Commonwealth Doctrine

I think making units for the Commonwealth is going to be complicated but I like the intellectual exercice.

If I were to check the Commonwealth equipment, I think we see that overall (until Sherman) their vehicles are usually on the heavier side : Churchill or Valentine of course, but even the Cruiser II was slow for a "cavalry" tank.

On the other hand, as their tanks are also pretty heavy, and since their infantry is reputed for their grit, I think the doctrine is basically :

- Slow land units (-20% speed), more HP (+15%). So kind of the opposite of the Japanese.

On the other hand, the navy has normal speed but is all around better than the competition for Cruisers and Battleships (less so for submarines and carriers).

This means that :

- On a large map, the English player is encouraged to use his navy / convoy a lot to move around, as historically

- On a small map, where usually navy are less important, their speed is also less of an issue for obvious reason so it balances out.

Since we are there, if I had to do a doctrine for French, it would be OF COURSE defensive minded, no only for the Maginot line but also for their "bataille conduite" doctrine and their tanks which were very much on the heavy side.

Therefore, the French would have :

- 20% more defense value

- +50% defensive value of fortfication

- Excellent artillery but (critical for balancing) with shorter range so you cannot turtle easily behind artillery

In addition, the French are slow to adapt to new techniques, so they would have +20% cost in research cost & time and upgrade cost&time.

I would also remove the move speed malus of Americans (US materials and troops were not specifically slow, if anything the TD were the fastest) and replace by something like "risk adverse", combat cycles take 20% longer (eg 36minutes, slowing down their offensive and making them at a disadvantage when defending)

Hello Chimere!

Thank you for your in-depth response.

Based on the current doctrine pros/cons I was thinking a new Commonwealth doctrine could have lessened upgrade cost/time (remove this from the Allies doctrine for balance). My basis for this is the numerous variants and models of British vehicles seen throughout the war irl (especially with their tank force).

Perhaps a movement speed con should remain with the Allies though as my idea was that the US remained out of the war and was slow to mobilize its forces over to Europe so a "slower moving force" made sense personally for the Allies doctrine. As for a Commonwealth con perhaps a lessened view range in contrast to the Japanese? My inspiration for this would be something like Operation Market Garden where British forces did not know of the existence of a couple Panzer divisions in the area. I know it sounds a bit silly of an idea but it sounds cool to me on paper at least.

As for unit models a Commonwealth doctrine could include: British Regular Infantry, British Paras, Spitfires, Lancasters, Churchill, Comet, Valentine, Archer, Lanchester Armored Car, etc...

This Commonwealth doctrine could be applied to Great Britain as well as all of their colonies or commonwealth states and adds a bit more depth to the doctrines

WOW you need to do what Chimere said! His idea is excellent!

It's definitely not a bad idea. To be honest, I'd even be willing to play around with the idea as well.

The issue lies in the difficulty the coding would entail. This would take weeks, if not months, to program, and even longer to implement fairly. This would call for a complete revamping of the allied tech tree, which is fine with me, because, frankly, I hate it.

That being said, I'm definitely keeping my eye on this thread!

Hello Jester!

Yes I am willing to wait for sure I just think a Commonwealth doctrine would be great to differentiate between American and UK units, while of course introducing more variation into the current 4 doctrines we have.

To me this seems the best solution to please the people who want a UK tech tree, while also maintaining the unit appearance differences that exist between the current 4 doctrines.

Thats a good idea! I think not only commonwealth , there shoul be other doctrines too ; like french , chinese and south american.

Commonwealth doctrine should not be strong as european doctrines. Because commonwealth countries was not technologially improved or strong. Also this doctrine focuses help to england.

Chinese doctrine: China has axis doctrine i guess. But china is not a axis country also axis strategies not used by chinese people. They should have their own doctrine that focuses militia and infantry.

South american doctrine; South america was neutral continent in ww2. But so much south american country has axis and comitern doctrine.

These american countries are not able to use axis or comitern strategies so they should have their own doctrine. Spain and portugal would use this doctrine too.

By Commonwealth Doctrine I would include essentially all British Countries and their colonies to be given this doctrine (UK, Canada, Australia, British Egypt, New Zealand, South Africa, British India, etc...)

In turn the current Allies Doctrine could become more focused on the non-Commonwealth Allied nations (USA, France, Morocco, Algeria, Low Countries, Philippines, etc...)

I do not see the potential for adding more doctrines than that personally, as if we got the 5 total (counting Commonwealth) I believe each country could then be linked to a relatively accurate doctrine. However, the introduction of some unit models such as for Nationalist China with Axis equipment would be welcome just to make it a bit more immersive.

It would be difficult to create new doctrines while maintaining game balance.

One of those doctrines is bound to have an exploit that wrecks the game.

Well surely a new Commonwealth doctrine could perhaps pull from the existing Allies doctrine, while also introducing a couple new pros/cons of its own?

That is how I would imagine it being easier balance wise...

They "announced" work on CaW 2.0 (read between Lines news of 2020 Nov. 16th). Also some days we get may be country specifical skins. That mean we dont need new doktrin. 4 Doktrin, but endless skins are good enough.

A Commonwealth doctrine is unlikely in my opinion, but they may have new corresponding real life units and different skins, while still retaining the Allies Doctrine buffs and debuffs.

I like having 4 doctrines that are unique and that play so differently from each other.

Adding more doctrines would muddle the picture, with too many similarities.

That's not a good outcome.

Sort of like the unit situation, with increasing overlap between units.

More is less. Less is more.