I want European allies to be a doctrine and American allies to be a separate one. Why? Because allies are boring. There are so many of them, and it completely ruins the American theatre. North America is extremely boring to play in 100p unless you play Alberta or Mexico, and the American map is completely ruined by this. I think Canada and its provinces (Except Alberta in 100p and British Columbia in the Pacific event) should be European while all states are American. I don't know what the difference between the doctrines would be but I think European allies could use British troops while American allies keep the American troops.
Please log in to post a reply.
Well allied doctrine is more USA army based doctrine and since this game is focused on realistic apperience to public soo i highly doubt that they would add any more doctrines just because there are no real ones from that time to be added.
I think that would be pretty dope but as you stated It would be hard to think of differences.Onandonandomnom wrote:
I don't know what the difference between the doctrines would be
You can add different resrch trees and unit models buth still idk, and Italian, British and Franch trees are allready being done you can see them on top pinned.
Yes, there is way too many allied troops. The most plausible new doctrine is the commonwealth one but even it isn't popular enough to become a reality
British doctrine and American doctrine did differ. I do like the Commonwealth idea, and non commonwealth could be normal allies or maybe Western Allies
I think that there could be different resrch trees from different countrys under same doctrines. (German and Italian under axis doctrine or British and USA, myb even Franch under doctrine)
Commonwealth doctrine is a decent idea because it is not just limited to a certain area. It can be used throughout africa in world at war games and throughout india for the same reasons. Certain S. American countries were frequent buyers of british military equipment so they could receive it as well. Of course countries like Australia, South Africa and the rest of the commonwealth could also use it.
Yeah i think Commonwealth should be considered. there really are too many allies. Also in HWW, some countries need different doctrine. Sweden needs to become Axis, and China needs to becomes ALLIES.
That is post war Nationalist China under Japanese controle.
if there was to be a new doctrine I’d says neutral for all the ai.
no. Doctrine is like military tactics/equipment. What would neutrality have, "inability to make troops?""Larry is god lol lol wrote:
if there was to be a new doctrine I’d says neutral for all the ai.
Plus AI countries like Belgium and Greece were in the Allied camp.
yes but there ai so it should be neutral regardless what they were irl as call of war is not 100% realGrandEmpire wrote:
no. Doctrine is like military tactics/equipment. What would neutrality have, "inability to make troops?""Plus AI countries like Belgium and Greece were in the Allied camp.Larry is god lol lol wrote:
if there was to be a new doctrine I’d says neutral for all the ai.
Sorry i only used to play HWW so my mistake. Although no offence but poo to the neutral idea. it aint a good 'un. Commonwealth best idea for new doctrineLarry is god lol lol wrote:
yes but there ai so it should be neutral regardless what they were irl as call of war is not 100% realGrandEmpire wrote:
no. Doctrine is like military tactics/equipment. What would neutrality have, "inability to make troops?""Plus AI countries like Belgium and Greece were in the Allied camp.Larry is god lol lol wrote:
if there was to be a new doctrine I’d says neutral for all the ai.
Most of the allies DID use U.S. equipment though because of the lend-lease program so it makes sense (for realistic purpose as well as game simplicity)
I understand British and French had their own vehicles and the units but this would make a doctrine for every country!
Another point, 100 player map should be balance for each doctrine.
That is true. but still, Commonwealth doctrine is a good idea
sorry i disaggre i think its not a good idea.GrandEmpire wrote:
That is true. but still, Commonwealth doctrine is a good idea
Same,UK did used mostly USA military equipment specially tenks and aircrafts. Althoo they have very recognizeable royal navy i dont think it is good enof reson. I think bether solution is to change some things in alled doctrine then create new one that dosnt have historical sense.
Italy doctrine, myb have more sense i think.
The USSR also was a recepient of the lend-lease programSuna232 wrote:
Same,UK did used mostly USA military equipment specially tenks and aircrafts. Althoo they have very recognizeable royal navy i dont think it is good enof reson. I think bether solution is to change some things in alled doctrine then create new one that dosnt have historical sense.Italy doctrine, myb have more sense i think.
"By the end of June 1944 the United States had sent to the Soviets under lend-lease more than 11,000 planes; over 6,000 tanks and tank destroyers; and 300,000 trucks and other military vehicles."
Yes, buth it was mostly suport equipment. Buth go and see production numbers of russian tanks, aircrafts, infantry equipment etc. And compare them to UK or Franch production numbers. Two different worlds.whowh wrote:
The USSR also was a recepient of the lend-lease programSuna232 wrote:
Same,UK did used mostly USA military equipment specially tenks and aircrafts. Althoo they have very recognizeable royal navy i dont think it is good enof reson. I think bether solution is to change some things in alled doctrine then create new one that dosnt have historical sense.Italy doctrine, myb have more sense i think.
"By the end of June 1944 the United States had sent to the Soviets under lend-lease more than 11,000 planes; over 6,000 tanks and tank destroyers; and 300,000 trucks and other military vehicles."
Well the issue is with creating a one country doctrine is that all countries would need to get one
Please log in to post a reply.
