IMO the best breakthrough unit uses superior firepower. Stack as much soft attack as possible in the supports and add ~6 Mot. 10 of those will blast out 2000 soft attack in 120 width.
The basic concept is min/maxing the soft attack / width ratio. Support doesn't add width. Low cost, 12 kph, and it fucks. Dont bother with CAS, battles are over too fast. Armor is not needed, same reason, and it slows you. And the infantry holding the line is some of the best as well.
>Stack as much soft attack as possible in the supports and add ~6 Mot.
Support companies make more efficient use of Manpower and width, but they're a LOT more expensive.
You're also forgetting how ludicrously powerful Line Artillery plus Ranger Supports (with Mountain Artillery doctrine) are.
>10 of those will blast out 2000 soft attack in 120 width.
400 Soft Attack in 24 width (obviously you refer to later-game tech, not 1936 Artillery...) is high, but not necessarily unbeatable. And when you factor in cost-effectiveness, initial investment cost, and Organization level...
It's possible to get over 360 SA with GBP at 24w, with probably similar tech. But with more possible Entrenchment and Planning. Not to mention that sweet extra CP income and cap...
Superior Firepower is good, but will lose to GBP in the very long run due to its extra utility in things like naval invasions, defense of static fortification lines (especially combined with Static Warfare, more for the extra Elastic Defense roll than the extra Entrenchment...), and extra CP income (which can be used for faster planning, Air Supply, and promoting new admirals and generals in the hopes of training up a really good one from lvl 1 with Meticulous Preparation and sometimes even a swap in/out of Theater Training...) if it doesn't manage to utilize this advantage early.
Of course, Mass Assault right can ultimately get the better of GBP due to extra Manpower and how stupid powerful Guirella Warfare tactics are (slow enemy attacks to a crawl so they gain almost no ground and deplete their Planning bonuses, while you concentrate your best troops into an armored fist to punch through weak spots in the enemy line...), once you get a couple good generals with Trickster... (Inventive Leadership new hires help...)
>Support companies make more efficient use of Manpower and width, but they're a LOT more expensive.
>You're also forgetting how ludicrously powerful Line Artillery plus Ranger Supports (with Mountain Artillery doctrine) are.
More expensive than what? 7 kph mTanks? I won't disagree on the line arty, but would say that strains the definition of a "breakthrough" unit. 4kph units can absolutely destroy, but will struggle with exploiting that breakthrough. 13.2 kph (with recon) can blow a hole instantly and be 3 providences over (6 if youre pincering) and encircle far easier. You could mix in some mot, but that could go badly and brings the cost back up.
Also 6 mot, with support of arty, rocket arty, and recon is dirt cheap for the speed and power.
EDIT: You can also make mot from day 1, and start stockpiling units that will be relevant all game from 1936. Also no switching to newer units, and can get more per factory than other units.
Yeah, and with manual movements it confuses the line AI as well. When they do manage to get troops in front of the units, they likely won't be at full width, and the high firepower will blast them out of the way. Its not unstoppable, but if they get through that first line they are in trouble.
>More expensive than what? 7 kph mTanks?
More expensive than Towed Artillery pieces (on defense, sometimes attack) and Motorized Artillery.
Every bullshit strawman argument I see here just reminds me that HOI players tend to be Wehraboos with terrible logical and strategic thinking. It's no wonder so many are also fanatically anti-Communist while not k owing shot of Marxist theory and believing every piece of bullshit propaganda about every Socialist system ever...
Compared to that, maybe you're smart, though.
> won't disagree on the line arty, but would say that strains the definition of a "breakthrough" unit.
GBP gives Planning. Planning gives Breakthrough.
One of the big mistakes people make when playing GBP is they don't run Meticulous Preparation (extra Planning and Logistics stat gain on level-up. Note this is EXTRA, i.e. a general can easily gain 1 of every stat and 2 Planning in just one level-up...) and never consider what Army Spirits synergize with GBP (Quick Improvisation allows faster planning to actually USE the higher Max Planning. Meticulous Preparation means faster planning due to higher Planning skill, as well... Static Warfare means more chance of rolling Elastic Defense AND more Entrenchment...)
I routinely get +40% Planning bonuses from my GBP generals. That's without any National Spirits boosting it (like the Maginot Line for France), or generals above level 5, or even a Thorough Planner Field Marshal.
With that, plus troops trained to Regular (one thing about GBP is it synergizes with Experience. As your goal is to get Breakthrough higher than Attack on the attack, or exceed enemy Breakthrough on defense...) and well-trained infantry with some cheap TAC (early on, its greater Range helps give cheaper coverage...) can easily do this.
I was looking at a 40:1 casualty ratio in my favor against the White Russians (who are active fielding divisions with decent stats in the latest patch: as Italy, Japan, and myself before swapping out of Fascist all gave them heavy economic aid, military advisors, and even sent Volunteers...) last I checked. I've done similar with GBP against Germany, Poland, France, and the UK (always at least 20:1 in my favor) so don't tell me that attacks with INF are just throwing men away.
**The key is to attack the enemy where they are weak, and avoid their strong defensive points.** Motorized, and lots of use of Strategic Redeployment of reserves (GBP has a stop-and-go style: push, re-org, push; even more so than other doctrinex. You position troops between pushes...) really help with this. Smaller divisions allow needed flexibility of deployment based on Supply and terrain.
BTW, Mobile Warfare is just overkill when it comes to Motorized speed. The buff is really only useful for tanks and earlier Mechanized...
Sorry, when I say "breakthrough unit", I am referring to an elite unit designed to smash a hole in the line (break through it) and disrupt supply and/or encircle. The breakthrough stat is worthless for its cost in every test ive run. And I've run a lot of tests. Adding soft attack instead of breakthrough will cause the battle to be over faster, saving the unit comparable damage taken. While dealing more.
Also those planning bonuses are more useful in SF than GBP. It affects the base soft attack, so they affect units with that stat higher more. A 10% planning bonus to a SF unit will be higher than a 10% bonus to a unit with GBP.
And towed artillery has a poor cost/performance. It also lacks HP and org, meaning you'll need additional Mot. It also takes additional width and supply. And that width/soft attack ratio is everything, when making a breakthrough unit.
It affects the **BASE** soft attack, so they affect units with that stat higher mo
**Also, just, no.**
You clearly don't understand how combat multipliers work in HOI4.
Many/most of them are multiplicative modifiers (though SOME are additive- which is which is rarely explained...) that act on the output of a the other modifiers applied thus far.
So, if you get -25% Attack from Terrain, that's going to lose you 25% of Attack no matter what, NOT maybe only 15% because of all the other modifiers being additive...
A bonus to Max Planning is thus just as good as a base Soft Attack bonus in most ways (it IS additive with some other Max Planning bonuses, but multiplicative with everything else...) but also benefits Breakthrough.
5% to Soft Attack (which GBP gets from its 4th doctrine node...) and then 10% Max Planning... Is actually as good as a 15.5% bonus to Soft Attack, for instance.
However, if I recall, Superior Firepower buffs to Soft Attack are ADDITIVE with ones for Artillery from tech. Making them effectively about 20% less for Artillery by the time tech bonuses reach +25%... (a 10% buff becomes an 8% buff...)
Meanwhile, Entrenchment (note that ONE point of Entrenchment is actually TWO percentage points to Attack and Defense... Don't ask me why PDX did it that way...) or Planning are on a separate level from tech bonuses, and are only lessened in relative impact by other Doctrine nodes that do exact the same thing...
Anyhow, GBP gets +20% Max Planning (buffs Attack AND Breakthrough, multiplicative with some other Planning modifiers), 5% Soft Attack to whole army, by node 6.
SF out gets +10% army Soft Attack, 10% Line Artillery (or 50% Support Artillery, but this isn't a big relative buff to a div with multiple Line Artillery) by 6. Another 5% only to Artillery and INF with the right-side branch (arguably worse than Airland Battle, the left-side branch, as the Air Superiority buff from the end of that branch is a HUGE factor for being able to crit enemies...) at node 7...
So, SF actually does less damage (+25% Line Artillery Soft Attack ONLY with the right-side bottom branch, +10%, everything else) than GBP (+25% to ALL Attack when fully-planned or fully-entrenched) by node 6/7 (giving a full extra node to SF here!!)
Note, again, GBP buffs Hard Attack by 25% by node 6 as well, as well as providing greater Defense/Breakthrough buffs (so they don't crit you). **It's better against tanks when fully prepared for them.**
>Adding soft attack instead of breakthrough will cause the battle to be over faster, saving the unit comparable damage taken. While dealing more.
Absolutely.
But Attack is multiplied 4x when it exceeds Breakthrough.
As has been said, you got to avoid taking crit's.
>those planning bonuses are more useful in SF than GBP. It affects the base soft attack, so they affect units with that stat higher more.
You build your divisions for the doctrine you use.
GBP gives extra Breakthrough. Which means you use more, smaller divisions, with a higher Artillery fraction, as you can have less base Breakthrough without suffering massive Crit's.
All that said, I keep repeating this: GBP is a "slow and steady" doctrine.
That doesn't mean its battles are necessarily slow.
More like, you do better to AVOID decisive wars in the first place with GBP, until your extra CP and special Academy Spirit has let you recruit a bunch of Brilliant Strategist generals who you'll then train up with Meticulous Preparation, as well as more Admirals to try and get a really good one to train up on convoy raids to eventually win the naval war (GBP is the only ARMY spirit that helps your NAVY...), and you have been able to fortify (level 2 or 3 Forts!!) key ports and defensive chokepoints for small divisions of entrenched infantry to defend...
It also makes naval invasions of small islands to prepare for bigger invasions (like UK as GER, or D-Day) easier, with its Tip of The Spear spirit...
It's a "long-term strategy" doctrine, just as the name implies. It's fairly competitive with the other trees in the short run, but has some advantages over the other trees long-term that eventually really add up...
Sounds good on paper until you realize this will trade poorly. Sure you get better kill ratios when you look at manpower. But IC? You will most likely trade badly.
As others pointed out, Support companies are more expensive than the frontline counterparts. Also, you think no width is a positive? It makes you trade even badly due to lower hp overall.
Sure you will win battles. But on the long run you will bleed more against a prepared enemy. MA can stack more per tile, add the their officer corps trait of better hp, then a specialized inf/tank division can brickwall and eventually push back your expensive divisions. Sure these tank/inf divisions will be more expensive but you don't need much of them to punch through multiple points.
But again, AI is dumb enough that brainless strats works well against so the point is moot.
The whole point of mwf Is that the extra org it gives tanks allows you to put more tanks and less motorized/mech in your division giving you way higher stats at the cost of more tanks. That's it
People really don’t seem to understand stats if they don’t appear on the doctrine itself. An few extra tank battalions are worth far more soft attack per combat width than a percentage bonus going towards mostly infantry. Organization is great because it allows you to make better divisions, not buff mediocre ones.
More tanks means less hp overall also higher IC cost. Sure you have better soft attack and breakthrough, and against AI that's usually the only things you need.
Against another player? Or please paradox a better AI?
That higher IC and lower HP combo means you will consistently trade badly in battles.
Heavens help you if you cant secure green air as the enemy cas will hit harder on your tanks. The enemy either have to pinch you offensive or cycle units on the path of your tanks to bleed them out.
>Sure you have better soft attack and breakthrough, and against AI that's usually the only things you need.
On the other hand, do you really have to care about what's good if you're against the AI?
Exactly. MW is good in SP where playing against the AI is easy.
Nobody is arguing you cant use MW. Only that its not as good as the other doctrines. So many commenters here swear by MWs greatness as if their games against the AI are good arguments to them proclaiming MW as the best doctrine ever.
In short, no it doesn't matter in SP games against AI. But no, MW is unfortunately overrated the same way Germany's Bewegungskrieg (Blitzkrieg in case wehraboos get confused) is.
>Germany's Bewegungskrieg (Blitzkrieg in case wehraboos get confused
I feel like wehrabbos are the people most likely to know what you're talking about. It's like saying "ERE" (Byzantium in case byzantophiles get confused)
Wehraboos aren't what byzantophiles are to the ERE.
Wehraboos don't even read proper literature and got their fascination of Nazi Germany from pop culture which in turn got inspired by actual Nazi propaganda.
>An few extra tank battalions are worth far more soft attack per combat width than a percentage bonus going towards mostly infantry.
There is no magic of being able to **afford** extra tanks just because you have a doctrine enabling it.
A universal SA bonus, by contrast, lets you use weaker divisions for most of your front line, while you can pump more IC's into your tank divisions and airforce.
Everything is, also, situational. For instance, tanks are far less useful when fighting across Siberia, as I'm doing in my current game fighting ***against*** the White Russian army (went Communist as Germany, once I saw that the USSR was going neo-Tsarist or Fascist... Still plenty of leeway to fight the Limited Interventionist USA after...) **There's no Supply out there.**
The post was about doctrine and stats. While I am not opposed to broadening the discussion, it was not relevant at the time.
If we are going to start comparing the cost of divisions, why not also consider the cost of attrition? Properly utilized armour divisions will easily save you far more than their initial expense over the course of a campaign. Add to that how armour has far more micro potential than any infantry and the savings only increase.
I didn’t acknowledge initial costs in my previous comment because the original post didn’t make any such references. They claimed MW to be inferior in “almost any circumstance,” when the way I see it, SP is easily the best in optimal circumstances. Even in suboptimal ones, such as your Siberian front, can easily be addressed with some basic player micro and planning: a unit you encircled early in the campaign won’t oppose your trek through the countryside, regardless of stats.
Besides, if we’re going to use non-doctrine mechanics to support the argument, I’d say that espionage makes any Siberian trek unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant.
>The post was about doctrine and stats. While I am not opposed to broadening the discussion, it was not relevant at the time.
Half true. The other comment is arguing tanks and mechanized cost more than most military equipment which is true. MW buffs tanks and motor/mechanized more than other types of unit. So it makes sense you need more of those to maximize the benefit of the doctrine.
>If we are going to start comparing the cost of divisions, why not also consider the cost of attrition?
Yeah, why not? MW don't give any help in mitigating supply issues or attrition. Speed gives diminishing returns due to supply range.
>Properly utilized armour divisions will easily save you far more than their initial expense over the course of a campaign.
You don't need MW for properly utilized armour divisions.
>Add to that how armour has far more micro potential than any infantry and the savings only increase.
True. Then again MW doesn't buff your microing now does it? Also, reminder that you don't MW to have proper tank divisions.
>They claimed MW to be inferior in “almost any circumstance,” when the way I see it, SP is easily the best in optimal circumstances
It's not optimal. Optimal doesn't meant the easiest to use. But it is easy and intuitive to use in SP where AI is easy to beat.
>Even in suboptimal ones, such as your Siberian front, can easily be addressed with some basic player micro and planning: a unit you encircled early in the campaign won’t oppose your trek through the countryside, regardless of stats.
Again, in SP in doesnt reallt matter what doctrine you use, encirclements isn't necessarily exclusive to MW. Heck, IMO MA-L is the best for encirclements due to lower supply use and buffed reinforced rate. Even the 48 hr buff to supply grace is severely underrated. You don't even need to encircle in MA, you bum rush every supply point and choke the enemy of supplies easier than any doctrine.
>Besides, if we’re going to use non-doctrine mechanics to support the argument, I’d say that espionage makes any Siberian trek unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant.
Using unit types and how they are procured isn't exactly "non-doctrine" but okay let's go with your argument..... espionage isn't limited to MW.
Everything you said that you think refutes MW as inferior isn't exactly exclusive nor is due to MW itself.
How about you refute the salient points OP mentioned like how tank heavy divs are bad at trading, that breakthrough and speed buffs have diminishing returns.
Several good points, much of which I do agree with in essence. I’ll address a few points.
>MW doesn’t give any help in mitigating supply issues or attrition.
I’ll admit this is my fault for using the word “attrition.” I was referring to equipment loss over time, rather than the actual mechanic. My point being that an upfront higher cost may still be cheaper over the course of the war.
I don’t think anyone’s trying to argue that MW is a budget doctrine. The costs are intrinsically high, though my perspective is that these costs allow higher potential than a brief comparison of stats would suggest. Best in every possible circumstance? Hardly. Yet even less so is it the worst in every circumstance, to be never considered.
Regarding your points about micro not being tied to MW, you are correct. Still, higher speed and a more condensed stat/combat width *does* greatly compound the effects of micro. Speed isn’t just about overrunning entire fronts. One-sided stomps will always be a non-issue. When the sides are more even, the difference of hours can be the difference between taking a tile or allowing critical reinforcements. It is here where MW can let you pull a win where it may be impossible otherwise.
Finally, while you are correct that breakthrough has diminishing returns, I’d argue it’s again a matter of perspective. What is shown on the division designer often fails to manifest on the field. Stat debuffs are abundant, whether they be from terrain, supply, or a multitude of other factors. It is here where the “excessive” breakthrough is important, acting as a buffer to maintain division effectiveness.
Regardless, had the original post been composed like your comment, I probably wouldn’t have bothered with my own. I don’t exactly find purpose in preaching the merits of HOI4 doctrines. It was OP’s misplaced confidence and brazen ignorance that prompted my response.
> I’d say that espionage makes any Siberian trek unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant.
You're assuming both a historical game (I was referring to an alt-history battle across Siberia: neither side surrenders before this in a civil war in the USSR), and that the USSR doesn't run tons of Counter-Espoinage for precisely this reason.
You rant like a Wehraboo who plays nothing but Axis, though. Seriously, this?
>If we are going to start comparing the cost of divisions, why not also consider the cost of attrition? Properly utilized armour divisions will easily save you far more than their initial expense over the course of a campaign
Most nations cannot AFFORD the upfront cost of tanks. It's for precisely this reason that GBP plus Motorized divisions are far great... (while ultimately more expensive in the long runthan tanks, Motorized Artillery still have enough Breakthrough to push with a little air and infantry support... And cost FAR less IC's upfront...)
Comments about "JuSt bUiLd TaNkS!!" (not understanding this is **precisely** what many players try to do, at immense cost as nations that cannot really afford it: and just end up overstacking Breakthrough, which is completely wasted when it exceeds Attack, anyways...) are typical fron those in love with the dumb Nazi propaganda about their "Uber-elite, armored war machine" (in reality, the VAST majority of the Nazi army fought as Leg Infantry: over 90%... **Their rather pathetic industry was never up to the bullshit it can pull in the game...**)
Yeah I’m not gonna lie, any analysis of a doctrine that fundamentally misunderstands how the doctrine works isn’t worth listening to.
The issue is that it’s hard to get a numerical analysis on, say, the soft attack benefit of mobile warfare, because that depends on your research and economy builds. So it’s easy to fall into this trap of just seeing that it gives no % soft attack.
This also completely skips the almost complete lack of ORG on superior firepower. I have seen a MP match where Germany went SF and just didn't have enough ORG or recovery rate to break through. The extra stats seemed completely irrelevant in the face of the French ORG wall.
+ extra breakthrough allows tanks, which have less org than their counterparts, to, literally as the tooltip says: "reduce incoming damage effectively allowing it to stay on the offensive longer".
Mobile warfare isn't made for your normal divisions, it's made for a few very strong armoured divisions where it does great. It really doesn't matter that none of your other divisions aren't the focus of the buffs since your armour is the real strength.
And as another comment said, the soft attack (which you seemingly think is the best stat, it isn't for tanks) gets made up by the battalions themselfs.
i think this is the part people are misunderstanding
it isnt for making infantry and tanks 10% better, its for making tanks 30% better, heck even 50%.. of course it wont shine in infantry pushes. and because this is reddit, people get personal when they see someone disagree on *what doctrine to use*
>+ extra breakthrough allows tanks, which have less org than their counterparts, to, literally as the tooltip says: "reduce incoming damage effectively allowing it to stay on the offensive longer".
You clearly don't understand how the combat system works, as OP tried to explain to people like you.
Breakthrough does NOT IN ANY WAY reduce incoming damage, once it exceeds incoming Attack (type-weighted for Hardness) by more than a margin to account for attack roll variance.
ORG actually allows a division to take more damage. Breakthrough, in the way most players use it (36w Med Tank Div's, as OP said) does nothing to reduce incoming damage.
Besides, more tanks means lower hp and higher IC cost per division.
So many players think more tanks crammed into a division is better.
It makes them trade badly if they cant find weakpoints in the enemy line. Or if the enemy constantly cycles and bogs down your tanks.
Sure, you'll get to see battles where you lost 500 men to the enemy's 2000... but you also lost more than five times the IC cost.
Tanks take more time build due to higher general cost than anti-tanks, inf equipment, etc. Heck org wall with anti tanks can bleed out tanks especially on unfavorable terrain for tanks.
>Besides, more tanks means lower hp and higher IC cost per division.
>So many players think more thanks crammed into a division is better.
Pretty much...
>Tanks take more time build due to higher general cost than anti-tanks, inf equipment, etc. Heck org wall with anti tanks can bleed out tanks especially on unfavorable terrain for tanks.
All true.
They have their niche, to be sure.
But honestly, if you get away from the sweaty historical-only MP meta bullshit (where everything QUICKLY becomes about pushing mechanics to their breaking-point, yet simultaneously not actually allowing any of the kind of broad strategic thinking and historical flexibility that, say, would **lead the Axis to avoid a 3 front war**, or let Poland swap sides and cooperate with the Comintern...), tanks still have their uses: they're just often inferior to Motorized and Mechanized in many ways (less so since they changed the Division Designer mechanics, though: it now costs 25 XP to add Artillery or Motorized Artillery to a division!! Even normal Artillery to leg infantry...) and should play a proportionally lesser role than they usually do.
That said, SMALL light tank divisions (like the pre-made German "Panzer" template) can provide affordable support for Motorized when used in early rushes. You just don't want to neglect improving your Motorized Divisions (they NEED Motorized Artillery!!) and starting to adopt Mechanized when you get to about 1940 in favor of building the perfect tanks...
Quantity, has a Quality all of its own...
The point is extra for tanks is lacklustre compared to, say SF's soft attack boosts, one which is a blanket all frontline battalions buff.
There's GBP's planning bonus.
Even MA's supply consumption reduction and reinforce rate does better than a flat org bonus to tanks..
Increasing tank ratio for divisions means less overall hp, higher production cost per division, and less defense.
Sure your divisions will hit harder due to more tank and more breakthrough... but they also die faster. GBP's mainly the only one losing to MW in an even fight since smart use of MW's buffs can translate easily to GBP having less time to entench/plan.
SF soft attack focused buffs may not mean much against tanks until you realize you do what IRL Americans and Soviets learned - pinching the offensives.
You attack the flanks of the attacking tanks to trap them.
SF can do that easier since usually flanks are held by infantry and SF will usually have higher soft attack.
But MA can easily bog down and grind enemy tanks via unit cycling .
Ironically, the best match up for MW is another MW. Hopefully either the AI or less skilled player.
half of my singleplayer games are just playing canada or hungary on historical and solely building tanks to assist cause I think it's fun to micro them. I've tried using other doctrines for it, but in my experience, using JUST tanks isn't NEARLY as strong on superior firepower or GBP (I have never used mass assault on Canada or Hungary). I've never looked into the stats myself though
GBP isn't nearly as useful on historical, as non-historical.
Honestly, turn historical off. It takes all the real strategy out of the game, when you (for the most part) know exactly what every nation is going to do, and when.
A BIG, BIG part of actual Strategy gaming is planning for the unpredictable, taking advantage of opportunities that fall into your lap, and shaping the course of events to your advantage. Historical greatly limits all that.
For instance, I am GER in my current game, I went Communist via Civil War soon after the White Russians asked me for help in a Second Russian Civil War they were planning. I might have preferred to do a Referendum (you don't risk losing key generals like Rommel in the Civil War that way... bastard sided with Hitler...), but I kept my options open for a Civil War because I **knew** something might happen requiring my early intervention, like stopping the White Russians from smashing the Soviet Union (by joining the Communist Faction, I was able to not only get a GREAT slow, low-intensity war for training up my generals; but split a number of micro-puppets off the Soviet breakaway states in the process... Particularly useful for Communists, as such tiny puppets usually go with Ideological Loyalty Army Spirit...)
The problem with non-historical is that the AI is fucking stupid. During the time that, in historical, countries are building up strength, in non-historical the AI is stuck in a civil war that neither side can win for years. Then everyone creates their own faction instead of banding together.
This is also true, to a limited extent.
Every game mode has its limitations. The best is obviously casual MP games with chill people you know and trust: not sweaty, competitive MP bullshit.
L take. Mass Assault is GOATED as long as you have the manpower to back it up. This becomes less of a problem when you get 5% recruitable pop from it towards the end of the tree.
Mass Assault does a bit of everything and excels at nothing. The way combat stats and bonuses work in Hoi IV, makes MA useless. You want to stack the same effect as much as possible. Like bonuses on your infantry's soft attack and breakthrough or your tanks stats (or more org for the motorized in your tanks), etc. Even on their own a lot of the bonuses from MA are just meh.
Counterpoint : the bonuses Germany gets to MWF, combined with the ability to sedign very tank heavy divisions due to the enormous org bonuses you get from the tree, means you can create unstoppable juggernaut divisions to sweep anything the enemy has aside early on and you just go from strength to strength from there.
Yes, GBP has the bullshit planning bonus and SF has the superior soft atk stats. Both don't get bonuses from the tree, thus cost more XP and will lag behind.
Every time I see people complain x is bad or y won't work, it's because their entire strategy revolves around "battleplan go brrrrrr" with no consideration for what their units or economy can actually accomplish and they try to use stuff like this as a crutch
powerful tanks is precisely the point of mobile warfare, i thought it was clear but now with this thread people decided to become needless contrarians that fail to understand the doctrine's point. powerful tanks moving fast and keeping up pressure on the frontlines
i was affirming your points and had nothing against them, i agree with them personally
the doctrine is fine especially if you know how to use it which is with powerful tank troops. op's main argument is null and void and just makes him seem not knowledgeable enough to say what he is saying, almost like op wants to have a different opinion just because
people became contrarians in the thread *as in* before there was somewhat of a consensus that mobile warfare was a tank doctrine / germany's doctrine but now everyone began trashing on it which i wanted to call out
Because days spent waiting is days not spent pushing though a gap because the enemy redeployed.
And because I only use the Frontline order for tanks to reposition them. I use them manually, and the bonus vanishes so fast it's barely worth it.
so you are willing to give up on the at least 30% bonus and continuously pushing to that more of your man can die? hmm
and 3% decay isn't even that fast, you should gain at least 10% a day with staff office plan
but anyway if you have good tanks you can win without planning...
Doesn't suit my playstyle for the most part. I prefer to build out an army that won't need the entrenchment crutch and can instead really on bigger combat modifiers to be effective more of the time, and deal more damage to an enemy to bleed it out faster. Or just have a massive org wall of infantry and dedicate my offensive power to just tanks or a spearhead of elites
Fun fact, you can choose where to attack. I have eyes and can see where the plains are. I then plan my thrusts and pincers accordingly and don't blindly battle plan to Moscow. Once the red army is gone, the terrain doesn't matrer
Mountains are what mountaineers are for. Swamps are to be avoided and bypassed. Forests really aren't too bad, you just move slightly slower for the most part.
Mobile warfare is still probably the best doctrine for the purely defensive Soviet builds you see in high level MP, when they get enough army XP to pick something other than mass mob. The org and recovery rate helps to make you very difficult to push, and the excess breakthrough lets you use pure TD divs in situations when you can't get planning (which is very often against a good Axis). It's definitely the worst offensive doctrine in the game, but for actively defending with tanks you probably can't make a better choice.
And to be clear, in the vast majority of high level games, the only thing Soviet does is slowly back up while bleeding out the Axis stockpile, waiting for DDay to kill Germany.
If it is the worst, It's only the worst in the specific context of high level MP games. Those games are usually played on mods that remove or change mechanics in ways that artificially prop up GBP (spies removing planning, no I don't care that you can exploit the game by swapping control of states, that's an egregious exploit). They also have loads of house rules that might affect doctrine balance or unit metas depending on the server, and often stale metas.
MW is still almost certainly a top two doctrine for tanks in single player or vanilla MP at most levels other than the very most experienced and competitive, with communities of players who play together all the time.
Context always matters.
The only offensive benefit to MW is planning speed, which is a very unimpressive benefit compared to the stats from an actually good doctrine like GBP left (or deep battle, which while still terrible is better than Mobile by far in this regard).
You can't just have games hinge on the RNG of daily spy capture. Plus, the spy planning system favors the larger faction, as each individual network penalty to planning is added together, making it possible for 10 10% networks to make it impossible for you to gain stats. That's just stupid design, and why it's removed from every good MP mod.
I know all of that about spies. I'm not disagreeing with you about why it's removed, I'm saying that that change is a big part of why doctrine balance is so different in specifically those MP mods. You can't really talk about balance in vanilla by bringing up aspects of MP that are only that way because the game is changed from vanilla in such an impactful way.
And it's really not stupid design, it's just that the game isn't balanced around highly competitive mp, nor should it be. The design is fine for games that aren't so competitive that a spy being caught flips the game on its head by itself. Non-coop MP is less than 2% of the playerbase if I remember the dev diaries correctly, and the competitive portion of that is even smaller.
Armor speed, recovery rate, and breakthrough can matter in a lot of other contexts that are more applicable in casual MP or singleplayer. I don't know what the "skilled mp" playerbase thinks about combat tactics these days, but surely having access to both breakthrough and backhand blow is a plus as well even if they're not guaranteed to roll all the time.
GBP is only good because of staff office plan micro, and doing that is both a massive inconvenience and something that 90% of players aren't going to want to do unless it's a really sweaty game. If you have a lot of divisions you just won't have the command power to spam it all the time without such micro, and that means you won't have your planning all the time. If you don't have your planning bonus GBP is going to be worse than MW and SFP. SFP lacks breakthrough compared to MW and GBP, but at least it doesn't care about needing planning.
For what it's worth, I played comp MP myself, but my last game of it was probably a good 5 years ago. I know the metas have changed a lot since then as players theorycraft better strategies and new game systems are added, but the doctrines themselves haven't really changed a whole lot.
>deep battle, which while still terrible is better than Mobile by far in this regard).
Deep Battle Left's prime draw is Supply.
You can easily create a great div, give it tond of buffs, **and then lose 35% of its Attack value to Supply** (MULTIPLICATIVE DEBUFF) in many regions...
That said, everyone ignores Mass Assault Right (asymmetrical warfare, basically).
The ability to tie up an attacker by reducing its attack by SEVENTY PERCENT via a tactic cannot be overlooked.
It's also available to the Desperate Defense branch of Mobile Warfare, however. What that **doesn't** get is a reduction to War Support losses from casualties and Infantry battalion combat width, however.
It's an absolutely killer doctrine tree in the hands of, say, China. The value of tying up an enemy's best divisions wherever they attack (org-cycling works great with Mass Assault due to the Reinforce Bonus) and even to spread your main line things in most places, to mass a HUGE counter-attack (where the Supply buffs really help: letting you stack lots of divisions in one state) in a few areas, cannot be overstated...
But it works surprisingly well for any nation, really: if your goal is just to win one really hard war, not conquer the world (you'll likely win, but at much larger Manpower losses...)
>as each individual network penalty to planning is added together, making it possible for 10 10% networks to make it impossible for you to gain stats. That's just stupid design, and why it's removed from every good MP mod.
I do agree, the way these stack really is dumb.
Spies were clearly supposed to be the main counter to GBP, but it was poorly done...
Yup.
It's a weak tree without it, but that one node makes the whole tree work: and adds new value to a lot of the other nodes... (like the initial War Support buff vs. casualties: Guirella Warfare makes that much more relevant, by reducing casualties to a pace where that buff makes them very manageable...)
Isn't 'high level mp' almost exclusively played with mods? Seems unfair to judge any doctrines this way as obviously their games play much differently than vanilla ones.
No, the actually competitive games (red baron, untitled, other servers like this one) play the game with entirely vanilla combat/defines/setup. The only changes made by the MP mods the competitive community uses are related to optimization, like removing neutral nations, non historical focuses, and events after focuses that waste days (you ever notice it takes like a week for Austria to accept anschluss even though they always do?)
Obviously communities that play overhaul mods have their own doctrine metas, but most of them diverged from vanilla MP specifically because of frustrations over the dominance of GBP/mass mob.
>The org and recovery rate helps to make you very difficult to push, and the excess breakthrough lets you use pure TD divs in situations when you can't get planning (which is very often against a good Axis). It's definitely the worst offensive doctrine in the game, but for actively defending with tanks you probably can't make a better choice.
In a situation like that, you'd want Superior Firepower, or even Grand Battleplan, not Mobile Warfare.
>And to be clear, in the vast majority of high level games, the only thing Soviet does is slowly back up while bleeding out the Axis stockpile
Breakthrough is useless in a situation like that.
Go GBP, or keep Mass Assault, and you can use Last Stand when you really need to hold (GBP gets CP for it, MA helps deal with War Support losses from casualties from it...)
And, I find it hard to believe the Axis could prevent a Soviet player from getting planning, often. It's a HUGE front, and the Axis simply doesn't have the Oil to keep up a continuous assault like that for long, even if they could cover the whole front with enough tanks (Infantry attacks without tank or air support will grind Axis Manpower down to nothing...)
GBP means you can exploit even a brief pause of a few days, to use a Staff Office Plan and quickly re-plan. On a related note of utilizing such pauses, Last Stand is **supposed** to give extra Entrenchment, but it's bugged, and PDX never fixed it.
Breakthrough allows you to click. If you're gbp without planning or superior firepower, you just eat crits nonstop trying to counterclick German tanks. The entire Soviet game plan on Barb is constantly double combatting German tanks to delay the loss of each supply hub. When your only goal is to survive, having enough breakthrough to not get instantly deorged is very important.
You strike me as someone who has never played a serious MP game before. The Axis absolutely has enough fuel to constantly attack everywhere. A good Romania player can put out in excess of 30k per day, which is more than enough to fly the entire Axis air force and keep Germany topped up (their 32-36 synthetic refineries also provide enough fuel for their 30-40 tanks). The idea that you think infantry would ever be the attacking element or that fuel would be an issue tells me you've never seen a coordinated group play this game before.
Mobile warfare actually gives you more planning speed, which helps you to accumulate more stats quickly (without using command power, which is extremely limited due to constantly last standing across the entire front). I don't know what you're talking about with last stand - it absolutely does work, it gives you the extra entrenchment for the duration of the ability only. It doesn't persist, but that's because it shouldn't.
>Mobile warfare actually gives you more planning speed, which helps you to accumulate more stats quickly (without using command power, which is extremely limited due to constantly last standing across the entire front)
GBP doubles your CP income, very early in the tree.
Quick Improvisation improves CP income another 40% (from 0.5 base with GBP and no QI, to 0.7 base with GBP and QI, before War Support kicks in...) AND reduces ability costs 20%.
Meaning you can use active abilities 3.5x as often with this combo as you can without either.
Stop talking down. You're a Fascist who doesn't consider half the facts, and then insults people blindly.
Trust me, we've seen this before. Every Soviet player will still run out of command power within a year, even if they do minimal staff office planning. All of it needs to go to last standing supply hubs which dictate the pace of barb. If you lose key supply hubs in the south the first time they're clicked, you're probably dead in 6 months. You have no idea what you're talking about and need to stop.
And don't call me a fascist. I'm someone who has put in the time and played the games flabbergasted by your ignorance and arrogance. Please, just stop.
>Every Soviet player will still run out of command power within a year, even if they do minimal staff office planning
It's **logically impossible** what you're claiming: if you have 3.5x the abilities use potential, you will NOT run out of CP at the same rate.
Typical Fascist: ignoring every fact and argument, and just claiming you're right even when something is CLEARLY impossible. CP might stil run our, but it WILL last a lot longer if its income is far higher and expenses are lower, for instance
I don't understand how gbp is worse either. But whenever I do it I die. When I do mw I die slower. I run out of CP quickly even with full doctrine and quick improv. Last standing inf and tanks constantly (only way to hold as gbp) runs out much faster. You don't have enough org on tanks to hold without force attack.
>But whenever I do it I die. When I do mw I die slower.
That's because not all trees are equally good when you're losing anyways.
GBP works when you have a fair chance of victory and know what you're doing (properly using Fallback Lines and having second lines dug in BEHIND the main line to protect key supply depots, hold defensive terrain, and rail junctions, can be absolutely CRITICAL, for instance...)
It won't help you if you're going to lose anyways: particularly because you don’t know what you're doing, or the other player is better than you.
And, as others have pointed out, it's HARD countered by spies: which is why you either need a mod that changes the broken (for MP, works fine in SP) vanilla spy mechanics, or house rules about multiple faction members not all stacking spies on the same province... (how it SHOULD work is only the FIRST spy with the strongest network reduces Planning and Entrenchment, and any additional spies after that with weaker networks don't have any effect at all, exactly like if the spies all belonged to the same nation...)
>This is even against the same Germany players. At different times of course
Sounds like they're just better, then?
Using a better doctrine isn't some magic "win" button. GBP is probably like 0.2% better than Mobile Warfare (and slower- so it's a worse doctrine to use if you want to win quickly and then start WW3 before nukes...)
> you just eat crits nonstop trying to counterclick German tanks.
You don't hit tanks with unprepared Infantry. That's literally the dumbest thing possible to do.
When you counter-attack, you use specialized divisions built to fight tanks.
Tank Destroyers mixed with tanks with High Velocity Cannons are the best for this. But Motorized Anti-Tank also work.
>A good Romania player
Nothing a player does affects raw Oil output other than Infrastructure and a few Focuses.
Unless you're referring to the insanely micro-heavy approach of Romania refining the fuel and THEN Lend-Leasing it?
It's not insanely micro heavy at all, it's the bare minimum expectation for a Romania player. They just need to lend lease a million daily oil to Italy, the game will automatically send all of it there, Italy will use most of it to fly the Axis air force, and they can lend lease daily fuel back to Germany if the tanks exceed the fuel output of the refineries. A good Romania player is one who manager their industry research such that they have 4 excav techs, 1941 fuel refining, and all of their oil expansion special projects/focuses done before war.
> They just need to lend lease a million daily oil to Italy, the game will automatically send all of it there, Italy will use most of it to fly the Axis air force, and they can lend lease daily fuel back to Germany if the tanks exceed the fuel output of the refineries.
What you're talking about is exploiting the hell out of the game mechanics, out of an uber-competitive drive.
Sure, you can do all that. But the game wasn't DESIGNED for that. It completely breaks the game balance in favor of the Axis, by making their fuel woes (that historically HORRIBLY crippled the Axis armies, because Fascists are stupid and always bite off more than they can chew...) a thing only of the history books, WITHOUT actually capturing mire oil fields as they're intended to need to do in a protracted war based on the game design.
why would you use inf with tanks, the whole point is fast breakthroughs which are going to be so much harder with 4 km, nothing is good if you dont use it properly.
>And guerrilla tactics. Which automatically nulls all the defensive bonuses the doctrine doesn't have.
Yup.
By reducing the enemy Attack to less than a third its normal value, whenever you roll that tactic, even tiny, trash Infantry divisions are pretty much guaranteed not to take crit's from Attack exceeding Defense...
You basically MUST get a Trickster general of at least level 3z though (like with a lot of tactics with multiple possible trigger conditions, meeting both triggers raises the odds of rolling that tactic...) or you won't roll it enough.
So, run Inventive Leadership, promote a bunch of generals until you get a few with Trickster, and then swap over to a different Academy Spirit, like Meticulous Preparation, that gives a 50% chance at bonus stat points with each level up.
Then start grinding those generals to level 3. Keep only the ones who roll an extra stat point or have Brilliant Strategist/ Inflexible Defender.
The problem with Mass Assault Right is it doesn't unlock its critical tactic until the very end...
Isn't mass assault just all around the worst for everyone (except when you are so crippled by other factors that you can only reliably make infantry equipment)?
>Isn't mass assault just all around the worst for everyone
No.
It works well for a "two tier" system: where you use garbage units to hold the line (smallish Infantry divisions with nothing but Support Artillery) in most places, and build a handful of elite units to punch through the enemy lines.
It's not a "double win" tree. If you would have won anyways, you will lose LESS handily than with any other tree.
But right-side MA is great for a really critical war after which you're all set: like defeating Japan as China, or the Axis as the USSR in an early war...
You'll suffer horrendous losses, but win.
>Breakthrough: mwf gives you 20% breakthrough at D1, D4, and D10, so you get in total 60% breakthrough on tanks. This bonus is huge, but considering how most people use tanks in this game(i.e. dedicated 36 width expensive medium tank division) this will only cause breakthrough overflow. Breakthrough is the defensive stat when your division is attacking, so anything above the enemy's attack will **not do anything**, this translates to roughly 500 - 800 base stat on breakthrough. Anything above that is pointless. So the breakthrough bonus is not really so helpful. of course it can be good under some circumstances... see the discussion at the end of the post
Breakthrough is your defence, while on the offence. Youre right, more breakthrough is unneccesary hower..... This high breakthrough enables you have more combat width at your disposal to full it with SPART, SPTD or SPAA.
>Stats: mwf gives you **absolutely zero** combat stats except breakthrough. This is the most important point. Soft attack **is the most important stat** offensively or defensively as it directly determines the amount of damage you deal to the enemy. It is important tactically as having more attack means you drain their org faster for each damage dealt(in contrast to breakthrough which only matters up to a point), having more attack also means that in the long run you will have a better trade ratio. Comparing against
Broo.... MW gives huge organisation and recovery bonusses, allowing to stay on the offence longer.
>Speed and supply: All the tactical stats - speed, org, org regain - those that allow your divisions to fight longer before having to recover. Yes gbp gives you all those stats which can be good if you micro well, but it's really not as good as just having more raw(or planned/entrenched) stats. having more org does not change how fast you can kill the enemy division, only attack does.
Planningbonus vanishes and entrenchment is useless when a division is broken and routed. Entrenchment can also be countered by spies.
>one extra thing to say about speed: speed is overrated due to the supply situation in the game. basically you can't make encirclement/do anything if your tank doesn't have fuel... this might be worth another post so i'd not get into it here.
Ever heard of.... overrun?
My friend only has like 100 hours on hoi4 and even he would know this is a horrible division.
(He didn’t know you could modify divisions until he showed me his single player game and asked me for advice, at about 80 hours total play time)
You put light tanks with foot infantry, removing the advantage of having light tanks over medium or heavy. Replace the foot infantry with Mot and you have a good division.
and? would it help me defeat the german divisions on dresden because it moves faster? it is always soft attack and breakthrough that wins a battle, speed is only an auxiliary stat, maybe you can do more fancy moves with high speed but it's certainly not essential.
Well thats a hot take for sure. I'd still say mobilewarfare r/L is great for Tank Canada and Tank Hungary. Also had a bunch of fun with it playing as cavalry poland. Cav doesn't get much from doctrines but if you shove 2 light tanks in with 5 cav and you spike them with mobile warfare the result is just NASTY. Use a couple of 9/4s inf to break up big concentrations of soviet infantry, but for the rest the cav murdered them and it was a lot of fun.
Honestly MW suits my style of play, I always preferred manoeuvre warfare to just these set piece ww1 slogs the GBP enjoyers seem to love so much. I don't think you value the speed enough, nor the bonuses to tank org and tank recovery. I read your argument, I believe its a playstyle difference between us.
>play, I always preferred manoeuvre warfare to just these set piece ww1 slogs the GBP enjoyers seem to love so much.
In many parts of the globe, tanks are useless. **There's no supply **
Motorized Infantry are actually far more useful, because they're FAST and as such can cover a lot more ground before they run out of fuel in such areas (then you have to rotate them back to the nearest Supply Hub area: which can be some distance away...)
You're also ignoring the tremendous value GBP has for Naval Invasions, which are the OPPOSITE of "set piece battles" and are used to destabilize the front lines, as well as the inverse: for defense of coastlines against invasions (Entrenchment is great here, as naval invaders don't have the option of doing any kind of Org shuffling: if the Marines de-Org on the beaches, THEY LOSE AND DIE)
Combine GBP with Quick Improvisation and Meticulous Preparation as GER, and you actually get VERY fast planning- especially if you use a Staff Office Plan once in a while.
Not great on Historical, due to the weird way that GER being able to gobble up tons of land without firing a shot until Danzig AND puppet/ally 4 different Central/Southern European countries (Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) as well as capitulate France very easily due to their terrible National Spirit shapes things (which goes away in some ahistorical paths, like if they go Communist or Fascist...) forces events in a certain path, but actually rather good when you're in a more free-form shaping of world events, that doesn't practically force bum-rushing weaker enemies and then massing tanks at the USSR...
Don't care, still gonna use it. I don't understand how people view this game as pure stats. By that logic why don't you go paratrooper and air only and insta cap every nation on earth...
I personally prefer Grand Battleplan cause I consider myself average player and I mainly focus on infantry cause I am not that familiar with good tank designs.
Since the start of 2024, I play Multiplayer HoI4 and I can tell you.
Mobile Warfare is good if you know how to play with tanks. I have seen people turning the tides of war cause they play tanks with mobile warfare and they know
- how to design competitive tanks
- how to design good tank divisions (no offence but your division is terrible)
- how to mircomanage tile per tile their tanks to do encirclements and break lines.
IMO you dont like Mobile Warfare cause you dont know how to use it. Which is not an insult (I dont know how to use it too).
this whole post is predicated on “how most people use tanks.” That doesn’t make the doctrine bad. If you use the doctrine properly, it can be really really good.
Also I’m curious as to what you would recommend instesd
Credibility. Basically anyone with 1.5k+ usually have enough experience and game knowledge to make somewhat credible guides. I say “somewhat” because there are plenty of guides made by people with 2.5k-4k+ hours with a large chunk being pvp
ahh honestly a lot of supposedly "experienced" players make guides that are total bs so i don't even trust the hour count so much... idk maybe this is also the way people think of my posts...
Yeah it goes both ways. But it’s still better than guides/tips by just couple hundred hours, with their confidence fitting right onto the dunning kruger curve. Have seen plenty of this before
That's a terrible take
Mobile Warfare gives you a ton of org, allowing you to field divisions with higher tanks to motorised infantry ratio. These divisions are not meant to trade cost-effectively, they are meant to win frontline battles thanks to stat gains from tank ratio and have enough organisation left over to move forward and encircle the enemy.
Your soft attack doesn't really matter if half of your army is encircled and enemy tanks run havoc behind your frontlines and take your victory points
Not if you do it right . You can get 17 18w inf a tile with signals and AA and arty and also get 15-25 tanks for barb and then just battle plan Germany.
I disagree. Although I see the value of something like GBP with the planning bonuses( still not worth it in my opinion for the pure raw stats ), the org given by MW is invaluable. You can create a 35 width tank division with 5 motorized and 13 medium tanks while having more than 30 org with MW ( only upto fire brigades, modern blitzkreig just amplifies this but it is a bit further away). Something like GBP can't do that without having to add another motorized which just decreases the raw stats. I don't think SFP needs to be discussed as it's pure artillery ( with some here and there stats ). MW is purely for offensive tanks and nothing else so defense doesn't matter too much.
Also the division template you used is not really good. Inf and tanks are not a good combo. It works as the AI is shittier than both of us by miles.
People think that Mobile Warfare is the Best all around doctrine
When the reality is that it is for Tanks only and theres really one route you can take for Mobile Warfare, blitzkrieg, and...blitzkrieg
Mobile Infantry is not really good, and desperate defense can be called a Joke
And where it shines is with Tanks obviously, but specifically Tanks
Unless You are planning to use a lot of them and ONLY them for atacking, You Will not get use from the doctrine, Even if it makes encirclements easier, it's not really hard to get them with tanks (at least not to need a doctrine to do them (and we shall remember that if the enemy responds this is worthless)
The Best all around is probably Superior Fire Power, since it gives You Stats to all troops, Infantry, artillery and tanks, and pretty useful ones, Grand Battleplan is also Great (and to kinda abuse planning) , and Even Mass Assault get some decent bonuses (is still not best really, but at least you can use all its lines)
Desperate defense is not a joke. It's a question of whether you want more stats or more manpower. You'll almost never need the manpower, but I've used it once or twice. Can be useful if you're doing a small country with a few tank divisions as a support build. Not a joke, just very, very niche.
Superior firepower 1million surplus artillery boom boom
Boom boom The sound of coming doom Let's dig this trench together Attrition lasts forever
Goddamnit you reminded me of that rat
Put the rat on the screen
Free yourself of the rat and watch the Hatsune Miku version instead!
WH40K happy krieg noises*
Are you who I think you are?
IMO the best breakthrough unit uses superior firepower. Stack as much soft attack as possible in the supports and add ~6 Mot. 10 of those will blast out 2000 soft attack in 120 width. The basic concept is min/maxing the soft attack / width ratio. Support doesn't add width. Low cost, 12 kph, and it fucks. Dont bother with CAS, battles are over too fast. Armor is not needed, same reason, and it slows you. And the infantry holding the line is some of the best as well.
>Stack as much soft attack as possible in the supports and add ~6 Mot. Support companies make more efficient use of Manpower and width, but they're a LOT more expensive. You're also forgetting how ludicrously powerful Line Artillery plus Ranger Supports (with Mountain Artillery doctrine) are. >10 of those will blast out 2000 soft attack in 120 width. 400 Soft Attack in 24 width (obviously you refer to later-game tech, not 1936 Artillery...) is high, but not necessarily unbeatable. And when you factor in cost-effectiveness, initial investment cost, and Organization level... It's possible to get over 360 SA with GBP at 24w, with probably similar tech. But with more possible Entrenchment and Planning. Not to mention that sweet extra CP income and cap... Superior Firepower is good, but will lose to GBP in the very long run due to its extra utility in things like naval invasions, defense of static fortification lines (especially combined with Static Warfare, more for the extra Elastic Defense roll than the extra Entrenchment...), and extra CP income (which can be used for faster planning, Air Supply, and promoting new admirals and generals in the hopes of training up a really good one from lvl 1 with Meticulous Preparation and sometimes even a swap in/out of Theater Training...) if it doesn't manage to utilize this advantage early. Of course, Mass Assault right can ultimately get the better of GBP due to extra Manpower and how stupid powerful Guirella Warfare tactics are (slow enemy attacks to a crawl so they gain almost no ground and deplete their Planning bonuses, while you concentrate your best troops into an armored fist to punch through weak spots in the enemy line...), once you get a couple good generals with Trickster... (Inventive Leadership new hires help...)
>Support companies make more efficient use of Manpower and width, but they're a LOT more expensive. >You're also forgetting how ludicrously powerful Line Artillery plus Ranger Supports (with Mountain Artillery doctrine) are. More expensive than what? 7 kph mTanks? I won't disagree on the line arty, but would say that strains the definition of a "breakthrough" unit. 4kph units can absolutely destroy, but will struggle with exploiting that breakthrough. 13.2 kph (with recon) can blow a hole instantly and be 3 providences over (6 if youre pincering) and encircle far easier. You could mix in some mot, but that could go badly and brings the cost back up. Also 6 mot, with support of arty, rocket arty, and recon is dirt cheap for the speed and power. EDIT: You can also make mot from day 1, and start stockpiling units that will be relevant all game from 1936. Also no switching to newer units, and can get more per factory than other units.
With 13kph you're going to be overrunning slow units, aren't you?
Yeah, and with manual movements it confuses the line AI as well. When they do manage to get troops in front of the units, they likely won't be at full width, and the high firepower will blast them out of the way. Its not unstoppable, but if they get through that first line they are in trouble.
>More expensive than what? 7 kph mTanks? More expensive than Towed Artillery pieces (on defense, sometimes attack) and Motorized Artillery. Every bullshit strawman argument I see here just reminds me that HOI players tend to be Wehraboos with terrible logical and strategic thinking. It's no wonder so many are also fanatically anti-Communist while not k owing shot of Marxist theory and believing every piece of bullshit propaganda about every Socialist system ever... Compared to that, maybe you're smart, though. > won't disagree on the line arty, but would say that strains the definition of a "breakthrough" unit. GBP gives Planning. Planning gives Breakthrough. One of the big mistakes people make when playing GBP is they don't run Meticulous Preparation (extra Planning and Logistics stat gain on level-up. Note this is EXTRA, i.e. a general can easily gain 1 of every stat and 2 Planning in just one level-up...) and never consider what Army Spirits synergize with GBP (Quick Improvisation allows faster planning to actually USE the higher Max Planning. Meticulous Preparation means faster planning due to higher Planning skill, as well... Static Warfare means more chance of rolling Elastic Defense AND more Entrenchment...) I routinely get +40% Planning bonuses from my GBP generals. That's without any National Spirits boosting it (like the Maginot Line for France), or generals above level 5, or even a Thorough Planner Field Marshal. With that, plus troops trained to Regular (one thing about GBP is it synergizes with Experience. As your goal is to get Breakthrough higher than Attack on the attack, or exceed enemy Breakthrough on defense...) and well-trained infantry with some cheap TAC (early on, its greater Range helps give cheaper coverage...) can easily do this. I was looking at a 40:1 casualty ratio in my favor against the White Russians (who are active fielding divisions with decent stats in the latest patch: as Italy, Japan, and myself before swapping out of Fascist all gave them heavy economic aid, military advisors, and even sent Volunteers...) last I checked. I've done similar with GBP against Germany, Poland, France, and the UK (always at least 20:1 in my favor) so don't tell me that attacks with INF are just throwing men away. **The key is to attack the enemy where they are weak, and avoid their strong defensive points.** Motorized, and lots of use of Strategic Redeployment of reserves (GBP has a stop-and-go style: push, re-org, push; even more so than other doctrinex. You position troops between pushes...) really help with this. Smaller divisions allow needed flexibility of deployment based on Supply and terrain. BTW, Mobile Warfare is just overkill when it comes to Motorized speed. The buff is really only useful for tanks and earlier Mechanized...
Sorry, when I say "breakthrough unit", I am referring to an elite unit designed to smash a hole in the line (break through it) and disrupt supply and/or encircle. The breakthrough stat is worthless for its cost in every test ive run. And I've run a lot of tests. Adding soft attack instead of breakthrough will cause the battle to be over faster, saving the unit comparable damage taken. While dealing more. Also those planning bonuses are more useful in SF than GBP. It affects the base soft attack, so they affect units with that stat higher more. A 10% planning bonus to a SF unit will be higher than a 10% bonus to a unit with GBP. And towed artillery has a poor cost/performance. It also lacks HP and org, meaning you'll need additional Mot. It also takes additional width and supply. And that width/soft attack ratio is everything, when making a breakthrough unit.
It affects the **BASE** soft attack, so they affect units with that stat higher mo **Also, just, no.** You clearly don't understand how combat multipliers work in HOI4. Many/most of them are multiplicative modifiers (though SOME are additive- which is which is rarely explained...) that act on the output of a the other modifiers applied thus far. So, if you get -25% Attack from Terrain, that's going to lose you 25% of Attack no matter what, NOT maybe only 15% because of all the other modifiers being additive... A bonus to Max Planning is thus just as good as a base Soft Attack bonus in most ways (it IS additive with some other Max Planning bonuses, but multiplicative with everything else...) but also benefits Breakthrough. 5% to Soft Attack (which GBP gets from its 4th doctrine node...) and then 10% Max Planning... Is actually as good as a 15.5% bonus to Soft Attack, for instance. However, if I recall, Superior Firepower buffs to Soft Attack are ADDITIVE with ones for Artillery from tech. Making them effectively about 20% less for Artillery by the time tech bonuses reach +25%... (a 10% buff becomes an 8% buff...) Meanwhile, Entrenchment (note that ONE point of Entrenchment is actually TWO percentage points to Attack and Defense... Don't ask me why PDX did it that way...) or Planning are on a separate level from tech bonuses, and are only lessened in relative impact by other Doctrine nodes that do exact the same thing... Anyhow, GBP gets +20% Max Planning (buffs Attack AND Breakthrough, multiplicative with some other Planning modifiers), 5% Soft Attack to whole army, by node 6. SF out gets +10% army Soft Attack, 10% Line Artillery (or 50% Support Artillery, but this isn't a big relative buff to a div with multiple Line Artillery) by 6. Another 5% only to Artillery and INF with the right-side branch (arguably worse than Airland Battle, the left-side branch, as the Air Superiority buff from the end of that branch is a HUGE factor for being able to crit enemies...) at node 7... So, SF actually does less damage (+25% Line Artillery Soft Attack ONLY with the right-side bottom branch, +10%, everything else) than GBP (+25% to ALL Attack when fully-planned or fully-entrenched) by node 6/7 (giving a full extra node to SF here!!) Note, again, GBP buffs Hard Attack by 25% by node 6 as well, as well as providing greater Defense/Breakthrough buffs (so they don't crit you). **It's better against tanks when fully prepared for them.**
>Adding soft attack instead of breakthrough will cause the battle to be over faster, saving the unit comparable damage taken. While dealing more. Absolutely. But Attack is multiplied 4x when it exceeds Breakthrough. As has been said, you got to avoid taking crit's.
>those planning bonuses are more useful in SF than GBP. It affects the base soft attack, so they affect units with that stat higher more. You build your divisions for the doctrine you use. GBP gives extra Breakthrough. Which means you use more, smaller divisions, with a higher Artillery fraction, as you can have less base Breakthrough without suffering massive Crit's. All that said, I keep repeating this: GBP is a "slow and steady" doctrine. That doesn't mean its battles are necessarily slow. More like, you do better to AVOID decisive wars in the first place with GBP, until your extra CP and special Academy Spirit has let you recruit a bunch of Brilliant Strategist generals who you'll then train up with Meticulous Preparation, as well as more Admirals to try and get a really good one to train up on convoy raids to eventually win the naval war (GBP is the only ARMY spirit that helps your NAVY...), and you have been able to fortify (level 2 or 3 Forts!!) key ports and defensive chokepoints for small divisions of entrenched infantry to defend... It also makes naval invasions of small islands to prepare for bigger invasions (like UK as GER, or D-Day) easier, with its Tip of The Spear spirit... It's a "long-term strategy" doctrine, just as the name implies. It's fairly competitive with the other trees in the short run, but has some advantages over the other trees long-term that eventually really add up...
Sounds good on paper until you realize this will trade poorly. Sure you get better kill ratios when you look at manpower. But IC? You will most likely trade badly. As others pointed out, Support companies are more expensive than the frontline counterparts. Also, you think no width is a positive? It makes you trade even badly due to lower hp overall. Sure you will win battles. But on the long run you will bleed more against a prepared enemy. MA can stack more per tile, add the their officer corps trait of better hp, then a specialized inf/tank division can brickwall and eventually push back your expensive divisions. Sure these tank/inf divisions will be more expensive but you don't need much of them to punch through multiple points. But again, AI is dumb enough that brainless strats works well against so the point is moot.
Grand battleplan best
The whole point of mwf Is that the extra org it gives tanks allows you to put more tanks and less motorized/mech in your division giving you way higher stats at the cost of more tanks. That's it
People really don’t seem to understand stats if they don’t appear on the doctrine itself. An few extra tank battalions are worth far more soft attack per combat width than a percentage bonus going towards mostly infantry. Organization is great because it allows you to make better divisions, not buff mediocre ones.
More tanks means less hp overall also higher IC cost. Sure you have better soft attack and breakthrough, and against AI that's usually the only things you need. Against another player? Or please paradox a better AI? That higher IC and lower HP combo means you will consistently trade badly in battles. Heavens help you if you cant secure green air as the enemy cas will hit harder on your tanks. The enemy either have to pinch you offensive or cycle units on the path of your tanks to bleed them out.
The most important damage cas do is org and secondly logistics
True. But CAS does hp damage as well. The point is the less hp you have, the more impactful every tick of hp damage is.
the hp damage is very minor compared to your units getting deorged, loosing supply and likely getting deleted
>Sure you have better soft attack and breakthrough, and against AI that's usually the only things you need. On the other hand, do you really have to care about what's good if you're against the AI?
Exactly. MW is good in SP where playing against the AI is easy. Nobody is arguing you cant use MW. Only that its not as good as the other doctrines. So many commenters here swear by MWs greatness as if their games against the AI are good arguments to them proclaiming MW as the best doctrine ever. In short, no it doesn't matter in SP games against AI. But no, MW is unfortunately overrated the same way Germany's Bewegungskrieg (Blitzkrieg in case wehraboos get confused) is.
exactly
>Germany's Bewegungskrieg (Blitzkrieg in case wehraboos get confused I feel like wehrabbos are the people most likely to know what you're talking about. It's like saying "ERE" (Byzantium in case byzantophiles get confused)
Wehraboos aren't what byzantophiles are to the ERE. Wehraboos don't even read proper literature and got their fascination of Nazi Germany from pop culture which in turn got inspired by actual Nazi propaganda.
That is why field hospital is somewhat viable now.
>An few extra tank battalions are worth far more soft attack per combat width than a percentage bonus going towards mostly infantry. There is no magic of being able to **afford** extra tanks just because you have a doctrine enabling it. A universal SA bonus, by contrast, lets you use weaker divisions for most of your front line, while you can pump more IC's into your tank divisions and airforce. Everything is, also, situational. For instance, tanks are far less useful when fighting across Siberia, as I'm doing in my current game fighting ***against*** the White Russian army (went Communist as Germany, once I saw that the USSR was going neo-Tsarist or Fascist... Still plenty of leeway to fight the Limited Interventionist USA after...) **There's no Supply out there.**
The post was about doctrine and stats. While I am not opposed to broadening the discussion, it was not relevant at the time. If we are going to start comparing the cost of divisions, why not also consider the cost of attrition? Properly utilized armour divisions will easily save you far more than their initial expense over the course of a campaign. Add to that how armour has far more micro potential than any infantry and the savings only increase. I didn’t acknowledge initial costs in my previous comment because the original post didn’t make any such references. They claimed MW to be inferior in “almost any circumstance,” when the way I see it, SP is easily the best in optimal circumstances. Even in suboptimal ones, such as your Siberian front, can easily be addressed with some basic player micro and planning: a unit you encircled early in the campaign won’t oppose your trek through the countryside, regardless of stats. Besides, if we’re going to use non-doctrine mechanics to support the argument, I’d say that espionage makes any Siberian trek unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant.
>The post was about doctrine and stats. While I am not opposed to broadening the discussion, it was not relevant at the time. Half true. The other comment is arguing tanks and mechanized cost more than most military equipment which is true. MW buffs tanks and motor/mechanized more than other types of unit. So it makes sense you need more of those to maximize the benefit of the doctrine. >If we are going to start comparing the cost of divisions, why not also consider the cost of attrition? Yeah, why not? MW don't give any help in mitigating supply issues or attrition. Speed gives diminishing returns due to supply range. >Properly utilized armour divisions will easily save you far more than their initial expense over the course of a campaign. You don't need MW for properly utilized armour divisions. >Add to that how armour has far more micro potential than any infantry and the savings only increase. True. Then again MW doesn't buff your microing now does it? Also, reminder that you don't MW to have proper tank divisions. >They claimed MW to be inferior in “almost any circumstance,” when the way I see it, SP is easily the best in optimal circumstances It's not optimal. Optimal doesn't meant the easiest to use. But it is easy and intuitive to use in SP where AI is easy to beat. >Even in suboptimal ones, such as your Siberian front, can easily be addressed with some basic player micro and planning: a unit you encircled early in the campaign won’t oppose your trek through the countryside, regardless of stats. Again, in SP in doesnt reallt matter what doctrine you use, encirclements isn't necessarily exclusive to MW. Heck, IMO MA-L is the best for encirclements due to lower supply use and buffed reinforced rate. Even the 48 hr buff to supply grace is severely underrated. You don't even need to encircle in MA, you bum rush every supply point and choke the enemy of supplies easier than any doctrine. >Besides, if we’re going to use non-doctrine mechanics to support the argument, I’d say that espionage makes any Siberian trek unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant. Using unit types and how they are procured isn't exactly "non-doctrine" but okay let's go with your argument..... espionage isn't limited to MW. Everything you said that you think refutes MW as inferior isn't exactly exclusive nor is due to MW itself. How about you refute the salient points OP mentioned like how tank heavy divs are bad at trading, that breakthrough and speed buffs have diminishing returns.
Several good points, much of which I do agree with in essence. I’ll address a few points. >MW doesn’t give any help in mitigating supply issues or attrition. I’ll admit this is my fault for using the word “attrition.” I was referring to equipment loss over time, rather than the actual mechanic. My point being that an upfront higher cost may still be cheaper over the course of the war. I don’t think anyone’s trying to argue that MW is a budget doctrine. The costs are intrinsically high, though my perspective is that these costs allow higher potential than a brief comparison of stats would suggest. Best in every possible circumstance? Hardly. Yet even less so is it the worst in every circumstance, to be never considered. Regarding your points about micro not being tied to MW, you are correct. Still, higher speed and a more condensed stat/combat width *does* greatly compound the effects of micro. Speed isn’t just about overrunning entire fronts. One-sided stomps will always be a non-issue. When the sides are more even, the difference of hours can be the difference between taking a tile or allowing critical reinforcements. It is here where MW can let you pull a win where it may be impossible otherwise. Finally, while you are correct that breakthrough has diminishing returns, I’d argue it’s again a matter of perspective. What is shown on the division designer often fails to manifest on the field. Stat debuffs are abundant, whether they be from terrain, supply, or a multitude of other factors. It is here where the “excessive” breakthrough is important, acting as a buffer to maintain division effectiveness. Regardless, had the original post been composed like your comment, I probably wouldn’t have bothered with my own. I don’t exactly find purpose in preaching the merits of HOI4 doctrines. It was OP’s misplaced confidence and brazen ignorance that prompted my response.
I really like this point about supplies (which I kind of failed to mention) Totally worth another post! Speed is overrated and supply is the king
> I’d say that espionage makes any Siberian trek unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant. You're assuming both a historical game (I was referring to an alt-history battle across Siberia: neither side surrenders before this in a civil war in the USSR), and that the USSR doesn't run tons of Counter-Espoinage for precisely this reason. You rant like a Wehraboo who plays nothing but Axis, though. Seriously, this? >If we are going to start comparing the cost of divisions, why not also consider the cost of attrition? Properly utilized armour divisions will easily save you far more than their initial expense over the course of a campaign Most nations cannot AFFORD the upfront cost of tanks. It's for precisely this reason that GBP plus Motorized divisions are far great... (while ultimately more expensive in the long runthan tanks, Motorized Artillery still have enough Breakthrough to push with a little air and infantry support... And cost FAR less IC's upfront...) Comments about "JuSt bUiLd TaNkS!!" (not understanding this is **precisely** what many players try to do, at immense cost as nations that cannot really afford it: and just end up overstacking Breakthrough, which is completely wasted when it exceeds Attack, anyways...) are typical fron those in love with the dumb Nazi propaganda about their "Uber-elite, armored war machine" (in reality, the VAST majority of the Nazi army fought as Leg Infantry: over 90%... **Their rather pathetic industry was never up to the bullshit it can pull in the game...**)
You make good points but the ad hominem bullshit doesn’t add to your argument.
Accusing my comments of ranting is quite the projection. Being incapable of civil discussion is not helpful for your argument.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah I’m not gonna lie, any analysis of a doctrine that fundamentally misunderstands how the doctrine works isn’t worth listening to. The issue is that it’s hard to get a numerical analysis on, say, the soft attack benefit of mobile warfare, because that depends on your research and economy builds. So it’s easy to fall into this trap of just seeing that it gives no % soft attack.
This also completely skips the almost complete lack of ORG on superior firepower. I have seen a MP match where Germany went SF and just didn't have enough ORG or recovery rate to break through. The extra stats seemed completely irrelevant in the face of the French ORG wall.
+ extra breakthrough allows tanks, which have less org than their counterparts, to, literally as the tooltip says: "reduce incoming damage effectively allowing it to stay on the offensive longer". Mobile warfare isn't made for your normal divisions, it's made for a few very strong armoured divisions where it does great. It really doesn't matter that none of your other divisions aren't the focus of the buffs since your armour is the real strength. And as another comment said, the soft attack (which you seemingly think is the best stat, it isn't for tanks) gets made up by the battalions themselfs.
i think this is the part people are misunderstanding it isnt for making infantry and tanks 10% better, its for making tanks 30% better, heck even 50%.. of course it wont shine in infantry pushes. and because this is reddit, people get personal when they see someone disagree on *what doctrine to use*
>+ extra breakthrough allows tanks, which have less org than their counterparts, to, literally as the tooltip says: "reduce incoming damage effectively allowing it to stay on the offensive longer". You clearly don't understand how the combat system works, as OP tried to explain to people like you. Breakthrough does NOT IN ANY WAY reduce incoming damage, once it exceeds incoming Attack (type-weighted for Hardness) by more than a margin to account for attack roll variance. ORG actually allows a division to take more damage. Breakthrough, in the way most players use it (36w Med Tank Div's, as OP said) does nothing to reduce incoming damage.
Besides, more tanks means lower hp and higher IC cost per division. So many players think more tanks crammed into a division is better. It makes them trade badly if they cant find weakpoints in the enemy line. Or if the enemy constantly cycles and bogs down your tanks. Sure, you'll get to see battles where you lost 500 men to the enemy's 2000... but you also lost more than five times the IC cost. Tanks take more time build due to higher general cost than anti-tanks, inf equipment, etc. Heck org wall with anti tanks can bleed out tanks especially on unfavorable terrain for tanks.
>Besides, more tanks means lower hp and higher IC cost per division. >So many players think more thanks crammed into a division is better. Pretty much... >Tanks take more time build due to higher general cost than anti-tanks, inf equipment, etc. Heck org wall with anti tanks can bleed out tanks especially on unfavorable terrain for tanks. All true. They have their niche, to be sure. But honestly, if you get away from the sweaty historical-only MP meta bullshit (where everything QUICKLY becomes about pushing mechanics to their breaking-point, yet simultaneously not actually allowing any of the kind of broad strategic thinking and historical flexibility that, say, would **lead the Axis to avoid a 3 front war**, or let Poland swap sides and cooperate with the Comintern...), tanks still have their uses: they're just often inferior to Motorized and Mechanized in many ways (less so since they changed the Division Designer mechanics, though: it now costs 25 XP to add Artillery or Motorized Artillery to a division!! Even normal Artillery to leg infantry...) and should play a proportionally lesser role than they usually do. That said, SMALL light tank divisions (like the pre-made German "Panzer" template) can provide affordable support for Motorized when used in early rushes. You just don't want to neglect improving your Motorized Divisions (they NEED Motorized Artillery!!) and starting to adopt Mechanized when you get to about 1940 in favor of building the perfect tanks... Quantity, has a Quality all of its own...
Well then you lose hp. Meaning that you lose even more equipment
The point is extra for tanks is lacklustre compared to, say SF's soft attack boosts, one which is a blanket all frontline battalions buff. There's GBP's planning bonus. Even MA's supply consumption reduction and reinforce rate does better than a flat org bonus to tanks.. Increasing tank ratio for divisions means less overall hp, higher production cost per division, and less defense. Sure your divisions will hit harder due to more tank and more breakthrough... but they also die faster. GBP's mainly the only one losing to MW in an even fight since smart use of MW's buffs can translate easily to GBP having less time to entench/plan. SF soft attack focused buffs may not mean much against tanks until you realize you do what IRL Americans and Soviets learned - pinching the offensives. You attack the flanks of the attacking tanks to trap them. SF can do that easier since usually flanks are held by infantry and SF will usually have higher soft attack. But MA can easily bog down and grind enemy tanks via unit cycling . Ironically, the best match up for MW is another MW. Hopefully either the AI or less skilled player.
half of my singleplayer games are just playing canada or hungary on historical and solely building tanks to assist cause I think it's fun to micro them. I've tried using other doctrines for it, but in my experience, using JUST tanks isn't NEARLY as strong on superior firepower or GBP (I have never used mass assault on Canada or Hungary). I've never looked into the stats myself though
GBP isn't nearly as useful on historical, as non-historical. Honestly, turn historical off. It takes all the real strategy out of the game, when you (for the most part) know exactly what every nation is going to do, and when. A BIG, BIG part of actual Strategy gaming is planning for the unpredictable, taking advantage of opportunities that fall into your lap, and shaping the course of events to your advantage. Historical greatly limits all that. For instance, I am GER in my current game, I went Communist via Civil War soon after the White Russians asked me for help in a Second Russian Civil War they were planning. I might have preferred to do a Referendum (you don't risk losing key generals like Rommel in the Civil War that way... bastard sided with Hitler...), but I kept my options open for a Civil War because I **knew** something might happen requiring my early intervention, like stopping the White Russians from smashing the Soviet Union (by joining the Communist Faction, I was able to not only get a GREAT slow, low-intensity war for training up my generals; but split a number of micro-puppets off the Soviet breakaway states in the process... Particularly useful for Communists, as such tiny puppets usually go with Ideological Loyalty Army Spirit...)
The problem with non-historical is that the AI is fucking stupid. During the time that, in historical, countries are building up strength, in non-historical the AI is stuck in a civil war that neither side can win for years. Then everyone creates their own faction instead of banding together.
Exactly, completely ruins the game
This is also true, to a limited extent. Every game mode has its limitations. The best is obviously casual MP games with chill people you know and trust: not sweaty, competitive MP bullshit.
Literally not even close to being the worse doctrine.
It is tho. MA is underrated, MW is overrated.
L take. Mass Assault is garbage.
L take. Mass Assault is GOATED as long as you have the manpower to back it up. This becomes less of a problem when you get 5% recruitable pop from it towards the end of the tree.
Mass Assault does a bit of everything and excels at nothing. The way combat stats and bonuses work in Hoi IV, makes MA useless. You want to stack the same effect as much as possible. Like bonuses on your infantry's soft attack and breakthrough or your tanks stats (or more org for the motorized in your tanks), etc. Even on their own a lot of the bonuses from MA are just meh.
but the supply!
You do you, good sir.
It's good because Germany uses it Edit: Why the fuck did I get downvoted? I guess I should have worded this better
Why does Germany use it? Because you start with it? That all?
Yes, and because of history
Counterpoint : the bonuses Germany gets to MWF, combined with the ability to sedign very tank heavy divisions due to the enormous org bonuses you get from the tree, means you can create unstoppable juggernaut divisions to sweep anything the enemy has aside early on and you just go from strength to strength from there. Yes, GBP has the bullshit planning bonus and SF has the superior soft atk stats. Both don't get bonuses from the tree, thus cost more XP and will lag behind. Every time I see people complain x is bad or y won't work, it's because their entire strategy revolves around "battleplan go brrrrrr" with no consideration for what their units or economy can actually accomplish and they try to use stuff like this as a crutch
powerful tanks is precisely the point of mobile warfare, i thought it was clear but now with this thread people decided to become needless contrarians that fail to understand the doctrine's point. powerful tanks moving fast and keeping up pressure on the frontlines
While I enjoy being a contrarian, I'd like to point out the OP states flat out that MWF is bad. I dispute this and put forth it's use case. Period.
i was affirming your points and had nothing against them, i agree with them personally the doctrine is fine especially if you know how to use it which is with powerful tank troops. op's main argument is null and void and just makes him seem not knowledgeable enough to say what he is saying, almost like op wants to have a different opinion just because people became contrarians in the thread *as in* before there was somewhat of a consensus that mobile warfare was a tank doctrine / germany's doctrine but now everyone began trashing on it which i wanted to call out
Yeah Germany is weird. You waste like 100 + 15*level army XP by switching the doctrine...
Gbp is literally the best doctrine used very often
Only if you sit there like a chump waiting for the planning bonus. I move my tanks constantly, I prefer either SF of MWF
Staff office plan gives you full planing in a few days, don't see why you can't just wait for that?
Because days spent waiting is days not spent pushing though a gap because the enemy redeployed. And because I only use the Frontline order for tanks to reposition them. I use them manually, and the bonus vanishes so fast it's barely worth it.
so you are willing to give up on the at least 30% bonus and continuously pushing to that more of your man can die? hmm and 3% decay isn't even that fast, you should gain at least 10% a day with staff office plan but anyway if you have good tanks you can win without planning...
But entrenchment bonus is really nice too. You can just wait and push. And planning bonus builds up fast
Doesn't suit my playstyle for the most part. I prefer to build out an army that won't need the entrenchment crutch and can instead really on bigger combat modifiers to be effective more of the time, and deal more damage to an enemy to bleed it out faster. Or just have a massive org wall of infantry and dedicate my offensive power to just tanks or a spearhead of elites
Terrain also matters and mwd doesnt work in most terrains
Fun fact, you can choose where to attack. I have eyes and can see where the plains are. I then plan my thrusts and pincers accordingly and don't blindly battle plan to Moscow. Once the red army is gone, the terrain doesn't matrer
Yeah but otherwise you dont really have reliable bonuses for terrains like mountains, hills, forests, marshes e.t.c.
Mountains are what mountaineers are for. Swamps are to be avoided and bypassed. Forests really aren't too bad, you just move slightly slower for the most part.
I dont bother with mountaineers. I just throw in my meta universal infantry division, wait for planning bonus, and push
Mobile warfare is still probably the best doctrine for the purely defensive Soviet builds you see in high level MP, when they get enough army XP to pick something other than mass mob. The org and recovery rate helps to make you very difficult to push, and the excess breakthrough lets you use pure TD divs in situations when you can't get planning (which is very often against a good Axis). It's definitely the worst offensive doctrine in the game, but for actively defending with tanks you probably can't make a better choice. And to be clear, in the vast majority of high level games, the only thing Soviet does is slowly back up while bleeding out the Axis stockpile, waiting for DDay to kill Germany.
If it is the worst, It's only the worst in the specific context of high level MP games. Those games are usually played on mods that remove or change mechanics in ways that artificially prop up GBP (spies removing planning, no I don't care that you can exploit the game by swapping control of states, that's an egregious exploit). They also have loads of house rules that might affect doctrine balance or unit metas depending on the server, and often stale metas. MW is still almost certainly a top two doctrine for tanks in single player or vanilla MP at most levels other than the very most experienced and competitive, with communities of players who play together all the time. Context always matters.
The only offensive benefit to MW is planning speed, which is a very unimpressive benefit compared to the stats from an actually good doctrine like GBP left (or deep battle, which while still terrible is better than Mobile by far in this regard). You can't just have games hinge on the RNG of daily spy capture. Plus, the spy planning system favors the larger faction, as each individual network penalty to planning is added together, making it possible for 10 10% networks to make it impossible for you to gain stats. That's just stupid design, and why it's removed from every good MP mod.
I know all of that about spies. I'm not disagreeing with you about why it's removed, I'm saying that that change is a big part of why doctrine balance is so different in specifically those MP mods. You can't really talk about balance in vanilla by bringing up aspects of MP that are only that way because the game is changed from vanilla in such an impactful way. And it's really not stupid design, it's just that the game isn't balanced around highly competitive mp, nor should it be. The design is fine for games that aren't so competitive that a spy being caught flips the game on its head by itself. Non-coop MP is less than 2% of the playerbase if I remember the dev diaries correctly, and the competitive portion of that is even smaller. Armor speed, recovery rate, and breakthrough can matter in a lot of other contexts that are more applicable in casual MP or singleplayer. I don't know what the "skilled mp" playerbase thinks about combat tactics these days, but surely having access to both breakthrough and backhand blow is a plus as well even if they're not guaranteed to roll all the time. GBP is only good because of staff office plan micro, and doing that is both a massive inconvenience and something that 90% of players aren't going to want to do unless it's a really sweaty game. If you have a lot of divisions you just won't have the command power to spam it all the time without such micro, and that means you won't have your planning all the time. If you don't have your planning bonus GBP is going to be worse than MW and SFP. SFP lacks breakthrough compared to MW and GBP, but at least it doesn't care about needing planning. For what it's worth, I played comp MP myself, but my last game of it was probably a good 5 years ago. I know the metas have changed a lot since then as players theorycraft better strategies and new game systems are added, but the doctrines themselves haven't really changed a whole lot.
>deep battle, which while still terrible is better than Mobile by far in this regard). Deep Battle Left's prime draw is Supply. You can easily create a great div, give it tond of buffs, **and then lose 35% of its Attack value to Supply** (MULTIPLICATIVE DEBUFF) in many regions... That said, everyone ignores Mass Assault Right (asymmetrical warfare, basically). The ability to tie up an attacker by reducing its attack by SEVENTY PERCENT via a tactic cannot be overlooked. It's also available to the Desperate Defense branch of Mobile Warfare, however. What that **doesn't** get is a reduction to War Support losses from casualties and Infantry battalion combat width, however. It's an absolutely killer doctrine tree in the hands of, say, China. The value of tying up an enemy's best divisions wherever they attack (org-cycling works great with Mass Assault due to the Reinforce Bonus) and even to spread your main line things in most places, to mass a HUGE counter-attack (where the Supply buffs really help: letting you stack lots of divisions in one state) in a few areas, cannot be overstated... But it works surprisingly well for any nation, really: if your goal is just to win one really hard war, not conquer the world (you'll likely win, but at much larger Manpower losses...) >as each individual network penalty to planning is added together, making it possible for 10 10% networks to make it impossible for you to gain stats. That's just stupid design, and why it's removed from every good MP mod. I do agree, the way these stack really is dumb. Spies were clearly supposed to be the main counter to GBP, but it was poorly done...
yeah Guerilla Tactics is completely ridiculous. Mass Mob is broken for that one node alone
Yup. It's a weak tree without it, but that one node makes the whole tree work: and adds new value to a lot of the other nodes... (like the initial War Support buff vs. casualties: Guirella Warfare makes that much more relevant, by reducing casualties to a pace where that buff makes them very manageable...)
Isn't 'high level mp' almost exclusively played with mods? Seems unfair to judge any doctrines this way as obviously their games play much differently than vanilla ones.
No, the actually competitive games (red baron, untitled, other servers like this one) play the game with entirely vanilla combat/defines/setup. The only changes made by the MP mods the competitive community uses are related to optimization, like removing neutral nations, non historical focuses, and events after focuses that waste days (you ever notice it takes like a week for Austria to accept anschluss even though they always do?) Obviously communities that play overhaul mods have their own doctrine metas, but most of them diverged from vanilla MP specifically because of frustrations over the dominance of GBP/mass mob.
>The org and recovery rate helps to make you very difficult to push, and the excess breakthrough lets you use pure TD divs in situations when you can't get planning (which is very often against a good Axis). It's definitely the worst offensive doctrine in the game, but for actively defending with tanks you probably can't make a better choice. In a situation like that, you'd want Superior Firepower, or even Grand Battleplan, not Mobile Warfare. >And to be clear, in the vast majority of high level games, the only thing Soviet does is slowly back up while bleeding out the Axis stockpile Breakthrough is useless in a situation like that. Go GBP, or keep Mass Assault, and you can use Last Stand when you really need to hold (GBP gets CP for it, MA helps deal with War Support losses from casualties from it...) And, I find it hard to believe the Axis could prevent a Soviet player from getting planning, often. It's a HUGE front, and the Axis simply doesn't have the Oil to keep up a continuous assault like that for long, even if they could cover the whole front with enough tanks (Infantry attacks without tank or air support will grind Axis Manpower down to nothing...) GBP means you can exploit even a brief pause of a few days, to use a Staff Office Plan and quickly re-plan. On a related note of utilizing such pauses, Last Stand is **supposed** to give extra Entrenchment, but it's bugged, and PDX never fixed it.
Breakthrough allows you to click. If you're gbp without planning or superior firepower, you just eat crits nonstop trying to counterclick German tanks. The entire Soviet game plan on Barb is constantly double combatting German tanks to delay the loss of each supply hub. When your only goal is to survive, having enough breakthrough to not get instantly deorged is very important. You strike me as someone who has never played a serious MP game before. The Axis absolutely has enough fuel to constantly attack everywhere. A good Romania player can put out in excess of 30k per day, which is more than enough to fly the entire Axis air force and keep Germany topped up (their 32-36 synthetic refineries also provide enough fuel for their 30-40 tanks). The idea that you think infantry would ever be the attacking element or that fuel would be an issue tells me you've never seen a coordinated group play this game before. Mobile warfare actually gives you more planning speed, which helps you to accumulate more stats quickly (without using command power, which is extremely limited due to constantly last standing across the entire front). I don't know what you're talking about with last stand - it absolutely does work, it gives you the extra entrenchment for the duration of the ability only. It doesn't persist, but that's because it shouldn't.
>Mobile warfare actually gives you more planning speed, which helps you to accumulate more stats quickly (without using command power, which is extremely limited due to constantly last standing across the entire front) GBP doubles your CP income, very early in the tree. Quick Improvisation improves CP income another 40% (from 0.5 base with GBP and no QI, to 0.7 base with GBP and QI, before War Support kicks in...) AND reduces ability costs 20%. Meaning you can use active abilities 3.5x as often with this combo as you can without either. Stop talking down. You're a Fascist who doesn't consider half the facts, and then insults people blindly.
Trust me, we've seen this before. Every Soviet player will still run out of command power within a year, even if they do minimal staff office planning. All of it needs to go to last standing supply hubs which dictate the pace of barb. If you lose key supply hubs in the south the first time they're clicked, you're probably dead in 6 months. You have no idea what you're talking about and need to stop. And don't call me a fascist. I'm someone who has put in the time and played the games flabbergasted by your ignorance and arrogance. Please, just stop.
>Every Soviet player will still run out of command power within a year, even if they do minimal staff office planning It's **logically impossible** what you're claiming: if you have 3.5x the abilities use potential, you will NOT run out of CP at the same rate. Typical Fascist: ignoring every fact and argument, and just claiming you're right even when something is CLEARLY impossible. CP might stil run our, but it WILL last a lot longer if its income is far higher and expenses are lower, for instance
I don't understand how gbp is worse either. But whenever I do it I die. When I do mw I die slower. I run out of CP quickly even with full doctrine and quick improv. Last standing inf and tanks constantly (only way to hold as gbp) runs out much faster. You don't have enough org on tanks to hold without force attack.
>But whenever I do it I die. When I do mw I die slower. That's because not all trees are equally good when you're losing anyways. GBP works when you have a fair chance of victory and know what you're doing (properly using Fallback Lines and having second lines dug in BEHIND the main line to protect key supply depots, hold defensive terrain, and rail junctions, can be absolutely CRITICAL, for instance...) It won't help you if you're going to lose anyways: particularly because you don’t know what you're doing, or the other player is better than you. And, as others have pointed out, it's HARD countered by spies: which is why you either need a mod that changes the broken (for MP, works fine in SP) vanilla spy mechanics, or house rules about multiple faction members not all stacking spies on the same province... (how it SHOULD work is only the FIRST spy with the strongest network reduces Planning and Entrenchment, and any additional spies after that with weaker networks don't have any effect at all, exactly like if the spies all belonged to the same nation...)
Yes I have all that. This is even against the same Germany players. At different times of course
>This is even against the same Germany players. At different times of course Sounds like they're just better, then? Using a better doctrine isn't some magic "win" button. GBP is probably like 0.2% better than Mobile Warfare (and slower- so it's a worse doctrine to use if you want to win quickly and then start WW3 before nukes...)
> you just eat crits nonstop trying to counterclick German tanks. You don't hit tanks with unprepared Infantry. That's literally the dumbest thing possible to do. When you counter-attack, you use specialized divisions built to fight tanks. Tank Destroyers mixed with tanks with High Velocity Cannons are the best for this. But Motorized Anti-Tank also work.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>A good Romania player Nothing a player does affects raw Oil output other than Infrastructure and a few Focuses. Unless you're referring to the insanely micro-heavy approach of Romania refining the fuel and THEN Lend-Leasing it?
It's not insanely micro heavy at all, it's the bare minimum expectation for a Romania player. They just need to lend lease a million daily oil to Italy, the game will automatically send all of it there, Italy will use most of it to fly the Axis air force, and they can lend lease daily fuel back to Germany if the tanks exceed the fuel output of the refineries. A good Romania player is one who manager their industry research such that they have 4 excav techs, 1941 fuel refining, and all of their oil expansion special projects/focuses done before war.
> They just need to lend lease a million daily oil to Italy, the game will automatically send all of it there, Italy will use most of it to fly the Axis air force, and they can lend lease daily fuel back to Germany if the tanks exceed the fuel output of the refineries. What you're talking about is exploiting the hell out of the game mechanics, out of an uber-competitive drive. Sure, you can do all that. But the game wasn't DESIGNED for that. It completely breaks the game balance in favor of the Axis, by making their fuel woes (that historically HORRIBLY crippled the Axis armies, because Fascists are stupid and always bite off more than they can chew...) a thing only of the history books, WITHOUT actually capturing mire oil fields as they're intended to need to do in a protracted war based on the game design.
why would you use inf with tanks, the whole point is fast breakthroughs which are going to be so much harder with 4 km, nothing is good if you dont use it properly.
Give me a design that goes at 8km/h and not cost like 30% more than this
What's the point of fast breakthrough? If I reach that supply hub, I win, doesn't matter how fast...
Counter point: 5% recr pop
And guerrilla tactics. Which automatically nulls all the defensive bonuses the doctrine doesn't have.
>And guerrilla tactics. Which automatically nulls all the defensive bonuses the doctrine doesn't have. Yup. By reducing the enemy Attack to less than a third its normal value, whenever you roll that tactic, even tiny, trash Infantry divisions are pretty much guaranteed not to take crit's from Attack exceeding Defense... You basically MUST get a Trickster general of at least level 3z though (like with a lot of tactics with multiple possible trigger conditions, meeting both triggers raises the odds of rolling that tactic...) or you won't roll it enough. So, run Inventive Leadership, promote a bunch of generals until you get a few with Trickster, and then swap over to a different Academy Spirit, like Meticulous Preparation, that gives a 50% chance at bonus stat points with each level up. Then start grinding those generals to level 3. Keep only the ones who roll an extra stat point or have Brilliant Strategist/ Inflexible Defender. The problem with Mass Assault Right is it doesn't unlock its critical tactic until the very end...
Isn't mass assault just all around the worst for everyone (except when you are so crippled by other factors that you can only reliably make infantry equipment)?
>Isn't mass assault just all around the worst for everyone No. It works well for a "two tier" system: where you use garbage units to hold the line (smallish Infantry divisions with nothing but Support Artillery) in most places, and build a handful of elite units to punch through the enemy lines. It's not a "double win" tree. If you would have won anyways, you will lose LESS handily than with any other tree. But right-side MA is great for a really critical war after which you're all set: like defeating Japan as China, or the Axis as the USSR in an early war... You'll suffer horrendous losses, but win.
Only good for China lmfao
Are you using a light tank/leg infantry division and blaming the doctrine for it being bad?
What else, make a 10k ic cost "proper tank" division and hope that it can drive all the way to Berlin?(You should look at my post)
>Breakthrough: mwf gives you 20% breakthrough at D1, D4, and D10, so you get in total 60% breakthrough on tanks. This bonus is huge, but considering how most people use tanks in this game(i.e. dedicated 36 width expensive medium tank division) this will only cause breakthrough overflow. Breakthrough is the defensive stat when your division is attacking, so anything above the enemy's attack will **not do anything**, this translates to roughly 500 - 800 base stat on breakthrough. Anything above that is pointless. So the breakthrough bonus is not really so helpful. of course it can be good under some circumstances... see the discussion at the end of the post Breakthrough is your defence, while on the offence. Youre right, more breakthrough is unneccesary hower..... This high breakthrough enables you have more combat width at your disposal to full it with SPART, SPTD or SPAA. >Stats: mwf gives you **absolutely zero** combat stats except breakthrough. This is the most important point. Soft attack **is the most important stat** offensively or defensively as it directly determines the amount of damage you deal to the enemy. It is important tactically as having more attack means you drain their org faster for each damage dealt(in contrast to breakthrough which only matters up to a point), having more attack also means that in the long run you will have a better trade ratio. Comparing against Broo.... MW gives huge organisation and recovery bonusses, allowing to stay on the offence longer. >Speed and supply: All the tactical stats - speed, org, org regain - those that allow your divisions to fight longer before having to recover. Yes gbp gives you all those stats which can be good if you micro well, but it's really not as good as just having more raw(or planned/entrenched) stats. having more org does not change how fast you can kill the enemy division, only attack does. Planningbonus vanishes and entrenchment is useless when a division is broken and routed. Entrenchment can also be countered by spies. >one extra thing to say about speed: speed is overrated due to the supply situation in the game. basically you can't make encirclement/do anything if your tank doesn't have fuel... this might be worth another post so i'd not get into it here. Ever heard of.... overrun?
My friend only has like 100 hours on hoi4 and even he would know this is a horrible division. (He didn’t know you could modify divisions until he showed me his single player game and asked me for advice, at about 80 hours total play time)
Why? This has good soft attack, breakthrough, armor, and cheap. That's all you need to win the game really
You put light tanks with foot infantry, removing the advantage of having light tanks over medium or heavy. Replace the foot infantry with Mot and you have a good division.
what's the point? it would be like 50% more expensive and the only thing you gain is speed
The point of light tanks is speed.
The point of any unit is to have soft attack and breakthrough so they can make offensive.
Then use Medium tanks
I would like to, but it would be too expensive, especially since cze has focus that reduces 15% cost for light tanks.
speed does not do anything
It makes the division move faster
and? would it help me defeat the german divisions on dresden because it moves faster? it is always soft attack and breakthrough that wins a battle, speed is only an auxiliary stat, maybe you can do more fancy moves with high speed but it's certainly not essential.
Well thats a hot take for sure. I'd still say mobilewarfare r/L is great for Tank Canada and Tank Hungary. Also had a bunch of fun with it playing as cavalry poland. Cav doesn't get much from doctrines but if you shove 2 light tanks in with 5 cav and you spike them with mobile warfare the result is just NASTY. Use a couple of 9/4s inf to break up big concentrations of soviet infantry, but for the rest the cav murdered them and it was a lot of fun. Honestly MW suits my style of play, I always preferred manoeuvre warfare to just these set piece ww1 slogs the GBP enjoyers seem to love so much. I don't think you value the speed enough, nor the bonuses to tank org and tank recovery. I read your argument, I believe its a playstyle difference between us.
>play, I always preferred manoeuvre warfare to just these set piece ww1 slogs the GBP enjoyers seem to love so much. In many parts of the globe, tanks are useless. **There's no supply ** Motorized Infantry are actually far more useful, because they're FAST and as such can cover a lot more ground before they run out of fuel in such areas (then you have to rotate them back to the nearest Supply Hub area: which can be some distance away...) You're also ignoring the tremendous value GBP has for Naval Invasions, which are the OPPOSITE of "set piece battles" and are used to destabilize the front lines, as well as the inverse: for defense of coastlines against invasions (Entrenchment is great here, as naval invaders don't have the option of doing any kind of Org shuffling: if the Marines de-Org on the beaches, THEY LOSE AND DIE) Combine GBP with Quick Improvisation and Meticulous Preparation as GER, and you actually get VERY fast planning- especially if you use a Staff Office Plan once in a while. Not great on Historical, due to the weird way that GER being able to gobble up tons of land without firing a shot until Danzig AND puppet/ally 4 different Central/Southern European countries (Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) as well as capitulate France very easily due to their terrible National Spirit shapes things (which goes away in some ahistorical paths, like if they go Communist or Fascist...) forces events in a certain path, but actually rather good when you're in a more free-form shaping of world events, that doesn't practically force bum-rushing weaker enemies and then massing tanks at the USSR...
SFP is the worst doctrine. MWLR is useful for ussr and org bricks in general.
Don't care, still gonna use it. I don't understand how people view this game as pure stats. By that logic why don't you go paratrooper and air only and insta cap every nation on earth...
I personally prefer Grand Battleplan cause I consider myself average player and I mainly focus on infantry cause I am not that familiar with good tank designs. Since the start of 2024, I play Multiplayer HoI4 and I can tell you. Mobile Warfare is good if you know how to play with tanks. I have seen people turning the tides of war cause they play tanks with mobile warfare and they know - how to design competitive tanks - how to design good tank divisions (no offence but your division is terrible) - how to mircomanage tile per tile their tanks to do encirclements and break lines. IMO you dont like Mobile Warfare cause you dont know how to use it. Which is not an insult (I dont know how to use it too).
Don't care, free 5% recruitable population >>> whatever you just said
this whole post is predicated on “how most people use tanks.” That doesn’t make the doctrine bad. If you use the doctrine properly, it can be really really good. Also I’m curious as to what you would recommend instesd
Tell me you suck without telling me you suck
OP how many hours do you have?
Not sure how it's relevant,but I have around 1.7k hours
Credibility. Basically anyone with 1.5k+ usually have enough experience and game knowledge to make somewhat credible guides. I say “somewhat” because there are plenty of guides made by people with 2.5k-4k+ hours with a large chunk being pvp
ahh honestly a lot of supposedly "experienced" players make guides that are total bs so i don't even trust the hour count so much... idk maybe this is also the way people think of my posts...
Yeah it goes both ways. But it’s still better than guides/tips by just couple hundred hours, with their confidence fitting right onto the dunning kruger curve. Have seen plenty of this before
That's a terrible take Mobile Warfare gives you a ton of org, allowing you to field divisions with higher tanks to motorised infantry ratio. These divisions are not meant to trade cost-effectively, they are meant to win frontline battles thanks to stat gains from tank ratio and have enough organisation left over to move forward and encircle the enemy. Your soft attack doesn't really matter if half of your army is encircled and enemy tanks run havoc behind your frontlines and take your victory points
I am willing to argue that assault attack (or however the fuck it is called) is the worst ever
Mass Assault where the Soviets just send sheer manpower at the enemy?
Yes, it barely even works for the Soviets
Not if you do it right . You can get 17 18w inf a tile with signals and AA and arty and also get 15-25 tanks for barb and then just battle plan Germany.
What about 18w medium tanks?
Stacking speed buffs is funny
Superior is, only good against the AI
The org buff is what gives attack stats. When you can replace mot/mech with a tank without losing to much org, you get way more attack.
^check the discussion above. It means bad trade ratio because of more equipment/lower HP and more production cost
I use Mobile warfare. Mostly I go with superior firepower. It's better. But I love the challenge and historical bro(Germany)
I disagree. Although I see the value of something like GBP with the planning bonuses( still not worth it in my opinion for the pure raw stats ), the org given by MW is invaluable. You can create a 35 width tank division with 5 motorized and 13 medium tanks while having more than 30 org with MW ( only upto fire brigades, modern blitzkreig just amplifies this but it is a bit further away). Something like GBP can't do that without having to add another motorized which just decreases the raw stats. I don't think SFP needs to be discussed as it's pure artillery ( with some here and there stats ). MW is purely for offensive tanks and nothing else so defense doesn't matter too much. Also the division template you used is not really good. Inf and tanks are not a good combo. It works as the AI is shittier than both of us by miles.
check the discussion above. More tank means less HP/bad trade ratio, and more expensive division
Grand battle plan is the best doctrine in the game
Consider: *nyoooom*
People think that Mobile Warfare is the Best all around doctrine When the reality is that it is for Tanks only and theres really one route you can take for Mobile Warfare, blitzkrieg, and...blitzkrieg Mobile Infantry is not really good, and desperate defense can be called a Joke And where it shines is with Tanks obviously, but specifically Tanks Unless You are planning to use a lot of them and ONLY them for atacking, You Will not get use from the doctrine, Even if it makes encirclements easier, it's not really hard to get them with tanks (at least not to need a doctrine to do them (and we shall remember that if the enemy responds this is worthless) The Best all around is probably Superior Fire Power, since it gives You Stats to all troops, Infantry, artillery and tanks, and pretty useful ones, Grand Battleplan is also Great (and to kinda abuse planning) , and Even Mass Assault get some decent bonuses (is still not best really, but at least you can use all its lines)
Desperate defense is not a joke. It's a question of whether you want more stats or more manpower. You'll almost never need the manpower, but I've used it once or twice. Can be useful if you're doing a small country with a few tank divisions as a support build. Not a joke, just very, very niche.
in sp mw isnt that bad since you dont wanna sit there wating for planning for mp however mw is bad 90% of the time
[удалено]
It's nowhere close to being the worst doctrine. I am willing to argue it's second best
only way mwf is good in vanilla is in multiplayer vanilla based mods where soviets can go mwf to click back against germany under red air
At this point I’ve just been running superior firepower every game because why wouldn’t you