Technology Tree: Land Doctrines

Since I have nothing to add to Le-Boehms Naval Proposals (except the opinion that since we use battalion size in land forces, we should definitively take TRP- and CORE-styled approach to naval units by making each unit to represent individual ships instead of using flotillas for DDs and SS´s.

And now to the main point of this post, some early outlines for Land Doctrine tree.

When considering the overall design philosophy behind HoI 3 land doctrine system, I once again find some things that I like and some that I don't. The way of giving players freedom of action to customize the national doctrines by researching whatever they seem appropriate is definitively good and something we should IMO seek to maintain in the mod as well. Now, what I do not like about this approach is the way it does away with the earlier major differences between major countries and their various and sometimes completely opposite looks to warfare. When every kind of doctrine gives some kind of bonus, the sole strategic choice the player is left with is a watered-down quest for ultimate land doctrine tech combo that will provide the "best" combat events and/or morale and doctrine.

What I have in mind is a land doctrine tech tree that retains part of the freedom of choice of vanilla HoI 3 while re-introducing the differences between major doctrinal schools of the time period. Doctrines can (and should) have much more effect than just plainly increasing Org/Mor and the likelihood of certain combat event. They should have effect on the actual stats of units, affecting to several factors from combat events to different modifiers. Doctrines are also very much political matters. If we can have tech as requirement for laws, we could also create a system where certain doctrine techs are required for certain kind of conscription laws or training systems. The possibilities of internal relations between doctrines, laws and tech doesn't end here, and in this field we really should fully research the capabilities of HoI 3 since it seems that there is a possibility for a system where technology development goes hand-in-hand with doctrinal changes.

Most importantly doctrines should have effects that are counterbalancing other doctrines with different views. Researching doctrines that emphasize completely opposite approaches to a certain situation, such as rigid centralized command system-doctrine vs. low-level initiative and mission-based tactics-doctrine should not simply provide various bonuses from both techs, but instead a situation where the two techs largely negate one another's pros and cons on certain fields. Player can still research different doctrines freely, but focusing strongly on certain path should still bring more benefits than being jack of all trades, master of none.

Graphically I prefer the vanilla Naval Tech Tree approach, where each major doctrinal school with their researchable techs forms a column, with following techs forming another column below like this:

Large Front
* Deep Operations Theory
* Centralized Operational Level Organization
* Large Formations SOP
* Breakthrough Priority
* *
Mechanized Wave
Massed Armor
Infantry Motorization
Fire Destruction

Now to the actual layout of the tech tree. I´m planning to use 5 major doctrine columns, with additional room for C3I Systems and Low-Intensity Conflict techs:

Superior Firepower * Grand Battle Plan * Large Front * Spearhead * Light Infantry

Superior Firepower: American-styled doctrine. Focuses on firepower and develops from early infantry-focus to emphasize decentralized command structure, regimental-level combat with combined arms and mobile firepower, later on expanding the combined arms approach to battalion level as well. Will emphasize infantry motorization and mechanization very early on.

Grand Battle Plan: French and British-styled doctrine. Focuses on firepower and starts with defensive mindset promoting infantry, fixed fortifications and focus on artillery firepower based on a centralized command system. Will later on utilize combined arms approach as well, especially for armor and mechanized units, but won't stress for total mechanization or even motorization of infantry. Will instead divide the armed forces to a triangular structure where a conscript and reserve force is used for home defense while smaller mechanized core is retained for counterattacks and a lightly equipped, well-trained mobile units are used for overseas deployment.

Large Front: Soviet-style doctrine. Focuses on mobility, starts with offensive mindset with focus on centralized command structure, large infantry forces, artillery firepower and combined arms approach. Will later on focus on mechanized warfare, emphasizing combined arms mechanized warfare with tanks, mechanized infantry and self-propelled artillery. Is late to utilize infantry motorization, but will later on press for nearly-complete infantry motorization.

Spearhead: German-styled doctrine. Focuses on mobility, starts with offensive mindset with focus on low-level initiative, armored spearhead tactics and combined arms combat. Will later on emphasize battalion-level combined arms combat. Early promoter of infantry motorization, but unlikely to fully motorize infantry forces.

Light Infantry: Infantry-focused doctrine of smaller conventional armies, Chinese factions and Japan. Focuses on mobility, emphasizing light infantry tactics based on the usage of terrain. Will only later on utilize combined arms approach and will only press for partial motorization of infantry.

Stats-wise all doctrine paths will develop along the general Cold War-era trend of gradual motorization of conventional armies. Another key phenomena will be the chancing role of conventional forces during Cold War conflicts, portrayed through the Low-Intensity Conflict tech tree. The key point here is that the more the conventional army is focused on counter-insurgency warfare, the less well its prepared and equipped for the needs of mechanized warfare that will most likely define WWIII-styled military conflict between the major alliances. As the expenses of military upkeep will rise through the mod, during the Cold War years player will be hard-pressed to decide whether they will use conventional armies for counter-insurgency duties or not.

This is just an early outline of what I have in mind and all feedback is, as always, appreciated.

I completely agree with you!

I somewhat dislike the lack of distinct malus for the combination of non-fitting doctrines. In my current game as Germany I have a combination of Armored Spearhead/Blitzkrieg-Doctrines and do also use American Superior Firepower-Doctrine to give me +1 Brigade-slot per Division and British +5% reinforcement chance tech, simply because it gives me a bonus.

This must end, either with a highly sophisticated balance of Doctrinal effects or with certain modifiers giving you a malus for counterbalancing approaches (such as the example of strict hierarchy AND low-level-initiative which collides somewhat in the end - or, different example, elastic defense with soviet-style polit-commisars in your rear threatening to shoot you when you retreat)

Reading about the connection to politics, this is an even better idea and perfectly doable as far as I know. I strongly support this idea, though it needs some time to line out possible extensions of laws to fit different doctrines. Soviet-Style mass-recruitment / non-existant training comes into mind. Grab a rifle and go.

Black Guardian wrote:Reading about the connection to politics, this is an even better idea and perfectly doable as far as I know. I strongly support this idea, though it needs some time to line out possible extensions of laws to fit different doctrines. Soviet-Style mass-recruitment / non-existant training comes into mind. Grab a rifle and go.

Just what I had in mind. Or the historical French situation where they had to adapt defensive doctrine partly because the impression that they could not properly train troops for offensive warfare due restricted conscription time. Good to know that we agree on general outlines, filling in the details is much easier than completely changing the intented approach.

Another important branch in doctrinal thinking is guerilla warfare / home defense - or, military and paramilitary resistance like in many cases of the Cold War (especially later on) extendet conflicts into years of fighting.
Think of Vietman or Afghanistan for some very obvious cases.

High bonuses for terrain-modifiers, a good morale though relatively low organization (?) combined with quite large formations (comparably low combat width -> more units on the front), as the casualties are still higher for the resistance-fighters than for modern armies. Or should it only be a consequence of lower weapon-technology?

Black Guardian wrote:Another important branch in doctrinal thinking is guerilla warfare / home defense - or, military and paramilitary resistance like in many cases of the Cold War (especially later on) extended conflicts into years of fighting.
Think of Vietman or Afghanistan for some very obvious cases.

High bonuses for terrain-modifiers, a good morale though relatively low organization (?) combined with quite large formations (comparably low combat width -> more units on the front), as the casualties are still higher for the resistance-fighters than for modern armies. Or should it only be a consequence of lower weapon-technology?

While I agree on your suggestions of how to simulate the conventional-level combat in such conflict, I also think that the key parts of the game needed to properly simulate the true nature of guerrilla warfare are not in the combat system at all. In my opinion the fundamental aspects of proper simulation of a long insurgency are governments-in-exile, nationalism effecting the revolt risk of provinces and national unity and domestic politics of involved factions. Vietnam and Afghanistan were both wars where the interfering major power won all major conventional battles with clear numbers and still ended up losing the war. With the game mechanics of HoI3, I think we finally have a chance of simulating such a conflict even though I'm aware that the approach I have in mind would be quite event-intensive.

I have understood that while we retain the chance to have countries without actual provinces just like in HoI2, we also have a chance to create new factions to host governments-in-exile. If this is true, it offers us great chances for proper "slow" guerrilla war simulation.

Here's what I have in mind, using the OTL Vietnam War as an example. At the beginning of the conflict a new government-in-exile, Việt cộng, is formed alongside with a new single-member off-map faction that is at war against South Vietnam. At the same time the new GiE gains cores to South Vietnam. Now we have an "invisible" guerrilla movement that will gradually start to build up partisan forces within the country. Initially the sole effect of their existence would be growth of popularity of the National Liberation Front in South Vietnamese politics.

At this point foreign powers, OTL Soviet Union and PRC would have their own events regarding the conflict, giving them chances to support the uprising by sending the Việt cộng GiE support. This support would take various forms, from "Support our Party" intelligence missions in South Vietnam to giving Việt cộng GiE more off-map IC, leadership, supply production ech. Once the popularity of Communist National Liberation Front in South Vietnam grows to certain level, this will trigger events where the South Vietnamese government starts to suffer from the effects of ongoing insurgency - first their National Unity begins to drop and dissent begins to grow. Same events will also increase the Threat rating of Việt cộng GiE and Neutrality of South Vietnam - giving them chances to enact more harsh laws to protect the government and gear up for war against the guerrillas.

By now the foreign support of Việt cộng GiE and its early success has made it strong enough to start the first battalion-scale partisan uprisings in the country. As the enemy forces soon occupy parts of their core territory, South Vietnamese National Unity keeps dropping. New events kick in - removing South Vietnam part of their cores in most remote areas, thus rising their revolt risk substantially.

At this point United States interferes, allying with South Vietnam and sending in troops. Due the presence of allied troops in their soil, South Vietnamese National Unity receives a boost. By sending troops and supporting friendly political forces within the country, United States starts to oppose the spread of Communism in Vietnam. While the actual military part of the war will mostly be about reducing the revolt risk in key provinces and destroying the isolated Việt cộng GiE partisan units, casualties will still mount and the continuing conflict will now start "War weariness" events for United States as well, reducing their national unity as well.

The counter-insurgency campaign can thus be won only by raising the South Vietnamese National Unity high enough and by reducing the support of Communist National Liberation Front low enough - by then the rebels have lost their base of support among the population and dissolve into disorganized rabble - Việt cộng GiE and the supporting off-map faction are removed via event, South Vietnam regains cores to all of her former territory and the revolt risk will go back to zero. There are several ways to achieve this, and it is of course tempting for the player to send in more forces to increase the "Presence of Allied troops"-effect. And just like historically, this can often be counter-productive as casualties rise and public support for the seemingly never-ending conflict starts to decline. Once it gets too low, United States signs a peace treaty with Việt cộng GiE and ends its alliance with South Vietnam, withdrawing from the country.

I think this is a rather good simulation of classical Maoist-style guerrilla war of attrition. If left unchecked and unopposed, the Communist-supported Việt cộng GiE will gradually lower the national unity of South Vietnam and tie their forces down to anti-partisan operations through the country so that North Vietnam will win the war and annex South Vietnam. Once this happens, Việt cộng GiE and the supporting off-map faction are removed via event and the war ends.

In the case of OTL Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the events would be similar. Mujahedin GiE would be formed once Soviet Union turns Afghanistan into puppet, and following events would soon remove the cores the puppet regime has from Afghan countryside and Pakistan border. Western intelligence services would start to support rebels and decrease the National Unity in Afghanistan, opposed by Soviet attempts to increase it and oppose the rebels. Gradually the Soviet government would suffer from ever-decreasing national unity (simulating the public support for war) while the their local puppet regime would also lose their national unity and control of the country. Soviet Union would withdraw and the remaining loyal government forces would be overrun by GiE Mujahedin forces.

If this basic system of off-map faction leader and GiE guerrilla movement is feasible, we could test its limits by other means as well. In many Cold War era conflicts there were many opposing factions fighting among themselves. If the game can handle multiple GiEs in same territory (even that might not be necessary since we can just give them cores to their support regions and claims to rest of the state), then we could well simulate such complicated conflicts as the Angolan Civil War, for example.

So, any comments on that last proposal?

To be honest, your approach, though good in general thinking, is rather unflexible and complicated. Things are static and thus, such wars will only occur in country they are meant to.
I would like a more flexible approach, where such effects could hit every country if they are politically too instable. Just like in MMP for Eu3, I would rather prefer a good and complex system that applies to all countries at once than coding complex chains for every country again and again.

I´d rather approach it with a broader, simplified system based on your proposal (wether it works or not must be tested)


There is a Rebel-type (or maybe even several rebel types according to their ideology: Communist Rebels, Fascist Rebels, and so on) that does spawn under certain conditions. This is our basic on which the upcoming steps will rely.

Let us assume now, that the country falls into political chaos: Their national unity is low, radical parties are popular or well organized and dissent is probably very high. A set of events will now spark the crisis in this country...
An event will apply a country-flag or national country modifier to this country to "mark" it, maybe also giving some nasty side-effects.
Foreign powers get the opportunity to support a certain party, be it rebels or government, thus increasing or decreasing the chance for future developments into the one or other direction. Invisible guerilla-movements will be formed due to events that occur for countries that are "marked" by the country modifier, with higher chances the more remote the area is (e.g.: Low province-infrastructure & ic, low populaton, whatever the triggers allow).
Another event based on these modifiers will fire, assigning a province-flag/modifier to the low-infra-low-ic-province. This province-flag will now be used as circumstance for the guerilla-spawning, maybe even using differing intensitiy of guerilla-movements. Some provinces will only be "Small guerilla movement", others might be "Guerilla-strongholds". Of course, the more intense, the higher the spawning-chance.

Other parts of the event-chain could be similar to what you proposed (national unity drops for guerilla-plagued countries & foreign initiative), conflicts being resolved by a change of government (Viet Cong overthrows south-vietnamese government & reunites with the north), external influence (North Vietnamese invasion of the weakened south) or other possibilities.

What do you think?

Black Guardian wrote:To be honest, your approach, though good in general thinking, is rather unflexible and complicated. Things are static and thus, such wars will only occur in country they are meant to.
I would like a more flexible approach, where such effects could hit every country if they are politically too instable. Just like in MMP for Eu3, I would rather prefer a good and complex system that applies to all countries at once than coding complex chains for every country again and again. I´d rather approach it with a broader, simplified system based on your proposal (wether it works or not must be tested)

Testing is definitively needed, if we can come up with a universal system that is definitively better solution.

Black Guardian wrote:There is a Rebel-type (or maybe even several rebel types according to their ideology: Communist Rebels, Fascist Rebels, and so on) that does spawn under certain conditions. This is our basic on which the upcoming steps will rely. Let us assume now, that the country falls into political chaos: Their national unity is low, radical parties are popular or well organized and dissent is probably very high. A set of events will now spark the crisis in this country...An event will apply a country-flag or national country modifier to this country to "mark" it, maybe also giving some nasty side-effects. Foreign powers get the opportunity to support a certain party, be it rebels or government, thus increasing or decreasing the chance for future developments into the one or other direction. Invisible guerilla-movements will be formed due to events that occur for countries that are "marked" by the country modifier, with higher chances the more remote the area is (e.g.: Low province-infrastructure & ic, low populaton, whatever the triggers allow).

Another event based on these modifiers will fire, assigning a province-flag/modifier to the low-infra-low-ic-province. This province-flag will now be used as circumstance for the guerilla-spawning, maybe even using differing intensitiy of guerilla-movements. Some provinces will only be "Small guerilla movement", others might be "Guerilla-strongholds". Of course, the more intense, the higher the spawning-chance.

Other parts of the event-chain could be similar to what you proposed (national unity drops for guerilla-plagued countries & foreign initiative), conflicts being resolved by a change of government (Viet Cong overthrows south-vietnamese government & reunites with the north), external influence (North Vietnamese invasion of the weakened south) or other possibilities.

What do you think?

Clearer than my proposal while still retaining its basic essense and intent. As long as we can find a way to simulate long and bitter low-intensity conflicts where winning conventional battles is not the sole key to victory, I'm all for it.

I've been thinking about the actual structure of our land doctrine tech tree, and came up with the following proposal:

(This image is solely showing the structure of my vision of the tech tree)

As I read about the different doctrines in real life and in WWII, and studied the possible effects of HoI3 doctrines, it became increasingly clear that keeping all doctrine paths open for research just wouldn't work in a satisfactory manner. It could be done, but then the historical differences between major nations would be lost. On the other hand limiting the player from customizing his doctrines at all would be too drastic - not to mention that it would also waste awful lot of the potential of HoI3.

My suggestion to this problem is a combination of static doctrine paths of HoI2 and freedom of HoI3: While the major WWII doctrine paths follow HoI2 approach where only one path can be chosen and individual techs are researched only once, postwar analysis will open the latter half of the tech tree open for research and here the research is no longer channelled to one path, but instead spread out to HoI3-styled "open" part. Note that the five different ways to approach postwar analysis and deal with the "atomic revolution" in conventional thinking will take considerable time - while the OTL Americans spent the late 1940s and pre-Korean War 1950s thinking that
nuclear weapons had rendered conventional weapons useless, OTL Soviets were already testing ways to fight conventionally in nuclear battlefield.

To give the player some additional strategic decisions to make during WWII and later I included the lower eight tech fields. While doctrines represent strategic and operational thinking and outlines, making tactics a separate research field will allow the player to tailor his doctrine a little bit while retaining the general feeling of the chosen doctrine path. While the major doctrine paths give major outlines, tactical research can be directed to either improve the focus areas of the doctrine even further or cover up its weak points somewhat. By now I have the impression that doctrines could affects to following things: default morale, default organization, max_strength and manpower requirements of buildable units, number of officers in new units, combined arms bonus, reinforce chance, radio strength, encryption and decryption, supply issues (transfer cost and throughput) unit cooperation, attack delay, division size, attrition, supply and fuel consumption, maximum speed, defensiveness, combat width, attack movement speed, fort attack, river attack, suppression, night combat stats...

The decision to move first aid and supply techs here is merely a suggestion, seems logical to me but they could as well go to other pages if necessary as well. Now then, comments?

Karelian wrote:
My suggestion to this problem is a combination of static doctrine paths of HoI2 and freedom of HoI3: While the major WWII doctrine paths follow HoI2 approach where only one path can be chosen and individual techs are researched only once, postwar analysis will open the latter half of the tech tree open for research and here the research is no longer channelled to one path, but instead spread out to HoI3-styled "open" part.

Another approach comes to mind: I play and like Magna Mundi Platinum very much and they inspired my thinking in this field (and probably several others). For those of you who do not know the mod: Changing your national ideas leads to a approxemately 20-year lasting turmoil while the people try to renegate the past and adjust to the new paradigm.

Couldn´t we try to give the players who choose to combine different doctrine-approaches a penalty for the discrepancy of their choice? A disputed leadership that is not united behind a doctrine and does discuss the methods to apply is not as capable as one following the same school of thinking. Even political consequences could occur, when a part of the leadership questions the decision of the political regime to favour a special school.
By penalizing, we would keep the option of a change of doctrine, but at a great cost for the player who wants to do so. It´s his choice then again - welcome to strategy games. It´s all about choice and decision

Black Guardian wrote:Couldn´t we try to give the players who choose to combine different doctrine-approaches a penalty for the discrepancy of their choice? A disputed leadership that is not united behind a doctrine and does discuss the methods to apply is not as capable as one following the same school of thinking. Even political consequences could occur, when a part of the leadership questions the decision of the political regime to favour a special school.

By penalizing, we would keep the option of a change of doctrine, but at a great cost for the player who wants to do so. It´s his choice then again - welcome to strategy games. It´s all about choice and decision

In theory this could actually be rather easy if I understand the mechanics behind Decisions-system right. Could we just allow the player to make a Decision to launch an event changing the doctrine path with appropriate penalties whenever he wishes?

My thoughts went into a different direction. I did not mean the word "decision" in game terms but rather in it´s original meaning. I will explain with an example:

Player has Grand-Battle-Plan as starting-path, but he decides that he want to change his approach in armored warfare by researching a technology out of the Spearhead-path (say, the tech "Blitzkrieg"). He can research it without any complications, but once it is researched, an event (or a series of events) will trigger that gives him penalties because the general-staff is now disputing about the right approach, gets disorganized...

If we enhance and extend this event-series (and if the event-effects allow us to do so), we could think of giving the player the opportunity to completely abandon his old path in the long term (~10 years?) and changing into the new branch, however, a penalty will remain for quite some time (another 5-10 years?) until the change of paradigm is complete. So, it does not turn out well to change the doctrine at all, because you could simply wait until you have to change your doctrine into a free-chosen Cold-War-branch anyway.

As is said, everything depends on the variety of event-commands that is available. If the ones supplied with the scripting guide are everything, this approach is outright impossible without very much trickery.

Black Guardian wrote:My thoughts went into a different direction. I did not mean the word "decision" in game terms but rather in it´s original meaning. I will explain with an example:

Player has Grand-Battle-Plan as starting-path, but he decides that he want to change his approach in armored warfare by researching a technology out of the Spearhead-path (say, the tech "Blitzkrieg"). He can research it without any complications, but once it is researched, an event (or a series of events) will trigger that gives him penalties because the general-staff is now disputing about the right approach, gets disorganized...

If we enhance and extend this event-series (and if the event-effects allow us to do so), we could think of giving the player the opportunity to completely abandon his old path in the long term (~10 years?) and changing into the new branch, however, a penalty will remain for quite some time (another 5-10 years?) until the change of paradigm is complete. So, it does not turn out well to change the doctrine at all, because you could simply wait until you have to change your doctrine into a free-chosen Cold-War-branch anyway.

As is said, everything depends on the variety of event-commands that is available. If the ones supplied with the scripting guide are everything, this approach is outright impossible without very much trickery.

I understood you correctly on the first time, but the way paraller research works seemed to require so much events to cover all possible doctrine changes that I thought it could easily become too rigid. The idea is indeed good, but if you are correct with the scripting issue we'll have to think something else.

I just found out that I am very dumb and though I once warned Zerli not to underestimate the huge possibilities of the Hoi3-event-system, I know stepped into the same trap for technologies. We can easily disable any technology with an event with only one line! Events allowance works like event-triggers and are very variable.

If we write our event in the following way:

allow = {
Not = { event = XXX }

}


(we can use a country-flag as well for this, like: not = { flag = spearhead_disabled }


Other flag-options come into mind, where technologies set flags as effect.
Example:

Code:


blitzkrieg = {
    armor_brigade = {      default_organisation = 5    }
    heavy_armor_brigade = {    default_organisation = 5    }
    light_armor_brigade = {    default_organisation = 5    }
    super_heavy_armor_brigade = {  default_organisation = 5    }
    tank_destroyer_brigade  = { default_organisation = 5    }
    armored_car_brigade = {    default_organisation = 5    }
    set_flag = spearhead #################



    research_bonus_from = {
        spearhead_theory = 0.3
        land_doctrine_practical = 0.7
    }

    change = no
    on_completion = spearhead_theory

    difficulty = 10

    #common for all techs.
    start_year = 1918
    first_offset = 1936 #2nd model is from 1936
    additional_offset = 2  #one new every 2 years
    folder = land_doctrine_folder
}

--------------------------

country_event = {
   
   id = XXXX

   trigger = {
OR = { 

AND =  { flag = spearhead
        flag = grand_battleplan }
AND =  { flag = spearhead
        flag = superior_firepower }
AND =  { flag = spearhead
        flag = light_infantry }
AND =  { flag = spearhead
        flag = guerilla_warfare } 

AND =  { flag = grand_battleplan
        flag = superior_firepower }
AND =  { flag = grand_battleplan
        flag = light_infantry }
AND =  { flag = grand_battleplan
        flag = guerilla_warfare } 

AND =  { flag = superior_firepower
        flag = light_infantry }
AND =  { flag = superior_firepower
        flag = guerilla_warfare }
AND = {  flag = light_infantry
        flag = guerilla_warfare }
      }
VARIOUS OTHER TRIGGER FACTORS (maybe modifiers for the mean-time-to happen)

 }

   mean_time_to_happen =  {
      months = 2
   }

   title = "Leadership divided about Doctrinal approach"
   desc = "A heavy debate has struck our leadership about the approach of warfare we should follow. Blah blah blah"


   option = {
      name = "ok"         
   }
}



This way, we have everything in only 1 event, whichever path you choose. If we want to apply different penalties for each doctrine-combination, we had to script several additional events, but in the end it is not as much as it seems.
Basically, we have 5+4+3+2+1 = 15 combinations. This is a task that can be solved without much problems.

Black Guardian wrote:I just found out that I am very dumb and though I once warned Zerli not to underestimate the huge possibilities of the Hoi3-event-system, I know stepped into the same trap for technologies. We can easily disable any technology with an event with only one line! Events allowance works like event-triggers and are very variable.

If we write our event in the following way...This way, we have everything in only 1 event, whichever path you choose. If we want to apply different penalties for each doctrine-combination, we had to script several additional events, but in the end it is not as much as it seems. Basically, we have 5+4+3+2+1 = 15 combinations. This is a task that can be solved without much problems.

Great news. So, we shall go forth with the possibility to pick any combination of two major doctrine paths or to stick with just one then? Or did I misinterpreted your example event?

Greetings once again. I have begun the process of transforming my earlier plans into actual techs while further refining the ideas proposed in the thread. As a first step I have converted the doctrines of HoI2 into HoI3 format. I begun this process by adding values for the new combat event, Shock (I used the following formula to determine the Shock values of different tech trees: Assault+Breakthrough/2=Shock). Then I divided the final stats of each doctrine tree by seven, thus creating stats for doctrine techs that can be researched on a yearly basis while still retaining the former event balance between the different tech trees.

So, instead of the old system where the player researched "Large Front" in 1937 and then had to wait for "Deep Operations" until 1940 the new Large Front Doctrine will have new tech for each year between 1936 and 1943 - and it will still end up with same stats as the old Soviet doctrine tree. Here are the converted stats for each yearly tech. The first number on the left is the final percentage value of each combat event, the number on the right is the yearly change value for each stat of the doctrine.

Large Front
Offensive
9 Assault 1.28
6 Encirlement 0.86
3 Ambush 0.43
9 Breakthrough 1.28
9 Shock 1.28
Defensive
9 Counterattack 1.28
6 Delay 0.86
6 Tactical Withdrawal 0.86
2.5 HQ Event Chance: 0.36
Organization: 5,71
Morale: 15,71

Spearhead
Offensive
4 Assault 0.57
13 Encirlement 1.86
7 Ambush 1
13 Breakthrough 1.86
9 Shock 1.28
Defensive
11 Counterattack 1.57
9 Delay 1.28
9 Tactical Withdrawal 1.28
3.0 HQ Event Chance: 0.42
Organization: 10,71
Morale: 7,14

Grand Battle Plan
Offensive
6 Assault 0.86
9 Encirlement 1.28
6 Ambush 0.86
6 Breakthrough 0.86
6 Shock 0.86
Defensive
9 Counterattack 1.28
13 Delay 1.86
9 Tactical Withdrawal 1,28
2.0 HQ Event Chance 0.28
Organization: 7,85
Morale: 7,14

Superiour Firepower Focus
Offensive
7 Assault 1
4 Encirlement 0.57
6 Ambush 0.86
4 Breakthrough 0.57
6 Shock 0.86
Defensive
13 Counterattack 1.86
9 Delay 1.28
13 Tactical Withdrawal 1.86
2.2 HQ Event Chance 0.31
Organization: 10
Morale: 7,14

So, that's for events. As we stated previously, doctrines should have much more effects than just plain combat stats. For Grand Battle Plan doctrine, for example, I intend to add at least the following effects:

hq_brigade = {
maximum_speed = -
}
Great War-tradition of centralized command system and relatively slower pace of warfare initially makes the Grand Battle Plan-HQs slower than their counterparts in many other doctrine trees.

artillery_brigade = {
maximum_speed = -
}
artillery_brigade = {
soft_attack =
}
artillery_brigade = {
hard_attack =
}
artillery_brigade = {
supply_consumption =
}
artillery_brigade = {
fort_attack =
}
French and British armies initially relied on Great War-styled massed artillery as the principal form of battlefield firepower. The increased attack stats are compensated by extremely slow speed and increased supply consumption, simulating their artillery doctrine where preferred fire missions were initially long Great War-styled massive barrages.

defense_reinforce_chance =

attack_movement_speed = -

attack_delay = -

"War by timetable" mentality and discouraged NCO define the early war British and French doctrine, as shown in their defensive mindset, slow and methodical offensive emphasis and long command delays

armor_brigade = {
combat_width =
}

unit_cooperation = 0.05

}

combined_arms_bonus = 0.1

}
Using tanks primarily as either infantry support weapons or in traditional cavalry roles of scouting and exploiting breakthroughs made by arty-supported infantry is the very opposite to the idea of concentrated usage of tanks - but it does create the basis of later combined arms doctrine and tank-infantry cooperation where the British especially later on excelled.

infantry_brigade = {
default_morale = 0.05
}
}
infantry_brigade = {
defensiveness =
}
}
infantry_brigade = {
build_cost_manpower =
}

}
infantry_brigade = {
build_cost_officers =
}

Changes in building costs and actual combat stats allows us to simulate the larger or smaller formations of different armies of the era, as well as their various organizational structures and combat tactics - more professional and smaller forces are compensated by bigger officer demand while larger formations are more capable of sustaining casualties and retaining their combat efficiency.

Finally a question: Can in-game events change the values of defines.lua?
If we could have different values for these variables for each country, that would allow us to increase the differences between various doctrines even further:
COMBAT_LEADER_IMPACT
DIG_IN_FACTOR
UNIT_DIGIN_CAP
SURPRISE_BONUS
OFFICER_COMBAT_LOSS
RADIO_CORPS_LEADER_DISTANCE

I will post a new screenshot showing the evolution of land doctrine tech tree later tonight. But please do comment and notify me if I once again try to use something we can't properly mod to the game.

Sounds great so far!
Bring forth the changes in the other doctrine-branches as well, when they are finished.
So far, it looks very good to create a very determined doctrine-approach, when every branch "feels" different to play. If we can reach this ambitious goal, we have done good work.

I heavily doubt that the defines.lua-variables can be changed ingame via event. As far as I know, it is entirely impossible, but who knows what is to come in future patches?

All right, here are the first stats of the WWII-part of the land doctrine techs.

Doctrine path stats by 1944-45: (Org)/(Morale)
Superior Firepower: 60/50
Large Front: 40/90
Blitzkrieg: 70/50
Operational Stages: 55/50
Infiltration Assault: 40/100
Attritional Containment: 45/75
Light Infantry: 25/90
Guerrilla Warfare:15/90


Large Front Per year
Offensive
8 Assault 1.14
5 Encirlement 0.71
2 Ambush 0.29
8 Breakthrough 1.14
8 Shock 1.14
Defensive
8 Counterattack 1.14
5 Delay 0.71
5 Tactical Withdrawal 0.71
2.5 HQ Event Chance: 0.36
Organization: 5,71
Morale: 15,71

Spearhead Per year
Offensive
5 Assault 0.71
12 Encirlement 1.71
5 Ambush 1
13 Breakthrough 1.86
9 Shock 1.28
Defensive
8 Counterattack 1.14
9 Delay 1.28
8 Tactical Withdrawal 1.14
3.0 HQ Event Chance: 0.42
Organization: 10
Morale: 7,14

Grand Battle Plan Per year
Offensive
5 Assault 0.71
8 Encirlement 1.14
5 Ambush 0.71
5 Breakthrough 0.71
5 Shock 0.71
Defensive
8 Counterattack 1.14
12 Delay 1.71
8 Tactical Withdrawal 1.14
2.0 HQ Event Chance 0.28
Organization:7,85
Morale: 7,14

Superiour Firepower Focus Per year
Offensive
8 Assault 1.14
5 Encirlement 0.57
5 Ambush 0.57
5 Breakthrough 0.57
7 Shock 1
Defensive
12 Counterattack 1.71
8 Delay 1.14
12 Tactical Withdrawal 1.71
2.2 HQ Event Chance 0.31
Organization: 8.57
Morale: 7,14

Light Infantry Focus Per year
Offensive
6 Assault 0.86
2 Encirlement 0.29
5 Ambush 0.71
0 Breakthrough 0
3 Shock 0.43
Defensive
8 Counterattack 1.14
7 Delay 1
9 Tactical Withdrawal 1.28
1.95 HQ Event Chance 0.29
Organization: 3.57
Morale: 12,85

Guerrilla Warfare Focus Per year
Offensive
4 Assault 0.57
0 Encirlement 0
4 Ambush 0.57
0 Breakthrough 0
2 Shock 0.29
Defensive
10 Counterattack 1.43
11 Delay 1.57
9 Tactical Withdrawal 1.28
1.85 HQ Event Chance 0.26
Organization: 2.14
Morale: 12,85

I´m currently familiarizing myself with actual tech modding, so far results have been positive although implementing the whole tech tree will obviously still take a while. At first I'm testing the ways my planned techs effects actually work in-game.

Nice, though the difference is not that stunning if compared to the old version, as the change is rather hidden - nevertheless, good to see that work is still in progress and nicely advancing.

This is just early toying around - the old tech tree will naturally be replaced by the new once I'm done. Right now I'm trying to find a way to code the new unit stat changes to the starting doctrine techs of each doctrine path - I'm clearly doing something wrong at the moment since the modded techs are not visible in-game.

Post an excerpt of the code, a screenshot and a short list of what else you modified, I´ll have a look.

By the way, Thaegen should have contacted you on Paradox forums by now. The fact that he has earlier made this is really promising for our overall progress in this part of the mod.

Try:

Code:

spearhead_doctrine = {

mobile_warfare = {

    hq_brigade = {
        maximum_speed = 0.5
        default_organisation = 0.01
        default_morale = 0.01
        supply_consumption = 0.10
        fuel_consumption = 0.10
        defensiveness = 0.10
        toughness = 0.10
        softness = 0.10
        air_defence = 0.10
        soft_attack = 0.10
        hard_attack = 0.10
}

    assault = 0.71
    encirclement = 1.71
    ambush = 1
    breakthrough = 1.86
    shock = 1.28
    counterattack = 1.14
    delay = 1.71
    tactical_withdrawal = 0.71

    research_bonus_from = {
        spearhead_theory = 0.3
        land_doctrine_practical = 0.7
    }

    change = no
    on_completion = spearhead_theory

    difficulty = 5

    #common for all techs.
    start_year = 1918
    first_offset = 1936 #2nd model is from 1936
    additional_offset = 2  #one new every 2 years
    folder = land_doctrine_folder
}
....



Nope, it still won't display it in-game. Hmm, I'll do further tests tomorrow when I have more time.

My only other guess right now is that the game dislikes your low organization-increase.
Remember that organisation is increased in full numbers while morale is a percentage.

To increase organisation by 1 you have to write 1
to increase morale by 1 you have to write 0.01

Apart from that I cannot find any error right now...

Black Guardian wrote:My only other guess right now is that the game dislikes your low organization-increase.
Remember that organisation is increased in full numbers while morale is a percentage.

To increase organisation by 1 you have to write 1
to increase morale by 1 you have to write 0.01

Apart from that I cannot find any error right now...

Heck, should have thought that.

Does it work now or didn´t you try yet?

Black Guardian wrote:Does it work now or didn´t you try yet?

It does, finally. There was an error in naming the tech, that's all. I'll finish the rest of the starting techs of each land doctrine path tomorrow and represent the WWII-era tech tree up to postwar reforms. Then we'll just have to mod the actual tech tree to the game. Things are moving forward.

Adding stats for multiple unit types in same tech works fine as well. Therefore I'm happy to announce you that the first version of the new land doctrine tech tree is stats-wise ready for testing, and next we could start the work of adding it to the game. In this part of modding I'd really appreaciate any help Thaegen could give us, since I have no previous experience of adding actual new techs to the game.

I'll post screenshots about my planned tech tree layout as soon as I can download them to Imageshack.

And here are the screenshots I talked about earlier.


Tech effects for multiple unit types.


And here is the tech tree layout, only lacking the initial starting tech of each tech tree.
There are two kinds of techs of each land doctrine path in both WWII-era and Cold War-parts of the tech tree: The actual doctrine techs, (one for WWII and one for Cold War in each tech tree) and reform techs. The doctrine techs can be researched repeatedly (on a yearly basis for WWII-part and with a slower pace for Cold War-part) and they affect to the combat event chances.

The Reform-techs affect unit stats and alter the original outlines set by the already-researched starting techs of each land doctrine path. These techs represent the changing structures and tactics of different armies. As an example, the starting tech of Large Front Doctrine initially simulates the usage of "human wave"-tactics by reducing the combat width of infantry units but also increasing maximum attrition and reducing casualty tricleback. While Reform Techs reduce the attrition penalties of this doctrine path somewhat, the Large Front doctrine will still continue to stand out for massing units into narrow frontages and suffering larger casualties as a result. Each Reform-tech also requires certain key weapon systems to be known before it can be researched. As an example, Mid-War Reforms of Spearhead Doctrine Requires certain levels of infantry weapons, namely Improved Machine Guns and infantry AT-weapons, while 1980s Reforms of Superiour Firepower Doctrine requires Forward Looking Infrared Systems and several other late Cold War techs before it can be researched.

While Doctrine techs of the tech tree are theory, Reforms are the part where theory is put into practice and applied to unit organization, training and tactics.

Looks lovely.

I´d recommend to harshly increase the difficulty for doctrine-research, if you reduce the technologies per branch on 2 techs - in vanilla you had to research 6 single techs if you sticked only to your branch. The the leadership that is freed by reducing this to 2 should be compensated by longer research-time.

I was planning that, as well as radically reducing all doctrine theory and practical values of each country in the beginning of scenario to further balance things. With these changes doctrine research becomes narrower, but more specialized branch of military science. This is a nice contrast to vanilla where spending huge amounts of research points to various doctrine techs non-stop was the norm.

This might interest you, if you want a short guideline for your additional techs and spare the trial & error-process.

Without that guide I wouldn't be this far yet.

Battlecry has useful instructions for reducing the size of tech icons:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10348815&postcount=94

Hey

I 've finally moved, but still lots to do.
Karelian what do you want me to do?

Implent this?

I can do that.

I will also check battlescry way to crop those research tabs.

Yep, implement that tech tree and I can "fill in the details" from there.

Oh, and one more thing since I realized that I might have explained things too vaguely - could you please add the initial six starting techs to the left side of the tech tree on the same level as the actual researchable techs? Each doctrine path would then look like this:

Starting tech - Re-researcheable doctrine tech - Postwar analysis - Cold War-part of the tech tree

Code:

*Large Front*  -  *Large Front 1936*      -  *Postwar analysis*  - *Cold War Doctrines*
                  *WWII-Era Reforms 1939*                            *Cold War era reforms*

Karelian wrote:Oh, and one more thing since I realized that I might have explained things too vaguely - could you please add the initial six starting techs to the left side of the tech tree on the same level as the actual researchable techs? Each doctrine path would then look like this:

Starting tech - Re-researcheable doctrine tech - Postwar analysis - Cold War-part of the tech tree

Code:

*Large Front*  -  *Large Front 1936*      -  *Postwar analysis*  - *Cold War Doctrines*
                  *WWII-Era Reforms 1939*                            *Cold War era reforms*

Ok;-)