ignorant in. In my cursory research, I wasn't able to find much "outstanding" with regards to RAF level bombers in comparison to their peers in other nations. If I am incorrect, and there is something noteworthy, then I admit that I missed it out of ignorance.

A 100% bonus to the attack bombers (which, for the commonwealth, would be things like the Hurricane C and D models and later the Hawker Typhoon with rockets) would still give them relatively poor attack/defense statistics against aircraft. The current Allied level 1 attack bomber, for example, currently does 1/0.3 damage to enemy aircraft. With the 100% bonus, it would go up to 2/0.6. The interceptor available on the same day does 8/4.

So, one can argue that the 100% bonus is so small that it doesn't make a difference. But I would argue that as part of a larger stack, the numbers would add up to Commonwealth intruders/attackers being somewhat more resistant to interception, and capable of playing some role if paired with dedicated interceptors in a dogfight.

The increased range for American fighters is based purely on aircraft like the P-38, P-47, and P-51, which were getting more and more range as they were developed in order to try and keep pace with bombers during daytime bombing operations.

As an example, a P-51D could go a little over 2600 kilometers with external tanks. The Spitfire could do under 1000, because the two aircraft were built for different operations. The Spitfire was in many respects a superior dogfighter. The P-51 could go where it was needed, which was to escort bombers.