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
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 ().