More Doctrines

Not a bad point, though if argue that doctrines even after all these years really didn’t get stale for me. I still find new ways to play them and in different situations. They are balanced pretty well and I don’t think they are the most important part of the game; players, and how they will always act different every game. You would have to balance all these doctrines and make them fair and fun, all for possibly different maps. You would have to probably make now unit models and stats and such. It would be a hard endeavor, and I don’t necessarily think it would be as important as it may seem.

At least on the maps I usually play, there aren't continents that are mostly one doctrine* (I haven't played Pacific Conquest or America Homefront, so I can't answer for them). And Asia is hardly dominated by Pan-Asian; there are several Comintern and Allied countries (playable ones at that) in the east which between them outnumber the playable Pan-Asian countries.

*Unless one counts Australia as its own continent, and given that it's just one country that's unreasonable.

Ooh a doctrine thread: Every time I see one, I wistfully think of my (and technically Undaunted, credit is 100% to him, but I put the name so ) subdoctrine idea. The basic gist is that each doctrine retains their core benefits (ex: Axis more dmg and hp, but higher cost), but each subdoctrine, like German, Italian, and such has different units that are slightly buffed or nerfed. For example, Italians made LTs mainly, so they'd get a small buff. I'll send a link to the original thread (shameless plug for my idea) here if yall are interested in reading, but I do like OP's idea somewhat as well, don't get me wrong lol

https://forum.callofwar.com/index.php?thread/44854-new-doctrines-with-old-features/

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Ooh a doctrine thread: Every time I see one, I wistfully think of my (and technically Undaunted, credit is 100% to him, but I put the name so ) subdoctrine idea. The basic gist is that each doctrine retains their core benefits (ex: Axis more dmg and hp, but higher cost), but each subdoctrine, like German, Italian, and such has different units that are slightly buffed or nerfed. For example, Italians made LTs mainly, so they'd get a small buff. I'll send a link to the original thread (shameless plug for my idea) here if yall are interested in reading, but I do like OP's idea somewhat as well, don't get me wrong lol

https://forum.callofwar.com/index.php?thread/44854-new-doctrines-with-old-features/

Carking the 6th wrote:

Divergent evolution… I wrote basically the same thing in this thread

But to be serious tho, I do think the subdoctrine idea has great potential. I'll just gonna copy what was said on that thread to here so we can discuss it without replying to like an 1-2 year old thread there:

Undaunted wrote:

so we can change other things at doctrine

we don't need new things to create commonwealth from allied doctrine

small changes at units power wont will effect too much to balance and it will bring new strategies to game

players still wants commonwealth , french , italian doctrines

for example add italian doctrine for libya , somalia , ethiopia , eritrea with italy

%15 more hp , %15 more damage , %10 more production cost will be fix

main features will be same with axis

but

make small changes like don't add %10 more damage for heavy tank at italian doctrine and remove +1/+2 day availability for light tanks at italian doctrine

at light tanks asians still be better but we will have a different doctrine with different strategy chance

you can try to use light tanks as a part of your strategy with italian doctrine like axis doctrine

it is just a sample

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Allies:

American/Pan-American/Union - All the Allied N. and S. American countries except Canada and former European colonies

British/Commonwealth - All of the Commonwealth and British Empire countries, perhaps including Holland, Denmark, Portugal, etc.

French/Continental - France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, French colonies, etc.

Axis:

Reich/German - Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkiye, South American Axis countries, etc.

Italian - Italy, Libya, Somalia, Romania, Spain, most of the African Axis countries

Comintern:

Soviet - USSR (All the Russian Comintern countries basically), Mongolia, Xinjiang

Yugoslav/Balkan (?) - European Comintern countries

Internationale/Revolutionary - [/i]Cuba, Venezuela, African Comintern countries, etc.

Pan-Asian:

Imperial - Japan, Korea, all IJ holdings except China, etc.

Guerilla/Warlord - China, Indochina, Philippines, East Indies, etc.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Well since those sub-doctrines would just be "flavors" of the main doctrine, there's no real need to have equal numbers and balance in either in the amount of sub-doctrines per main doctrine, or the amount of countries using them. So there's no need to give sub-doctrines some sort of "we have to split the Soviet doctrine and figure out how to get it properly distributed on the map"; instead, you can just create the sub-doctrine when there are (historical?) grounds for it and then assign it to the countries for which it sounds appropriate, even if that is only one or two.

Only one flaw is that you have to make sure all these different doctrines are balanced enough that one isn’t secretly overpowered, and that they are all not too overwhelming. New players may get scared of that stuff, you know? Either way, even with no stat changes, just new unit aesthetics in general would be a godsend and automatically make it the best update this game has seen since after the change to 2.0.

agreed