Why Pan-Asian is the only doctrine without a built in solution to its handicap.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Why Pan-Asian is the only doctrine without a built in solution to its handicap.

      Hello all,

      As the title states I wonder if the Pan Asian doctrine gets enough bang for its buck. I have not played with it myself yet, but I have versed them using Comintern.

      This article is quite the long read but I think my conclusion is well worth it. My conclusion is that the Pan-Asian doctrine is the only doctrine that has a handicap in it that the doctrine itself does not also fix. By making compensating for the weakness in this doctrine fall on how the player plays I think this doctrine is disadvantaged in relation to the other three.

      When making my comparison I will add the power of a unit to the HP and use the total of these two as a comparison for combat capability.

      Right of the start when comparing Comintern with Pan Asian they both have a doctrine that affects their units combat capability. Comintern has 10% less power, Pan Asian has 10% less hitpoints. In a way though, this is the same handicap it seems to me. If a unit has 10 power and 10hp than under comintern it has 9 power with 10hp and under pan Asian it has 10 power with 9 hp. When added together if another doctrine has a total of 20 when combining power and hp then Comintern and Asian both have 19. In this the Allies have 20 where nothing directly affects combat capability and axis has 23 with 1.5 added to both power and HP.

      How do doctrines compensate for their shortcomings and how does it affect their combat capability?

      Well, Comintern has 15% cheaper troops and pays 25% less in upkeep. The result is, you have weaker troops but you also have more. So the handicap is balanced very well with the strength of the doctrine. You have weaker troops but since you have more the power output is actually in your favour. Why? Well if an enemy has 10 troops with 20 combat capability each (10 power and 10hp per unit) = 200 the Comintern has 10 X 19 = 190 (+ 15% in troops because of the reduced purchase cost) so at least 1 more unit which adds another 19 to 190 = 209. And that is without taking into account the reduced 25% upkeep cost and rounding down the 15% into just 1 more extra unit. While being somewhat careful on the estimate I think this shows quite nicely that the handicap Comintern has is also nicely balanced with its strong points. One could argue that the discount on upkeep warrants another extra unit (or several) making the Comintern doctrine have 12 troops totalling 19 X 22 = 228 combat capability or even more than that. But since their build time is not reduced in any way (except some troops) I will keep the comparison to 1 extra unit. Just keep in mind that there is some extra benefit that could be turned into units or growing the economy. I could ad another 9.5 for the 5% but I will not.

      Axis is 10% more expensive but gives BOTH 15% more power AND 15% more HP. Which really is not that bad a deal.
      The combat capability for Axis is thereby instead of a mere 20 a whopping 23. With adding 1.5 to both HP and power.
      So, when considering 9 units (1 less because of 10% increased cost) you get 9 X 23 = 207. Which is, very close to the 209 of the Comintern doctrine but quite far from the 228 assumptions (its even worse when adding 9.5 for the 5%).

      Allies has cheaper and faster research and thus, more can be researched and more resources can be spend on building units. In that way they are the standard for combat capability because the doctrine does not directly affect it. If a unit has 10 power and 10hp then 1 unit provides 20 combat capability. With 10 units that totals the allies combat capability to 200. BUT this does not take into account the amount of resources saved by research and put into building units. Since the research cost is -25% expensive AND upgrade is -20 less expensive and on top of that the production time is 30% faster I think it realistic to give at least 1 more unit to this doctrine for the comparison. That means that with 20 total hp and power times 11 this doctrine gets 220. That means it is probably in between or around the former two, be it a bit less direct to see how the compensation works.

      And the Pan Asian doctrine? Well, the move speed and view do not improve your combat strength. The added terrain bonus of 20% does, but only if your troops get a terrain bonus. That means that a lot of variety is possible and the difference is not that big. If your 190 combat capability units encounter an equal enemy with 200 combat capability the enemy gets 50% power bonus and thus has 250 total combat capability (50% on the power only, which is 100 because the other 100 is HP). You yourself get 70% in this case which means you get a total of 190 + 70 = 260. So just for clarity, out of that 260 there is 90HP and 170 power. Note that as seen above, the 200 combat capability standard does not even exist because of how the other doctrines work. So this comparison is probably quite conservative.
      The added terrain bonus only marginally puts you above your enemy (if it even does). On top of that you have the problem of doing less damage if your units get damaged. So your compensation for less HP by having a 'normal' power output actually disapears faster than in other doctrines.

      So whats the problem?

      Terrain varies, it is as simple as that. There are a lot of different types of terrain and to always be prepared to have units that can take advantage of the terrain is a huge task. Especially since no other doctrine has such a task compensating for the weakness in their doctrine.
      You have to have the right troops in the right terrain to be able to compensate the weakness in your doctrine while the other doctrines have a solution built into their doctrines.
      - Axis costs more but has more power on every unit produced, simple.
      - Comintern has less power but can produce more units, simple.
      - Allies has to spend less on research and thus can spend more on units that it can build faster, simple.
      * Pan-Asian has less HP but has to compensate by putting its troops in the right terrain during the whole map everywhere they go, very hard to accomplish.
      And this does not of course count for airplanes and naval units, Pan-Asian airplanes and naval units are just always weaker where the specific unit does not make for an exception. The doctrine does not allow to compensate by building units cheaper, faster or sustaining more in total. The compensation for having fewer HP actually has its own drawback because the HP and thus the power of units drops faster than in other doctrines.

      Conclusion

      Considering all the above I draw the conclusion that Allies, Axis and Comintern doctrines have a weak spot built into it for which the solution is also built into it. Pan-Asian is the only doctrine with a weakness in it that has to be directly compensated for by how the player plays. It is not built into it, which makes the Pan-Asian doctrine disadvantaged against the other doctrines and perhaps it might even need a fix.

      Sorry for the long read, would love to know what others think.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Edepedable ().

    • New

      by contrary, i would say panasian are good enough, they don't need a buff, but maybe a nerf.
      the ppl usually try to do the same strategy but with different doctrines, that doesnt work, panasian should go for a fast conquest in order to compensate for their lack of production boost, and the fastest units will allow you to do that.

      also if you know how to use the terrain bonus always in your favor you can get the atttack of axis doctrine or even more without have more production cost.

      panasian are more dificult to master but they are not weak, if you know how to use their advantages this doctrines its arguibly the best.

      at least for me they always give very good results.
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
    • New

      Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

      also if you know how to use the terrain bonus always in your favor you can get the atttack of axis doctrine or even more without have more production cost.


      panasian are more dificult to master but they are not weak, if you know how to use their advantages this doctrines its arguibly the best.
      As I stated in my original post, it does not seem to be the case to me because of the lacking HP. If your enemy also gets a terrain boost (because why would they not use troops that get a terrain boost) the difference in combat capability (power + HP) is quite small.
      Meaning that you have to be the one using the terrain and hoping/assuming that the enemy does not otherwise the flaw in your doctrine won't be compensated enough. Thats not a good thing. Any sane player would figure a way around this, fighting troops in places they do not have a terrain bonus.

      The second part of your answer surprises me, since I have not played with them myself I do not know so I guess ill take your word for it. Is the always taking advantage of terrain not to much of a chore though I wonder? Since in the other doctrines compensating for the doctrine's weakness happens somewhat automatically but Pan-Asian needs constant organising.
    • New

      Its true that smart player usually avoid the the use of terrain in a way panasian get the advantage but this is not the whole story. As panasian you should force favorable matchup and avoid unfavorable ones, always beeing on to offensive.

      Panasian player should know how to use the speed as a weapon, go for weak points in the enemy line and take all undefended provinces you can in order to reduce enemy economy, something than speed and extra vision can help.

      You only have to mix light tanks armored car and maybe motorized for this task in order to not lost speed and infiltrating the enemy base.

      your defensive units should be infantry+artillery, panasian infantry have the normal hp and panasian artillery have more attack against unarmored plus more hills and mountain bonus.

      Avoid use aa and just produce interceptors for deny enemy air superiority, and then you have it, the perfect army for panasian early game.

      Again, ppl should not go for the same strategy with different doctrines, doctrines are for different play styles.

      I you are not comfortable with panasian play styles you should avoid using them if you want to win, for example allies doctrine it's the weakest one for me and my play style.
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
    • New

      Nice discussion.

      2-3 months ago we actually nerfed Pan-Asian slightly by reducing the terrain bonus from +25% to +20%, because we indeed saw in our stats that Panasian had a slightly higher win rate than the other Doctrines, plus feedback from experienced players pointed into the same direction. It is harder to use than the other Doctrines, but when used well it is quite effective.

      The Doctrines are not only balanced for direct combat power. As was stated by Danieliyoverde123 the other factors are important as well. One could argue that Panasian is able to conquer more provinces in the early game due to higher speeds and buffed early game units, which would then translate into better economy and more unit production, while also being able to avoid losses easier because of seeing dangers earlier with the higher view range.

      Probably it is indeed more about how you can match your playstyle to the strength of the Doctrines. Probably a player who plays Pan-Asian the same way as Allies (or the other way around) won't achieve the best results. I think that overall they are all quite balanced now.

      But I am curious to hear more opinions on Doctrine balance :)
    • New

      When I read the doctrine descriptions the first time, I immediatly thought "Wow I want to be panAsian, it sounds almost OP"! Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to actually play it, it is very rare and doesn't seem to occur very much in non-100p maps (I don't play too much anymore, but I didn't see it in any European maps).

      I won't bore you TOO much with classic military literature, but the great writers all agree (and are supported by historical battlefield proof) that there's more to war than just accumulating as much firepower as possible. The application of superior force on a PART of the front zone, concentrating a disproportional amount of power there, is a key to victory ("Schwerpunkt", Clausewitz). Basically, winning this key battle will make the (enemy) troops not participating irrelevant. Victorious generals succeed in picking their own schwerpunkt (the one the enemy HAS to respond to), while avoiding the enemy's one ("making him hit air").

      This principle works in a war game like this one as well: for example, when you have one army of 100 troops and the enemy has two armies of 50 each, and you manage to fight one of them first, you will lose something like 20-30 troops destroying half his army; so after it, the remaining force balance is 70-50 or better.

      To achieve concentration you need manoeuvre (because please, DON'T confuse concentration with creating a doom stack and marching it around... if one of those opposes you, it is your job to make something ELSE your Schwerpunkt!), and it is easy to see that panasian doctrine is SUPER DUPER superior in that, both by speed and by information. This is not about achieving something like 217-203 or similar numbers like in your case; this is about achieving 400-200. Yes, it requires tactical finesse and (especially) online activity, but when you do, you can wipe your enemies away much easier than the 217-203 could.

      PS - there's an error in your calculations btw, 200 minus 10% is NOT 190.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • New

      Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

      Panasian player should know how to use the speed as a weapon, go for weak points in the enemy line and take all undefended provinces you can in order to reduce enemy economy, something than speed and extra vision can help.


      You only have to mix light tanks armored car and maybe motorized for this task in order to not lost speed and infiltrating the enemy base.

      your defensive units should be infantry+artillery, panasian infantry have the normal hp and panasian artillery have more attack against unarmored plus more hills and mountain bonus.

      Avoid use aa and just produce interceptors for deny enemy air superiority, and then you have it, the perfect army for panasian early game.

      Again, ppl should not go for the same strategy with different doctrines, doctrines are for different play styles.
      I understand what you are saying and your explanation does make it seem to me that Pan-Asian is not as handicapped as I originally thought, I do however still have doubts about the way their compensation works. I understand that the different units and different stats for units in every doctrine mean that you have to adjust your play style accordingly.
      You say it perfectly in the statement above, Pan-Asian players have to use a speeds based early game army, with infantry (no HP decrease) and artillery. My doubt here comes from the predictability in this. You kind of HAVE to use these certain units in the beginning, more so than in other doctrines.
      If Pan-Asian doctrine is indeed somewhat dependant on doing an early offensive in order to compensate for their doctrine, Freezy also mentions this, this could have consequences.

      freezy wrote:

      One could argue that Panasian is able to conquer more provinces in the early game due to higher speeds and buffed early game units, which would then translate into better economy and more unit production, while also being able to avoid losses easier because of seeing dangers earlier with the higher view range.
      My worry here is that this is very predictable. If you know the Pan-Asian player relies on early expansion and certain early game units you can counter this quite easily. Every player starts with mainly infantry, and combined with what is mentioned above it seems to me that a solution to fighting Pan-Asian is somewhat the same every time but also not that hard. Infantry is better on the defence than on the attack, so infantry is countered right there by defensively using your own infantry. Making rocket artillery early game might do the rest. All else you must do is keep your lines closed so the Pan-Asian does not go for a behind the lines land grab.

      I do also see the answer to this being the Pan-Asian player though, using the larger line of sight and re positioning your own artillery to avoid damage, hit and run and whittle down your enemy defences that way. I do also recognise the need for activity here though.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      When I read the doctrine descriptions the first time, I immediatly thought "Wow I want to be panAsian, it sounds almost OP"! Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to actually play it, it is very rare and doesn't seem to occur very much in non-100p maps (I don't play too much anymore, but I didn't see it in any European maps).

      This principle works in a war game like this one as well: for example, when you have one army of 100 troops and the enemy has two armies of 50 each, and you manage to fight one of them first, you will lose something like 20-30 troops destroying half his army; so after it, the remaining force balance is 70-50 or better.

      To achieve concentration you need manoeuvre (because please, DON'T confuse concentration with creating a doom stack and marching it around... if one of those opposes you, it is your job to make something ELSE your Schwerpunkt!), and it is easy to see that panasian doctrine is SUPER DUPER superior in that, both by speed and by information. This is not about achieving something like 217-203 or similar numbers like in your case; this is about achieving 400-200. Yes, it requires tactical finesse and (especially) online activity, but when you do, you can wipe your enemies away much easier than the 217-203 could.

      PS - there's an error in your calculations btw, 200 minus 10% is NOT 190.
      Funny, I had the exact same thing when I read the Comintern doctrine. I do not think it is overpowered though, it definitely has its weakness. It just so happens that Comintern compliments my play style very well.

      What you describe is something I know to be called ''defeat in detail'' and I expect this strategy can be exploited with every doctrine. I think the new SBDE limit of 10 per army does very well for the game here.

      I think I see your point, it's just that manoeuvring only gets you so far and in Pan-Asian case it requires a LOT of active play. For Example, Comintern also needs a lot of active play in the beginning, but more so to produce units and do upgrades which is not the case anymore when you units reach a higher level, but for Pan-Asian it stays true the whole map.
      If Pan-Asian is on enemy territory their speed bonus somewhat disappears, as it should. But that means that you can not endlessly manoeuvre out of trouble.
      Also, going around the enemy troops and getting behind an enemy line is great and all, but since provinces light up when captured, there is indeed very little sneaking and surprising done it seems to me. Just keep your lines closed. As mentioned above, the way to break a line being Pan-Asian again seems to depend heavily on activity here.

      My calculation is spot on the way I presented it, but I understand the confusion. The number 200 comes from the assumption a standard unit has 10 power and 10HP which when added makes 20 in total. When comparing 10 units to 10 other units that gives 200 which I named 'combat capability'. Of this 200 there is 100 power and 100HP. So when decreasing 200 with 10% of either power or HP you get 90 + 100 = 190. If you have 100HP and then have 10% less that means you add 90 instead of 100. If you calculate 200 X 0.9 = 180 by decreasing 200 with 10% you are decreasing both power AND hp.

      Pan-Asian does indeed seem harder to master than the other doctrines and the activity might be a problem at times, so I do still wonder if this is a side effect that should be maintained. I have taken your comments to heart and will definitely try out Pan-Asian for myself. Though I am not fully convinced Pan-Asian does not suffer a larger drawback than the other doctrines I can however say that now I am at least exited to try it out for myself.
      Thanks for the comments so far.
    • New

      Edepedable wrote:

      My calculation is spot on the way I presented it, but I understand the confusion. The number 200 comes from the assumption a standard unit has 10 power and 10HP which when added makes 20 in total. When comparing 10 units to 10 other units that gives 200 which I named 'combat capability'. Of this 200 there is 100 power and 100HP. So when decreasing 200 with 10% of either power or HP you get 90 + 100 = 190. If you have 100HP and then have 10% less that means you add 90 instead of 100. If you calculate 200 X 0.9 = 180 by decreasing 200 with 10% you are decreasing both power AND hp.
      You shouldn't add power and HP in that case; it is easy to see that a 19-1 or a 1-19 unit is WAY weaker than a 10-10 unit. For this kind of "rough" calculation, multiply them instead. A 20-5 is a better comparison.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • New

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      You shouldn't add power and HP in that case; it is easy to see that a 19-1 or a 1-19 unit is WAY weaker than a 10-10 unit. For this kind of "rough" calculation, multiply them instead. A 20-5 is a better comparison.
      You are right, the numbers are wrong and probably more accurate when multiplied. But since my comparison only served as an illustration I do not think there would be a big difference if I do the same thing when numbers are multiplied though. Sure it does not work for a unit when comparing a 10-10 to 19-1 but I do not think it would make a huge difference for what I was trying to say. Since the 10-10 is also fictional. Depending on the level, the doctrine, research tree that comes with it and because a 10-10 unit will not encounter a 10-10 unit anyway there are lots of things wrong with the way I calculated the whole thing.

      To serve its purpose for me to show that Pan-Asian doctrine does not have a built in solution to its doctrinal weakness while the other doctrines do it does just fine. That is also why I do not feel like doing the extra hassle of making sure the numbers are correct :P
    • New

      Just weighing in, I played a game as Japan in the 100 player map prior to the terrain nerf and the doctrine seemed very strong relative to the others. For an active player the visibility and speed are huge advantages and the terrain bonus seemed borderline overpowered. It's not a straightforward math calculation like the other mechanical advantages, but the ability to put yourself in the most advantageous position for battle every time is huge. Now with the nerf and the splitting of hills and forests it's probably a little closer to balance.