Allied Doctrine split: U.S. & Commonwealth

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

    • Allied Doctrine split: U.S. & Commonwealth

      Currently, there are only two factors which effect the way a country plays: the geography around the country, and the doctrine of the country. Since geography can't really be changed much given the game's setting, the doctrines are the only current path to creating any sort of unique opportunities from country to country. So, this is what I'd like to focus on.

      Most of the countries that were historically a part of the "Allies" fit under a single umbrella largely dominated by a tech tree that focuses on U.S. hardware. I think the French, British, and other nations deserve their own trees, and some edits be made to the the current "Allies" tree.

      I see that there's already a pinned thread for the British. I'd like to take a crack at it, as well. My iteration of the tree would be called "Commonwealth," so as to encompass more than just Britain. It would apply to the United Kingdom, Canada, ANZAC countries, India, Egypt, and any other nation that was a part of the British Empire or Commonwealth at the start of hostilities.

      Bonuses and context
      Britain's army was troubled by several factors. While its infantry was perfectly capable for the day, its tank development can be best characterized as sluggish and behind the times. Much of this is because of a rigid doctrine that proved to somewhat miss the mark, and difficulties in procuring guns and engines suitable for their armored aspirations.

      All that aside, though, their navy performed well given its situation, and its air force was top-notch. In particular, they were a pioneer in the use of Special Forces as far as the Western Allies go, and this should be reflected as part of their character. In fact, Britain was responsible for a great deal of technological innovation in the interwar years, much of which was exchanged with the United States for war material.

      My proposed faction bonuses would be as follows:
      Commonwealth: Empire
      Research Cost/time: -25%
      Aircraft Cost: -15%
      Naval Cost: -15%

      Upgrade Cost/time: +25%

      Using these bonuses/penalties, commonwealth countries are always on the technological cutting edge, being able to capitalize on a strong naval and aeronautical tradition. However, their slow upgrade speed and high cost harkens back to the industrial troubles plaguing these powers as, in one form or another, they often had issues with getting sufficient quantities of the latest equipment into the field.

      In addition, the tree itself should allow for hastened access to airborne infantry as well as commandoes. The ordnance branch should give quicker availability of early artillery upgrades. In contrast, there would be a considerable lag in the development of armored vehicles, heavily armored infantry, and tank destroyers. As such, Commonwealth armies are more likely to resemble a higher proportion of foot infantry supplemented by motorized units and a high reliance on artillery on the ground. Where possible, naval and airforces will be used to support them, as they would otherwise have a rough time in waging modern warfare against enemies with a higher investment in a powerful ground army.

      A note on equipment

      Given that the goal of adding hypothetical new doctrines would be to help add some variation to the game, I personally think that any reference to Lend Lease should be subdued and kept to a minimum except where it is necessary. If Commonwealth equipment is to be almost universally American equipment in a number of sectors, then what's the point?

      Changing the current Allied tree

      With commonwealth influences removed from the existant tree, it is now free to take on a more American or "New World" personality. This would involve the removal of the Spitfire sprite for the doctrine interceptor, perhaps replaced by a P-40 followed by a P-51. The research cost/time bonus should be replaced by a manpower bonus, reflecting that countries using this doctrine (presumably ones that have broken away from their European ancestries such as America, Mexico, and some South American countries) have vast pools of manpower relatively untouched by European and Asian wars.
    • Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      Research Cost/time: -25%
      Aircraft Cost: -15%
      Naval Cost: -15%

      Upgrade Cost/time: +25%

      Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      Using these bonuses/penalties, commonwealth countries are always on the technological cutting edge
      I understand what you are saying with the "cutting edge tech but behind on upgrade" but this really contradicts itself. It also is painful for a player to have high level tech researched BUT not actually be able to implement it. Now that I think about it, I really don't care about upgrade times as opposed to upgrade costs.

      Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      In addition, the tree itself should allow for hastened access to airborne infantry as well as commandoes
      Agreed with that.

      Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      not many armored vehicles, heavily armored infantry
      see links:
      google.com/search?q=steel+not+…&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      yahoo.com/entertainment/hijack…re%20than%20the%20Germans.

      warisboring.com/a-lot-of-what-…ut-world-war-ii-is-wrong/

      The second links cites the third link. It is based off of the work of James Holland.

      The third link is from James Holland do not question it. James Holland is probably the best authority for Commonwealth warfare in the 1940s.


      Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      Where possible, naval and airforces will be used to support them
      Agreed again.

      Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      that any reference to Lend Lease should be subdued and kept to a minimum except where it is necessaryD
      Definitely agreed.
    • The British Army had relatively few armored divisions. Armored infantry, which is what the game calls mechanized infantry (and the real-world British called motorized) was the organic infantry units assigned to armored divisions. Heavily armored infantry was not a heavy numerical presence in the British army.

      You can learn more here: kerynne.com/games/BritishMotorBattalion.html
    • Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      You can learn more here: kerynne.com/games/BritishMotorBattalion.html
      Fantastic website. Wish I'd found that earlier. Actually that website supports what I am saying. It is true that there was a small amount of mechanized units but as shown by this page (which happens to be from your website), the "organic" infantry battalion had a ton of motorized escorts.

      I will confess that I misread what you said. I thought you meant not many motorized but as your website shows the units were fully mechanized. I suppose we were both correct.


      So perhaps damage disadvantage on mech infantry but cost decrease on mot infantry?


      Just to support my point on a variety of mot infantry, this pic of a company in a british infantry regiment is from the website you shared. There is enough armored and motorized carriers for the entire company. Even if you can prove to me there isn't, the website shows that the sheer amount of support companies attached and the spare vehicle units would make up for any shortcomings.
    • The distinction between "motorized," "mechanized," and "armored" infantry is a confusing one. What this game calls Mechanized Infantry is what is known, in U.S. Nomenclature, as Armored Infantry. The Commonwealth called it Motorized Infantry.

      What I was suggesting is that, in game terms, Mechanized research would come later and lag behind other powers, as commonwealth armies tended to have less battalions/regiments of this particular type.

      The United States and the U.K. were both privileged in that even their basic foot-infantry battalions were effectively what the U.S. nomenclature calls "motorized," as in, equipped with wheeled transports. So, yes, a hypothetical commonwealth tree would have "motorized" infantry fully available.
    • I propose some more adjustments

      As the nature of British tanks go, Medium (Cavalry) Tanks should gain a 5-10% Infantry/L. Armor boost for their performance in the Pacific and North Africa. While Heavy (Infantry) tanks would have 10-15% increased firepower but a 15% decreased movement speed due to their original intent.

      Paratroopers would have a -1~-2 earlier unlocking date as well as a 20% boost in cities. While basic infantry should have a +1 later date to unlocking to balance out other nations.

      Intercepters would be cheaper to build, while strategic bombers move faster.

      British destroyers would have a +15% damage to submarines since they are equippd with sonar. British aircraft carriers will have +10% increased health to incorperate armored flight decks.

      Rockets will also have a +2 later date to unlocking

      As a side note, the battleship designs for Allies would have to change from the KGV design to probably an Iowa class.
      I should probably change what I write in here. -No one ever
    • Such drastic buffs to commonwealth units makes them blatantly overpowered. Some of them don't even make sense, either. Infantry tanks get increased firepower? Why? Was the 2-pounder notably superior to comparable tank armaments of the time? In terms of hole-punching, sure. But not by all that much, considering period ammunition.

      Increased effectiveness against submarines due to sonar? Sonar was pretty ubiquitous amongst all nations. Even the Japanese, who lacked Radar on their warships, had ample sonar capability. I could see giving them a bonus due to hedgehogs, but that wouldn't take effect until mid-to-late game upgrades of the destroyer. If we're to assume that day 1 is 1932, then day 8 is 1942 and that's when the hedgehog entered service.
    • Either way this is my conclusion for individual unit upgrades. We still need the overall doctrine bonus worked out though:

      Militia:+2 day research
      Infantry: +2 Day research delay and 15% slower movement speed
      Mot Infantry: -2 day research bonus and 15% cheaper
      Mech infantry: N/A
      Commandos: +20% damage to all, 20% more HP and 15% faster move speed
      Paratroopers: -2 day research bonus and 20% boost in cities


      AT: 15% less damage to light armor
      Arties: 15% more damage to infantry
      SP arties: -2 day research bonus
      AA: -15% damage
      SPAA: +2 day research delay

      AC: -15% speed
      Light Tank: +2 day research delay
      Med Tank: +5-10% Infantry and light Armor damage bonus
      Heavy Tank: +15% HP
      TD: -2 day research bonus

      Interceptor: 15% cheaper to build
      Tac bomber: N/A
      Attack Bomber: +2 day research delay
      Strategic Bomber: 10% faster and 10% more HP
      Naval Bomber: N/A

      Destroyer: 15% more damage to subs
      Submarines: +2 day research delay and -10% speed
      Cruiser: 15% less AA damage
      Battleship: 10% cheaper
      Aircraft Carrier: 15% more HP.

      Flying bomb: +2 day research delay
      Railroad gun: -10% HP
      Rocket: +2 day research delay
      Rocket Fighter: N/A
      Rocket Artillery: +2 day research delay and +15% cost
      SP Rocket artillery: +2 day research delay and +15% cost
      Nuclear Bomber/Rocket: -2 day research bonus


      Looking through this, I just realized that in its currently existing doctrines, the only disadvantages bytro gives to specific units are research delay disadvantages. Perhaps this could be refined within this doctrine unit draft. Also, this tree has too many units affected by it so perhaps I should calm down a bit during the next draft.
    • I don't know why you guys seem to have this thing for making commonwealth tanks do more damage, especially towards infantry. Commonwealth tank designs tended to be with small caliber guns that lacked good high explosive ammunition, meaning that they would be less effective against soft targets.
    • I am mindblown by the chart. I would like to ask though where the tac bomber bonus got to. Some of the bonuses seem a bit excessive however. The +100% damage to planes for attack bombers is a bit strange if albeit true in the case of the planes you mentioned. Same for the +50% range for American fighter planes.