Idea for new doctrine

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

    • Idea for new doctrine

      I think call of war should have more doctrine to to ad more depth ingame because I think it's weird to have a spitfire in the USA or to have a medium tank with american sign in poland or in a lot of country so i think the game should have two more doctrine the commonwealth and the french or little entente to be more extended

      the commonwealth could have a +15% recruitment because the commonwealth is large and they were many volunteer in it
      and +15% boost morale or -25% cost for spy because the commonwealth kept their morale pretty high during the war or the spy because britain had a lot of spy
      this doctrine should focuse on their navy and their air force and they should have good AA gun
      And they could have a +25% upkeep cost because the commonwealth had bad vehicle and often nedds repairs

      Now for the little entente
      they could have a +15% bonus defense in fortification because the ally withfrance had a lot of fort
      and they could have a -25% construction time because france had a lot of industry and some of its allies too
      but they would have a +25% research time because the french army and other like poland had not the vision of mordern war so they had outdated vehicle
      The little entente should not go for the air because they had terrible plane but they should do a long war and hey should use artillery

      these two doctrine can balanced the game and give some fresh air to some player it would make the game moreinterresting and would resolve some problem like the many allies in the world map and it would give better accuracy to the game

      exemple with clash of nation map i'm going to show the diversity with these new doctrine
      The Axis coud be: Germany, Italy, Libya, Finland and Spain
      The Comintern could be: Russian Empire, Communist Russia, Ukraine and Caucase
      The allies could be: South USA, Sweden, Turkey, Morroco and Algeria
      the little entente could be: France, Poland, Romania and yugoslavia
      and the commonwealth could be: UK, Canada, Egypt and north Usa

      this is just an exemple of new possibility of new doctrine it would mean new strategy and new type of gameplays for exemple the strategic bomber could be more usefull than now because it could destroy fortication of the little entente so some unit could be less useless than now

      I will maybe do the detailed doctrine with unit advantage and proposal for skin

      this thread was inspired by the doctrine of titan and sorry if they are any mistake i'm french so i try my best
      "Impossible n'est pas français"

      Napoleon
    • I do agree with making two new doctrines. but I don't agree with giving france it's own doctrine. Especially since your sidelining USA who played pivotal role in helping the allies to win. the best option would be to give the Usa it's own doctrine. and either abandon the french all together or mix the french doctrine with the commonwealth and call it something like EMPIRES or something like that
      "I don't know jeff!"

      Chris kamara
    • yugoslavia is communist , after falling to germany . poland and france played a very small role in allied victory ( yes they did help , but they were minor powers ) . Romania is also too insignificant off a country to give it’s own doctrine. I would agree with commonwealth doctrine but I don’t think it’s needed.
    • The french doctrine or little entente would not be just european it would apply on all country who used french equipment and they are a lot like the south american nation or some middle east country and yugoslavia was ruled by a king until the country fall to the axis and also all the game don't start in 1939 a lot of them start in 1932 or 1933 and in the 30' france was very powerful but i agree with the fact they those country didn't help a lot even if free france help

      AMG Morgan wrote:

      the best option would be to give the Usa it's own doctrine.
      In fact the allies doctrine is the Usa doctrine so i think it won't be possible to create an Usa doctrine
      "Impossible n'est pas français"

      Napoleon
    • Blackchastel wrote:

      Now for the little entente
      they could have a +15% bonus defense in fortification because the ally withfrance had a lot of fort
      and they could have a -25% construction time because france had a lot of industry and some of its allies too
      but they would have a +25% research time because the french army and other like poland had not the vision of mordern war so they had outdated vehicle
      The little entente should not go for the air because they had terrible plane but they should do a long war and hey should use artillery
      As building is pretty fast in 1.5 the 25% bonus for construction is hardly an advantage.
      A 25% penalty on research is pretty impactful and will result in an inferior army in the long run.
      Not only would this doctrine have an inferior army due to the research penalty but they don't even have access to the plane tech tree. Who in their right mind would even want to play this doctrine? The point of the doctrine is that each one has their advantages and a weakness which makes them balanced to on another.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!
    • BMfox wrote:

      As building is pretty fast in 1.5 the 25% bonus for construction is hardly an advantage.
      I didn't think about that but another option would be that the doctrine coud get a +15% morale boost and the 15% defensive bonus

      BMfox wrote:

      A 25% penalty on research is pretty impactful and will result in an inferior army in the long run.
      I think you're right but i didn't see any other disavadvantage except for a less harsh penalty like +15% pernalty on research
      "Impossible n'est pas français"

      Napoleon
    • The doctrines imo should be themed:

      1. American (Replacing allied)
      2. Commonwealth
      3. Axis
      4. Japanese/Pan-Asian
      5. French
      6. Comintern


      With these most countries would be accurately represented. On the 100 player map especially where there are several American "states", and former French and British colonies, it makes sense to break the allied faction down into three parts.
    • Pine of England wrote:

      With these most countries would be accurately represented. On the 100 player map especially where there are several American "states", and former French and British colonies, it makes sense to break the allied faction down into three parts.
      I know there are a lot of players who are a big fan of the Historical but most of the maps are balanced where there are no colonies and where more doctrines will just overcomplicate the game for new players.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!
    • BMfox wrote:

      Pine of England wrote:

      With these most countries would be accurately represented. On the 100 player map especially where there are several American "states", and former French and British colonies, it makes sense to break the allied faction down into three parts.
      I know there are a lot of players who are a big fan of the Historical but most of the maps are balanced where there are no colonies and where more doctrines will just overcomplicate the game for new players.
      I am actually talking about those maps, though. The 100 player map for instance. By colonies I mean playable countries that were former colonies. What I mean to say, is that there would be plenty of countries which would qualify for Commonwealth or French doctrines.

      I understand not wanting to complicate things for new players, but, frankly, I don't think new players are going to pay all that much attention to doctrines to begin with. And if they do, they'll probably be confused as is.

      ...at least, I was when they got introduced.
    • Pine of England wrote:

      I understand not wanting to complicate things for new players, but, frankly, I don't think new players are going to pay all that much attention to doctrines to begin with. And if they do, they'll probably be confused as is.
      I agree with you a lot of new player don't pay much attention to doctrines they are more focused on the research and their production and they generally don't play the doctrine advantage and some new player could see with more doctrine a deeper game with a lot to do in game also the old player could be happy with more doctrine who could make new strategy and could give a purpose to some useless unit
      "Impossible n'est pas français"

      Napoleon
    • AMG Morgan wrote:

      I do agree with making two new doctrines. but I don't agree with giving france it's own doctrine. Especially since your sidelining USA who played pivotal role in helping the allies to win. the best option would be to give the Usa it's own doctrine. and either abandon the french all together or mix the french doctrine with the commonwealth and call it something like EMPIRES or something like that
      The French would have by far enough to make it's own doctrine, as well as the Commonwealth. And also Nations like Egypt and Canada could use Commonwealth, while the French Colonial Empire (Algeria etc.) could use French. Mixing the two wouldn't be such a great idea

      AMG Morgan wrote:

      the best option would be to give the Usa it's own doctrine.
      Doesn't the USA already have it's own doctrine? Correct me if i'm wrong, but except the Skin of the Fighter Planes the USA already have their own doctrine. The Allied Doctrine is completely US
    • Ever since starting this game I have been a fan of splitting the current Allies doctrine into a Commonwealth (UK, India, Austrailia, Canada, and former African colonies) and a New World/Industrialist/Sleeping Giant (U.S., Philipenes, etc) doctrines.

      I also feel that there should be a Colonial tree to represent France, as France was a major arms manufacturer in the interwar years. France, Indochina, former African colonies of the French (Algeria, etc) would be ideal for this. I would also have liked a generic "International" doctrine to bunch up lesser nations that had neat weapons and quirks. A lot of the central European nations, some of the Chinese states, South American states, some of the Nordic countries, etc etc.

      Unfortunately, nationalism plays a huge role in any sort of attempt to genuinely create a list for this sort of thing and that ruins it as everyone has their own ideas of what doctrines should be based on their biases.