While I’m far from being a military expert, considering the “rise” of the Chinese military, a 4th research doctrine should be implemented. China has their own stealth jets, carriers and pretty much everything else. The main benefit of that doctrine would be way quicker and also cheaper production.
Naval doctrine needs a big overhaul: Cruisers are a thing of the past in real life, carriers are useless in game while supposedly being the strongest weapon irl etc.
My solution: Remove cruisers; make carriers cheaper, let them carry more aircraft and strengthen their combat stats; implement 4 types of Frigates and Destroyers: anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-submarine and a do it all type which isn’t great at anything but solid at everything. Frigates are essentially just smaller Destroyers, so cheaper and weaker. To unlock them you first need to research the do it all one, which then opens the 3 different paths; add a range limit which once reached requires immediate transit to a friendly harbour to refuel. Nuclear powered ships and subs don’t have range restrictions.
Now to the 4 doctrines in general: European doctrine should be the average. Western has highest mobilisation costs and time but also the best combat stats, especially for Navy and Airforce. Eastern has the strongest ground army along with the best missiles and drones. Chinese/Asian doctrine gets the cheapest and fastest mobilisation and research+ the best subs.
Would like some opinions
9 Replies
17 Jul 2026, 09:24
I completely agree with you regarding the idea of a fourth military doctrine for China, since that’s how things work in reality. However, the concept of a multi-role naval vessel—combined with the removal of the cruiser—might reduce the variety of naval units players choose to use. It would effectively render the corvette obsolete, as players would simply produce the multi-role ship instead; furthermore, the effectiveness of submarines would drop since there would no longer be any cruisers to sink. That said, I do agree with your idea of having different types of frigates and destroyers.
17 Jul 2026, 10:19
The corvette seams pretty obsolete anyway since the introduction of patrol boats. To change that, maybe you’d need some boosts in coastal waters I suppose. Their main purpose irl is mine clearing I think, so maybe that’s an approach to make them more useful.
If done right and carriers become somewhat as good as they are irl, subs would be their biggest counter and still play a big role therefore.
I actually think it would overall increase variety, as it would allow for more different approaches to naval warfare. At the moment it’s mostly cruisers and subs past day 30 so it can’t really get any worse.
I completely agree with you regarding the idea of a fourth military doctrine for China, since that’s how things work in reality. However, the concept of a multi-role naval vessel—combined with the removal of the cruiser—might reduce the variety of naval units players choose to use. It would effectively render the corvette obsolete, as players would simply produce the multi-role ship instead; furthermore, the effectiveness of submarines would drop since there would no longer be any cruisers ...
1. The corvette seams pretty obsolete anyway since the introduction of patrol boats. To change that, maybe you'd need some boosts in coastal waters I suppose. Their main purpose irl is mine clearing I think, so maybe that's an approach to make them more useful.
If done right and carriers become somewhat as good as they are irl, subs would be their biggest counter and still play a big role therefore.
I actually think it would overall increase variety, as it would allow for more different approaches to naval warfare. At the moment it's mostly cruisers and subs past day 30 so it can't really get any worse.
17 Jul 2026, 11:43
Largely no.
Existed doctrine covered everything already, region exclusive doctrine is pretty much a hard no. it also required lot of maps refit. we don’t even have river on all map yet. HOW EVER best approach to me would be unit model skin.
No we not gonna remove content because meh but irl. Carrier is ok, maybe it need earlier accessibility boost but we have the heli carrier and elite frigates.
This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD.
Also, WW3 Balance Designer
Existed doctrine covered everything already, region exclusive doctrine is pretty much a hard no. it also required lot of maps refit. we don’t even have river on all map yet. HOW EVER best approach to me would be unit model skin.
No we not gonna remove content because meh but irl. Carrier is ok, maybe it need earlier accessibility boost but we have the heli carrier and elite frigates.
How can you say that the existing doctrines cover everything when one of the 2 strongest militaries
17 Jul 2026, 12:46
doesn’t have a single unit.
17 Jul 2026, 14:10
Just my opinion.
About the cruiser thing- you probably confuse cruisers with battleships. Those are the things no longer used. Just because US plans to retire its cruisers by 2030 doesnt mean they are obsolette. China and other nations still use cruisers and actively build larger ones.
Carriers- I think they are good as is. They arent meant for everyone, just for strong naval powers. Its not like Kenya or another country with little naval projection needs them. They are good, limited and useful. And for deck size... a top level carrier holds 15 squadrons, which is already more than R. Ford ( around 100 aircraft) if we consider a squadron to be on average 12 aircrafts.
Corvettes and Patrol boats- they could be more relevant once rivers get fully introduced or reworked. At the moment they are still somewhat good i guess.
The refit of destroyers and frigates seems unnecessary.
How can you say that the existing doctrines cover everything when one of the 2 strongest militaries
again, this is entirely "but in real life!". it's not even half of a reason to do something. it doesn't justify the amount of work required. imagine going up to your boss and say we have to +33% of our contents because in real life stuff they do! benefit? 0 extra income
This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD.
Also, WW3 Balance Designer
17 Jul 2026, 16:22
A Chinese doctrine would be cool but is not really necessary. And most of the other suggestions are just not necessary either.
Keep in mind that this WW3 does not take place in 2026, it is a cold war era game, not a modern era war game. The majority of the units (MBTs excluded, they are special) are drawing from units starting from the 1960s-1970s at their first tier. It is only by the last tier of the game when you get to unlock units that are truly "modern".
So removing cruisers would be a terrible idea. In fact, this is very well reflected in the game, where cruisers have a massive range advantage over all the other surface ships (efrigs excluded) for their first and second tiers, clearly the most powerful surface to surface vessels. By the third tier, all of the other ships catch up to the cruiser in range and it loses its most powerful advantage. At that point, well now you can reasonably say that the cruiser is maybe not worth it anymore due to its very high cost; destroyers can now more or less fight it well if you can hit-and-run, and the destroyer is good against submarines too. This is a pretty good reflection of real life naval development, actually.
The four types of frigates and destroyers is just unnecessarily overcomplicated. What we have works fine, if it's not broken don't fix it just because it might be a bit more realistic. Modern classifications of what a "frigate" or "destroyer" even is, is all over the place anyways.
And doctrines shouldn't be just over-summarized like that. That's a good recipe for making some doctrines excessive overpowered compared to others and locking players to specific doctrines depending on their playstyle. The current nuanced doctrine changes where each unit is being given individual buffs is better.
Noobs are dangerous. If they don't know what they're doing, how can you?
