Two new doctrines: The Commonwealth and the French - Part 1

Lots to decipher, let's see...

Therworldtube wrote:

Commonwealth Doctrine (Rearmament)

General Strength: Construction cost -10%, construction time -15%

This is to reflect Britain's effective repairs during the Battle of Britain, where despite the constant bombing of factories and air strips, the British were still able to restore most of the building's functions.

Therworldtube wrote:

General Weakness: Production time +15%

Britain's mobilization came rather late. They really didn't go partial war economy until the Munich conference. And unlike the USA, where it can easily pump tanks and soldiers in mass quantity (which reflects the Allies Doctrine), Britain has neither the resources nor the manpower to sufficiently defeat Germany by itself.

Therworldtube wrote:

Militia - 25% urban terrain buff,

The militias of Britain were the Home Guard, where it is expected urban fighting will happen. The buff will also compliment Churchill's quote: "...We shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills..."

Therworldtube wrote:

Infantry - 1/2 day research

Pretty much what I said on the general weakness. Also didn't help that British non-motorized infantry didn't fare well in early war France, eventually leading to the Dunkirk evacuation.

Therworldtube wrote:

Motorized Infantry - Health +10%

I based this on the fact on the British army during the North African campaign, where it was very motorized. From Operation Compass to Crusader to El Alamein, the British army could afford to have trucks, whereas the Axis army simply lacked the oil for even the Italian navy to ship oil across the Mediterranean.

Therworldtube wrote:

Commandos - Same buffs as the Allies doctrine

The price is much more expensive, but they are faster.

Therworldtube wrote:

Paratroopers - Production cost -20%, -1 day research

As the pioneers of paratrooping, including operation Biting and Market Garden, it would be disservice if I don't include this.

Therworldtube wrote:

Anti-Tank Artillery - 2 day research

After Dunkirk, Britain has the choice of producing their 6 pounder guns, which was on par of the PAK 38, or choose the smaller and cheaper 2 pounder. Needless to say, they chose quantity over quality.

Therworldtube wrote:

Anti-Air Artillery - 10% damage vs Air

Therworldtube wrote:

All of the Self-propelled ordnance - 1/2 day research

I can barely find any British development on this category.

Therworldtube wrote:

Interceptors - -25% production cost, 10% damage

So pretty much Britain's fighter production is to produce as much fighters ASAP. The fact that they were so desperate and low on steel, that they constructed the Hurricane and the Mosquito out of wood, exemplifies this buff (even if an Axis fighter still has more health).

Therworldtube wrote:

Naval Bombers - -1/-2 day research

Therworldtube wrote:

Destroyers - damage 10% to surface fleet, damage 15% to submarine

Britain, much like USA, has an emphasis on fighting submarine. British escorts were effective until USA swarmed the Atlantic with lend-lease, straining the escort vessels.

Therworldtube wrote:

As for the Secret units, it can copy the Americans.

Would like to add, there are no changes to Armoured units. This puts it at a big disadvantage to all other doctrines (Axis Med Tanks, Pan-Asian Light Tanks and Armoured Cars, Allied Tank Destroyers, and Comintern Med and Heavy Tanks).

All in all, I like the idea, but, no. Keep the ideas coming though, do appreciate the enthusiasm

Since this is my first time trying to create an unique doctrine, I didn't consider how my suggestions compare to the others.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Kinda useless, expect maybe to quickly build higher level Industry quicker. -10% Construction Cost isn't going to cut it, I'd want at least -20% to even consider playing such a doctrine.

As for the production time, I'll lower it down to 10% production time increase. It still cost the same, however the buffs of faster and cheaper construction can offset this, especially when you go higher levels of "Unit production" facility.

For militia, it's more so of a garrison force, not a defense force. I don't think Pan-Asian nor Allies militia are meant to counter Axis motorized infantry, so there's that.

As for Motorized infantry, I think cutting production time to 20% and cost down to 15%. I don't think Commonwealth motorized infantry should go one-on-one with an Axis MI, so I compensate it with quantity.

As for paratroopers, I would scrap the production time discount, just give it 15% HP, 10% speed and -1 day research.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Therworldtube wrote:

Anti-Tank Artillery - 2 day research

After Dunkirk, Britain has the choice of producing their 6 pounder guns, which was on par of the PAK 38, or choose the smaller and cheaper 2 pounder. Needless to say, they chose quantity over quality.

You say they chose quality over quantity, but I see no increase in damage. All that is there is an increase in research availability. How are they supposed to defend against armour? Tank Destroyers are only available Day 3, and take 10 hours to produce with a Level 1 Tank Plant.

As for how to defend armor, I'll explain first about British armored warfare in the early war. Britain didn't put it under light, medium or heavy, but rather 'cruiser' and 'infantry' tanks. Cruiser tanks are the fast ones, but lack armor. Their role is pretty much how Germany treats its tanks. Infantry tanks are slower, but has thicker armor. Their role is to support infantry. So from there, I'll give the Heavy Tank a -30% production time & -10% production cost and light tanks a 10% speed buff and -1 day research availability.

With the self-propelled section, you only seem to care on how they play, rather than historical setting. I checked what Britain did to create Self-Propelled Artillery. The only British SPA design is the Bishop, which was noted as being rushed, having numerous problems and was poorly received by the troops. Next was the Tank Destroyers. Only three British Tank Destroyers. Not bad and I will retract its nerf, but not exceptional to give it a buff. Then the Self-Propelled Anti-Air. Honestly, they literally have no dedicated SPAA vehicle of their own. Most of their SPAA are just tanks with their turrets swapped with an AA gun. Since this really doesn't cost them much time to figure it out, I'll retract its nerf, but I'll give it only a -10% production cost.

For the naval bombers, there is a surprisingly amount of biplanes here. I'll add -20% production cost.

For destroyers, I'll just increase the view range equal to non-Asian cruisers and 15% damage vs submarine. This is the buffs for this unit, unless you can prove the British destroyers are consistently better than the Japanese destroyers historically.

Then there's the non-naval bombers. Honestly, after checking British bomber designs, strat bombers can be buffed 10% damage to all units, as they have done well during their aerial bombing spree post-Barbarossa, notably Dresden.

Anyways, I've given my reasons for my revisions and my reasons to keep the stat changes of several units. If you can dig into British vehicle design, then please do.

I think you're confusing the choices the British made (what actually happened) to the inherent capabilities of their industry, engineers, designs, tradition, etc etc. When you say "They chose cheap guns over good guns", that's like a player's choice to produce either L1 or L3 AT's; NOT how good those guns actually were. When you talk about Axis problems to get fuel across the Med, that's a situational thing in a very particular strategic setting, not something like "the British were good at transporting oil".

When we look at the inherent strength and weaknesses of the British, here's what springs to my mind:

Strenghths:

Intelligence (spying both a history of a capable secret service, and the ingenuity to think out of the box. Enigma was devised by the British, not the Americans; in fact it was an American frustration for the entire war that the British were simply better at it while their own services lacked experience after decades of isolationism. They were also better than the Soviets and a LOT better than both the Japanese and the Germans (just check out the Dönitz quote on the splash screen).

Navy: modern battleships, cruisers, destroyers were all top designs (even though the existing fleet relied too heavily on WW1-inherited ships). Also very early in adapting carriers (e.g. HMS Ark Royal), and naval radar and Asdic (sonar submarine detection).

Maybe their general buffs could be about those two subjects?

Furthermore, specific units:

Fighters: Spitfire was arguably the best fighter of the early war.

Attack bombers: Mosquito in particular was an innovative design which took years to design comparable planes by others. Could also be classified as a tactical bomber though. More conventional tac designs weren't really great though.

Strat bombers: Lancaster. Nuff said.

Commandoes: very effective commando operations in the desert (The SAS was conceived here, receiving even Rommel's praise). Burmese commando-style operations by regular troops also very successful, as well as smaller operations on the Atlantic coast (like St.Nazaire)

Jet fighters: Gloster Meteor was the first Allied jet fighter, entering service only a few weeks after the German Me-262, and long before American, Soviet, or Japanese jets.

Infantry: Traditions and training methods of the infantry branch were strong and British infantry performed well throughout the war. I don't agree that they didn't perform well in France 1940; the main battle was lost by the French at Sedan, and afterwards the British infantry was no match against German mobility in a manoever war. But that's just not the point of infantry anyway.

Armored cars: the British extensively used them, with some good designs and excellent operational handling by their commanders.

Neutral:

Paratroopers: paratrooper operations were pioneered by the Germans and the Soviets, certainly not the British. Many doctrinal flaws could be hidden in the early operations due to overwhelming superiority, but even though the 1st division fought bravely at Arnhem, many operational shortcomings and poor handling were also painfully exposed there. Maybe not enough for a debuff, but certainly no buff either.

Weaknesses:

Tanks: early war, infantry tanks (med tanks??) underpowered and too slow; cruisers (light tanks??) undergunned and too lightly armored. UK had to rely on American designs (and purchases) for the second half of the war, Sherman and Stuart in particular; Churchill and Cromwell were inferior designs to contemporaries.

Militia: can't believe you want to buff this based on the Home Guard... didn't you ever watch Dad's Army? Absolutely a debuff, not a buff.

Submarines: considered to be "under the belt" or "unfair" warfare in top Royal Navy circles, submarines were the black sheep of the British navy.

For balancing purposes, the doctrine would maybe need an early AT buff.