What I really like about GBP is that it gives a lot of powerful bonusses in the first four slots. In SP the critical period tends to be rather early when you are not capable of getting the entire doctrine yet. I usually only get the later boosts at a point where you are already winning and you're only going to win harder, so it's worth comparing what you get on just the first 3-5 doctrines too. MA-R has one purpose it is exceptionally good at and that is insane recovery rate and reinforce rate. Especially on a country like Finland which has some additional boosts to recovery rate, I found myself able to gain half my organisation by retreating and moving back in immediately. It is a very effective org-wall. Doesn't do shit otherwise, but it's excellent for a desperate defense. Not to mention the recruitble pop being welcome on such a nation.
Did a recent Democratic Czechoslovakia play through, using GBP for the entrenchment bonus, stacked with Static Warfare and Engineers to hold back the onslaught. Being able to get that Doctrine entrenchment bonus before the fighting has begun almost certainly helped.
Very true, but I think superior firepowers +10% attack and the Overwhelming firepower tactic with just the first slot is still better :/ and im a GBP enjoyer
@@RaedwaldBretwalda ideally as czechoslovakia you want to punch a hole from silesia towards the polish border to encircle as many germans as you can as soon as possible + the ai isn't going to attack into your level 7 mountain/hill forts anyway so sfp is just better in all situations
First of all: All your Hoi 4 Guides are informative and i never saw Hoi 4 Guides so in depth like your. Pls, KEEP GOING with this work. I slightly disagree with the Mass Assault Doctrine. I know its maybe the weakest doctrine in Stats, but you can build up a whole Fortress of Infantry in Places with low supply (Africa, Asia, Russia). I had multiple MP Matches with my Mate (He was Italy and i played Ger) The allies didnt achieve to reconquer all of Africa till we went to the Urals (42). I know that Tanks are not stopped by pure Infantry but they will have a tough time to get through after all that Divisions supported by AA (Sup) and AT GUNS. Nevertheless THX A LOT for your GREAT Videos!!!!! I hope i will learn after so many years even more :D.
I've seen Mass Mobilization Italy cause nightmares in Fortress Mediterranean. If they make nothing but guns, and planes with Naval Targeting they can wipe UK fleet.
This is the kind of testing every game's balancing department should do to balance their game perfectly (or close to perfect), however i don't think that paradox do as in depth testings as you're, which is a shame, because i've the impression that their patches are mostly approximative... In the end i'm very surprised seing Great Battleplan being that good, most players would say that it's a bad doctrine (and me first, i believed it before). This video shows that in the end that every doctrine is descent in its own way. I'm very impressed by your work! Keep up that amazing work!
You underestimate -20% supply consumption in Mass Assault. It means that you basically can fight in more dire supply situation without caring about logistics and not getting big penalties out of it. USSR can be played without tanks really with it and you can hold fine and square bombarding enemy logi to the ground by using factories to dish out shit ton of planes instead of tanks. EDIT: And Superior Firepower is the only doctrine that gives you bonus for planes out of all land doctrines. +20% Air Superiority is good on air controller.
Air Superiority is a combat modifier, meaning it doesn't affect planes, but it affercts how the planes affect ground troops. 20% better Air Superiority means that units defending will have 20% better stats due to green air
@@cm01 in Vanilla good 10w infantry with air and railway guns will hold fine. Going MA gives you reinforce ratio, so you can just shuffle units around and grind off enemy units in battle. Sometimes I go meme strat bombers on Russia instead of tanks. Fucking up axis airfields, then civs, then militaries and logi in the end is waaay too OP.
A specific strat with using dispersed support doctrine, is to use 8 infantry with 8 artillery, in MP games, as people usually spam out infantry, making this a very good for early to mid. The soft attack can usually push, just need green/yellow air.
While 8/8 have worked in the past they are pretty bad now and their smaller brother 4/4s. 8/8s can't push 18, 16, or 10 width infantry in plains even with full air superiority (no cas) if the enemy is entrenched. Even with full SF L R versus just the first doctrine of Grand Battleplan (trench warfare) they fail to push.
I thought Mass Assault Right was for those who produce nothing but infantry, for SP I used that as Ethiopia and managed to invade Italy all by myself, not counting the Allies ships that help with naval invasion. No artillery, no supports, just infantry. Also, Mass Charge is fun, I overrun just about anything if it gets picked.
@@megaton666not really since you need a big industry to field these hundreds of divisions and to make them useful with support companies and artillery In my opinion Mass Assault is just what the name says: just throw everything you can at the enemy until they die, not caring about IC costs
Easily the best hoi4 content maker out there. You know what your doing and the detail included is unparalleled. Keep it up with staying up to date on the content. Love the channel
12:46 (-13:05) I think it's still worthwhile to include a tank template for Mobile Warfare; Left-Right. I've gone with that most times, because I noticed that tanks usually had _plenty_ of breakthrough already. Excess breakthrough doesn't do anything, right? So, instead, I wanted to increase their soft attack. The MW-LR path actually helps your soft attack because it increases the Org your division gains from one extra Motorized battalion by so much, that you need fewer of those battalions in your division as a whole, and can get more mot-arty/SPGs instead. Additionally, I also go for tank division templates that have 40-55 Org in total. That's _way_ too high for what you _need,_ but your Org-Regain slows down above 50% of its max. So by going MW-LR, I actually get tank divisions with _insanely_ fast recovery rates (at least, to the point of what most people would have as their max Org anyways, hehe). note: my approach is _really_ specific for Germany in Single Player - I'm sure you could win with SF too, but I found you take _way_ more casualties with lower (max) Org...
I'd like to make the case for mass mobilization, at least in certain situations. Granted I've found it terribly manpower inefficient, but in countries where manpower isn't an issue it's pretty powerful. Take a look at Mass Charge. It's a tactic that has no counter, low requirements, and nullifies over stacking. Combined with the other bonuses in the doctrine of recovery and reinforce. You simply are constantly hitting enemy tiles until they deorg. Perhaps I've been playing too much kaiserreich though because they have division limits. When I swapped my full 500 xp from mass mobilization to deep battle I had a sudden attack power drop due to losing mass charge.
@@rogerr.8507 its with like every country for me. They might have thousands of planes in storage but they never deploy them. And they are much less aggressive than vanilla AI.
@@elseggs6504 Yeah you're right. I've seen very stupid AI moves in KR and KRX. Like for example, Dutch-Ost Asia making a premier 200 ship navy while I was playing Australia. I have no idea how they were able to fart out that many dockyards or why but they did.
Japanese doctrines are generally underrated. Especially Night Attack and Naval Targeting bonus from Base Strike. How do you feel about Ground Support Air Doctrine as Japan?
When playing the Soviets, I find that sending volunteers to Spain and China, the military advisors in Spain focus, and the army reformer will get me enough army experience for switching to superior firepower to be worth it.
I'd like to make a case for MM R: It counters supply issues. Putting aside Tip of the Spear and Logistics Focus can replicate some of the effect, the added Grace period [for Paras and Marines], and reduction in out of supply penalty allows the side using MM R to keep fighting and sustain in areas where supply is deep red. This is less of an issue in the Euro theater until perhaps Barbarossa in the east happens, but practically all of the rest of the world, especially China and Africa, you are constantly going to be in the red unless you have exceptionally small units. Added in with general traits and abilities, specifically commando and logi wizard/extra supplies, fighting in low supply areas becomes significantly less of a problem given you maintain the majority of your organization. By comparison with MW's added raw organization, which can near double org of tanks and infantry, MM R in a red supply area ends up with more org due to the fact the penalty is percentile, not flat. On a side note, Para and Marines have a grace period in terms of supplies which they ignore the supply of a given state. Paratrooper trait adds 240h, or 10 days, of grace on top of the base 2 days. MM R adds 2 more days and reduces supply consumption by a bit. While not the best tactic, I've seen people dropping Paras onto their own front line in addition to behind enemy line to supplement their position with units unaffected by the supply state. Additionally, both MM reduce infantry width by 0.4, or 1/5th of it's normal width, meaning you can either have 1 'free' battalion for every 5 infantry so long as it's 2 or less, or have a smaller unit in terms of width which effects the new coordination system. Especially now that 10w is becoming more common, this can see a shift in how common matchups go.
Mass mobilisation used to be amazing because before NSB DLC, there was a bug with the supplies in which if you stacked supply reduction with general you could walk your fat 50 width stacks into places and their org would stay at 70% even if they had no supplies, which made them brutal in naval invasions or paratrooper modes. You could make 15/6 which desimated anything in its path LOL or 17/4 which were brutal in defense. Just 24 x 15/6 was enough to do world conquest in SP mode before the supply rework, in MP these were brickwalls you could troll so hard with even tanks struggled to destroy them and everyone were hopeless in places with poor supply and you rolled up with a full org div that were bunch of cannibals.
I always liked GBP as counter-attack doctrine. First grind them on your entrenchment then proceed rolling them with planning bonus. It also fits nicely for nations with weak industry but relatively large manpower as you can always spend more time on digging/planning without spending single IC. Prefer this doctrine on Poland, Nationalist/Communist China. It also works nicely in bad supply because your units pack more punch per same supply cost.
Hilariously late to the party, but I've recently been doing a bunch of digging to get better at the game. A couple of perks for Deep Battle: Breakthrough and Backhand Blow. As well as less org loss when moving, less supply consumption, and a generally higher reinforce rate. Still probably something that only Soviets can regularly take advantage of, but Deep Battle does have its perks. Hold the line, amass an overwhelming counter-attack, and then never stop advancing. I'm curious if you've learned anything new in the near year its been since this video was uploaded tho
Mass assault right can somewhat reliably get a width boost tactic on offense. I don't think that's good enough to make it competitive with the others on its own, but it's something roach setups can use if they ever want to go on the offensive.
Could you do a video about the different roles of the several countries in the game? For example in MP the UK player has to secure the sea lines, Japan must be aggressive etc.
grand battleplan enthusiast here! btw i think you are underestimate mass mob, i think its a great doctrine! you just need to adjust your divisions to fit into the widths you are using: 20-40w by adding more inf or more arty. it has 2 of the best tactics (well, 1 excellent and 1 ok-ish) guerrilla tactics (wich is ok as cannot be counter) and mass charge your units rarely suffer attrition, and you have a TON of reinforcement rate and recovery rate (+50%), not to mention you have 5% more pop, wich is huge. the thing is its only for infantry as it offers nothing for tanks or special forces.
@@nominatorchris5591 if you ignore the resistance thing and Center on the stats, france or italy maybe? What ever country that fights on Bad terrain with low supply and needs defensive stats, it is kinda a support role.
Mass Assault is also good for the Soviets because they can further reduce their supply consumption through a propaganda campaign, and because they can boost their org via national foci and propaganda campaigns. Once they rid themselves of the org debuffs via foci, they can have enough org. But the premier doctrine for tanks remains MW/RR because with the new tank designer you can create very expensive, very high breakthrough tanks, and then only use a few of them per divisions, but use the doctrines to ratchet up their breakthrough stat so much that the division has a lot of room for mechanized infantry to grant org and cheap SPGs to provide soft attack. The extra hard attack for tanks also combos really well with medium cannons on the tanks.
I think my biggest problem with choosing GB over SF is just the fact that you NEED the planning bonus for it to be effective. But with that the enemy also gets the advantage of fully entrenching his units, which is a huge boost to his defense. With SF the initial push might be harder, but after that (at least imho) the SF just performs better, because you can micro better, look for gaps and encirclements and have huge bonuses to your soft and hard attack without the need to waste time planning. But with GB you are slowly losing your planning bonus and then have to stop your attack when you do, allowing your enemy to entrench on strategic positions once again. Also, if you ever need to set up fallback line, you do not get planning bonus from that whatsoever, so you are wasting a lot of what makes GB so good. And yeah, you can argue that GB is better for defense, but if you wanna defend all game, you wont achieve that much anyway...
I personally prefer Mobile Warfare because for all divisions other than tank divisions, they aren't going to be doing as much damage to the enemy as CAS is, so the single most important stat to deciding the outcome of combat is org, followed by breakthrough, staying power so that planes can do the damage.
I've always been for GBP; best defense/entrenchment, night attack and sooo much planning bonus! Not to mention the preferred combat tactic 'Well-Planned Attack' which has 15% attacker tactic damage which isn't the best, but it has no counters at all! And the Officer Corps bonuses with Theatre Training, Tip of the Spear & Logistical Focus is bonkers. Best Doctrine all-around in game.
SF tanks can compete with MW if you go smaller width and more support companies. I've been enjoying 7-3-1 moto-MTD-moto AA with support engi, arty, rocket arty, logi, LT recon. LT recon is enough breakthrough for attacking infantry but the div really has to be on the defensive against tanks. Still, it's cheap and trades well against those tanks, especially if they've stacked up hard attack. Switching to mech makes it better against inf but the extra hardness means you take more damage from tanks.
maybe GBP is underrated, maybe not, but either way it should not be considered a viable choice unless you're doing special forces in MP and only really have to take chokepoints (ports and mountains); you're stacking entrenchment for dday wall, or you're in SP and would just be battleplanning either way. and for the special forces one you should obviously be going GBP-left. if you plan on microing, which is necessary for optimal results in both MP and SP, you simply cannot compete with MW or SF tanks after your planning runs out, which will happen relatively quickly. i've tried it several times, especially as France, it does not work even with equal base stats (yes there's an advisor disparity but even with green air, which would cancel that out, and equal tank counts i've still struggled). i'd argue that for that same reason MW (maybe left) is better than SF for tank nations, because even if it takes you far longer to break and you trade worse, which reduces your ability to encircle, you will be able to fight for longer and reorg more quickly which is far more vital to micro. also, if you're fighting mot/mech TD only divisions then you will be critted if you don't stack the breakthrough.
I often play a mod with reduced manpower and getting that 5% from Mobile Warfare LL lets me stay on Extensive Conscription or at worst, 10% law. It wouldn't be useful for something like the USA, Soviet Union and especially China and India.
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised no one seems to think the extra manpower from mobile warfare is important, I'm frequently running out of it in my games. I do tend to play modded though, which often means several back to back grindy wars, while I guess the meta for vanilla HoI is to win the war lightning fast?
@@BremenSA Service by Requirement is enough manpower for most countries and the penalty isn't much. By the time you need SbR, you have roughly +100% factory output so the -10% from SbR takes you from 200% to 190%, only a 5% change. Basically every front in the game maxes out on supply before you can use your entire manpower pool. The only front that really benefits from constantly adding more divisions is DDay wall, so you'll occasionally see Italy/Bulgaria go Mass Mob. But the entrenchment from GBP is also really strong for DDay wall so it's not a given that you go MM. The best part of MM is guerilla tactics. If you have it, you can deploy a thin screen of infantry to an ally's frontline. If your generals are higher leveled, they'll take charge of the battles and have a pretty good chance of nerfing enemy damage when attacking. But you're consuming supply that could have otherwise been used by your ally's army to bring more troops with good stats to the front so it's a trade off.
Most of the boni that MW gives you are oriented towards mechanized warfare, thus it requires a lot of IC to take the advantage of the most boni.if you don't have manpower to support your army, you most likely don't have the IC either, so solely going off for manpower the right branch of Mass Assault is so much better for infantry warfare, and can be finished much quicker.
@@28lobster28 You should probably rephrase that to "most majors". Just about anything that isn't a major can run into severe manpower issues if you're not careful.
Mass mobilization is great if you playing as China(or others China nations), or Etiopia, because you won't have tecnology and resources to make a more versatile army early due to early agression! With china you have a lot of manpower to spend, while etiopia is more of recovery because Italy will keep attacking, giving very short pauses to recuperate.
I disagree with the desperate defense, as germany once your army gets huge you will run into manpower problems and be forced to take service by requirement, which is not ideal, granted this will mostly happen at the later stages of the game where you could argue some production does not really matter.
thanks so much for this. I have a specific request! Can you test the value of overstacking breakthrough or defense? I also assume it's not worth that much, but I feel it should still be tested to be sure (vs infantry)
There is no value to over stacking Breakthrough or defense. If your breakthrough/defense is higher than their attacks then you have a 10% chance of getting hit for each attack. The amount over their attacks doesn't matter. If you have 1000 defense and the opponents 4 divisions have a combined 800 soft attack then you can't get crit under any circumstances.
Even if you have less breakthrough then they have attack, the amount less matters. If the enemy has 200 soft attack and i have 140 breakthrough, 140 of their attacks have a 10% chance of hitting and 60 of their attacks have a 40% chance of hitting. Which gives an expected value of 38. If instead you only had 100 breakthrough, 100 attacks would have 10% chance of hitting and 100 attacks would have a 40% chance of hitting. This gives and expected value of 50. That is 32% higher than 38. So on average you will take 32% more attacks with 100 breakthrough versus someone with 140 breakthrough. This is also why over stacking breakthrough and defense does nothing. Coordination was not taken into account in this scenario.
Land night attack seems good, but it is only really useful when you aren't beating their defense/breakthrough and if you can't beat their defense you might as well not push. Any attacks that over a target's defense are 4x more likely to do damage than attacks that are blocked by defense. This means you want to stack as much attack as possible to overwhelm their defenses and deal a ton of damage even if it is only for a short amount of time. Peaking in the day with a tiny bit more attack will do a lot more than 50% more attacks at night when they will likely all be blocked anyways. Assuming all attacks are blocked, land night attack will mean you only get 1/7 more attacks over 24hrs, that is equivalent to a 16.67% flat increase to attacks, which seems really good, but you really shouldn't be pushing at times like that. If you are beating their defense in the day though (and not beating them at night still), then land night attack is only equivalent to a 5% flat increase to attacks, which is fairly mediocre. If you are beating their defense at both night and day, it goes back up to being equivalent to a flat 16.67% bonus, but at that point it isn't really needed since you are doing a ton of damage anyways. This means it is only great when you don't really need it. A bonus that better improves your ability to win close fights would be much more useful for winning the war.
mass assault is onlu viable for soviet or china. but its greatlu underestimated. the goal is having a 50 width inf. even if u go over the -5% dmg is negated b a whole 4 extra inf on offense. with 42 weapons its OP GBP is great for minors or france if u know ur gonna be on the defense. generals can get an abilitu to attack while entrenched and keep reconbonus. which is amazing to wear out troops
did you take into account the soft attack per combat width? what i'm saying is that with Mass Assault, when your divisions have -20% combat width, that means in battle they'll have a flat +20% stat increase, which also multiplies with the other stat effects if you know what I mean. Math and all that
This was interesting, but also reaaallly hard to follow since I ain't used to the tank designer, nor the, well, anything really. :D I have a couple hundred hours in the game, but it just feels overwhelming. My takeaway however, was: Grand Battleplan Right ftw!
id be interested to see if the math works out for man power vs stats on mass assault right against the others is it better to have more units or better units
I always liked GBP and didn't understand why people preferred SF. I'd put it like this: GBP is more effective, if you're willing to sacrifice time (for planning and entrenching) and if you're more experienced. You can make many mistakes with GBP, yes SF is useful in many situations, but I still prefer GBP. It's so.. elegant :D Also, SF demands a large industry to produce all the artillery and support equipment. If you manage your divisions the right way, GBP is really really efficient with both equipment and manpower.
I like how, a year or two ago when ground units mattered, spreadsheet junkies like us were saying GB R had better damage simply because of the night attack bonus and we got laughed off as idiots and trolls. Now that Ground is far less important and air is significantly better, NOOOOOW people are realizing that we weren't wrong. I guess all it takes is having a youtube channel :/
Mass Assault is powerful for long wars or fighting in chokepoints. Superior Firepower is the real jack of all trades that only relies on high stats without any demands on play style. Grand battle plan is good on both offense and defense when the war is decided quickly or if there are nations with lots of command points to get super fast planning repeatedly. Micro is bad for grand battle plan because the bonus drains faster but it is good because you can get more done while you still have the bonus. Entrenchment speed from generals is synergetic. Mobile warfare is also better for quick wars where you have enough org to just dive all victory points without any regen.
MW LL works in some niche situations. When combined with the Baltic’s ridiculous mechanized buffs and low manpower, it’ll supplement your shit manpower and buff up your dirt-cheap mechanized
Definitely interesting. Personally though I don't like the "best doctrine" idea though. If you wanna focus on tanks and fancy moves, go mobile warfare, even if it's statistically subuptimal. Heavy artillery focus? Superior firepower. Trench warfare? Grand Battleplan. Scorched earth? Mass Assault.
IIRC going left on the last branch of Superior Firepower is the only way to make your doctrine buff your Armour Variants (SPHs, SPAT, SPAA etc.) - which makes it the only viable one for trying to substitute your artillery with SPHs.
Why use 30W tanks? I get that 30W is the best mix of Org + HP, but 30W doesn't fit into Forests or Hills quite as cleanly as 42/44W, and 41-44 fits more cleanly in difficult terrain types where you need a lot of attack and defense to break through, such as hills and forests.
1. Flexibility, smaller divisions can spread out more and don't take as much supply. 2. Coordination: if you use 40ish width tanks and I use 30, my attacks won't get spread out but yours will across multiple divisions. 40ish width tanks also struggle more against infantry for the same reason. 3. If forest/hills are the big of a deal drop down to 28 width.
@@71Cloak from my experience playing multiplayer using mostly vanilla combat width mods the bigger divisions coordination dosnt matter that much because usually you won’t be attacking 8 tanks per tile more like 2-4 max the smaller divisions just don’t have enough power to kill the 42 widths
@@jaydengraham8303 I have had no problems using 30 widths in the HMM mod (don't think it changes tanks) As either the Germans or USA. I have found the extra tactical flexibility of having 50% more units to be quite useful.
@@jaydengraham8303 I have done it 3 vs 2 before. If you are using the same tanks in your division the side attacking should win because breakthrough is higher than defense. 30 widths win the fight in1 day 17 hours while 42 widths take 2 days 12 hours. 30 widths when attacking take 60% of the losses 42 widths do when they attack. 30 widths when defending take 27% more losses then 42 widths. Overall losses for attacking once and defending once is 147 tanks versus 154. So 30 widths are taking 95% of the strength damage that 42 widths are.
Incomplete GBP is worse than Incomplete SF. When people pick GBP in MP they get made fun of because its not useful unless you grind it to nearly the end. (Although most people just don't see it as viable) SF has an early advantage because the first branch is just better.
GBP is structured in the same way your combat will progress when you start on defensive. First 3 parts are highly defensive(the second one adds a nice 0.25 command power that allow you to spam last stand more often) and let you hold the enemy off while you grind them for xp to get the latter parts, which are all about your incoming counteroffensive. SF is somewhat the same, but the first tech is purely offensive instead.
How impactful is including support flame tanks on infantry templates? I’m think of using the cheap interwar light flame tanks to make them as cheap as possible
Depends on where you are fighting an what size divisions you are using. Flame tanks add terrain bonuses at the cost of fuel. If you are using small divisions the bonuses won't be much and you'll use a lot of fuel. If you are using large divisions then the bonuses can be good but circumstantial. They are really good if you are fighting through the pacific, but if you are fighting through northern France most of the tiles are plains and they will provide no bonuses.
How much does a full set of support companies change the div org in those tank and infantry templates, especially since MW gets such a bonus, it's average is hurt more and SF's support companies are boosted so much higher?
That depends on the size of the division. Larger the division the less support companies impact overall org. BASE ORG table MW LR 105 MW RR 95 SF RL 75 SF RR 80 GBP L 75 GBP R 80 MA L 70 MA R 75
7:30 your analysis here is not perfect. It is definitely not a 50% increase. For example 200 SA during day and 0 during night is much better than 100 sa in day and 100 in night. Because if the soft attack is above the enemy units breakthrough or defense stat they will deal bonus damage almost 4 times the damage.
Facts idk if he didn't take into account that night penalty doesn't effect defense or if he forgot to mention. Still probably really strong on high stat divs with tanks but the rest of that side of the doctrine is bad for tanks anyway so it's a pretty shit bonus over all from what I can tell.
Mass mobilisation and desperate defence give you recruitable population but as you didn't mention it, does that mean they're totally worthless? For instance on a minor nation will either of those two be useful?
he's the HOI4 prophet, but line art in SF left i count as better. 1support art gets %50 of 1art right, and 1 line gets %10 left. But thats pound for pound. Art at 40soft support right gives 60soft. But 4 line art left gives 224 soft if a 9/4 template used. 224v60 , of course the line division costs more but come on thats not even close. SF right is for smaller art challenged countries. SF left is for majors going lots of art.
Line artillery is viable but trash compared to just going tanks. Especially as a major but even Luxembourg or Bhutan can go tanks. Even for special forces, marine tanks are better and medium tanks push mountains better than line arty too. I sometimes go line arty builds for fun but it's ass comparitavely. SF L buffs the worst unit in the game but if you're going for a build that uses it then yeah it will work better.
How do you know that GBP R is is 75% atk at night and not 62.5%? at 62.5% it's 181 soft at night or 235 soft attack average which is worse than GBP L at full planning and a lot worsethan SF RR.
What does night attack really do though? You still have less attack than day so most of the progress is still made in the day? Also you can spend the night planning and recovering instead.
You attack every hour of combat. Half of those hours are at night and half are during the day. At night with no other modifiers your attack is multiplied by 0.5, with GBP R it's instead multiplied by .75. .75 is 50% higher than .5 so the penalty reduction from GBP R is quite significant. Other doctrines will struggle to fight at night but GBP R doesn't which makes up for its slightly worse performance during the day.
@@71Cloak That is ofcourse with 1940 tech. Later in the game there is a 25% penalty for those who don't have GBP R. So the 50% advantage at the start of the war turns into a 33% advantage near the end.
@@71Cloak Yeah I know most games end fast, but it's worth taking into consideration if you are planning a world conquest or other type of long game. Not sure at which year the first nightvision tech is. I guess 1944, which might be of little relevance for normal campaigns. In my current solo Mexico game f.e. both the axis and commitern have been defeated by mostly the allies, but there hasn't been an end screen yet in 1960. USA, UK and Norway, Raj and all of Oceania have been capitulated.
I thing the bigger thing on mobile warfare for tanks is the org, on the template you shown you get 38% more org on mobile warfare, which basically translate to being 38% more powerfull during battle (-strength damage, but it still should hold above 30%) while the breakthrough is mostly overkill ( tho traded for tds makes it even more powerfull on the offensive). Tho nice thing for sf rl is the org on support companies, you can make super high soft attack divisions with added support artillery, or just make decision to start making tanks later in the game, as most of the tech now for tanks is unlocked with artillery research, while still having super powerfull infantry. The game changer for me is the night attack on grand battleplan, as yet another time you show that it doesn't scale with debuff, which makes it super powerfull doctrine. But. It's the last doctrine, which makes it worth only late in the war, and any attempt to micro on the defensive destroys your entrenchment, making it much harder to defend against stronger opponent. Oh, and another thing going for the org is that it makes you less vulnerable to cas dmg
In single player? Mobile Warfare Left/Right. You don't need all the tank breakthrough from Right/Right in single player. Getting the organization bonuses for the whole army is more important.
As far as I know, it's works the same as other modifiers, so it's a bonus to the base values, not an additional multiplier to the final number. If you already have +400% attack increase from somewhere else, the +25% night attack will make it +425% during the night, not 500%. It should show in the combat window when hovering over the stats. (EDIT: More or less completely rewrote my comment, I got the question wrong.)
Я бы перевел на английский , но перевод был бы не корректный . Однажды в мультиплеере (ещё до NSB) один француз используя верблюдов и пто + GBP спокойно держал тяжёлые немецкие танки на равнинах . Это было ужасное зрелище . . .
Это классика за Францию была - рашим инженерные роты до 3-4, разведку, ПТО и ресерчим доктрину для еще большего окапывания и обороноспособности. Щас понерфили, за Францию доктрину до войны прокачать крайне проблемно, но ПТО всё еще тащит, невозможно сделать непробиваемый танк.
10 width infantry only + lots and lots and lots of CAS + mass mobilization is freaking OP if you can afford the manpower loses give it a try as the soviet union and you'll breakthrough german divisions like knife through butter
10 width infantry wo arty is bad Mass mob is arguably bad Cas is so OP that you break anything in the game with almost anything so it negates those two
@@eskihesap9985 the trick with it is that u only need to produce infantry equipment + Cas + Fighters so you get more of your production towards your air power and with mass mob you get so much reinforce rate that your divisions keep reinforcing until they overwhelm their enemies with the amount of firepower they are dealing along with cas, give it a try and youll know what im talking about
10 width should be used with Sf RR and artillery, plus rocket artillery. With this your losses won't be that extreme. With mass assault you are going to bleed manpower like no tomorrow.
I really want to develop a strategy for paratrooper UK. Stack the special forces buffs they get with GBP entrenchment speed and add dozer tanks to create a really hilarious strategy
What I really like about GBP is that it gives a lot of powerful bonusses in the first four slots. In SP the critical period tends to be rather early when you are not capable of getting the entire doctrine yet. I usually only get the later boosts at a point where you are already winning and you're only going to win harder, so it's worth comparing what you get on just the first 3-5 doctrines too.
MA-R has one purpose it is exceptionally good at and that is insane recovery rate and reinforce rate. Especially on a country like Finland which has some additional boosts to recovery rate, I found myself able to gain half my organisation by retreating and moving back in immediately. It is a very effective org-wall. Doesn't do shit otherwise, but it's excellent for a desperate defense. Not to mention the recruitble pop being welcome on such a nation.
That's a good point.
Did a recent Democratic Czechoslovakia play through, using GBP for the entrenchment bonus, stacked with Static Warfare and Engineers to hold back the onslaught. Being able to get that Doctrine entrenchment bonus before the fighting has begun almost certainly helped.
Very true, but I think superior firepowers +10% attack and the Overwhelming firepower tactic with just the first slot is still better :/ and im a GBP enjoyer
@@RaedwaldBretwalda ideally as czechoslovakia you want to punch a hole from silesia towards the polish border to encircle as many germans as you can as soon as possible + the ai isn't going to attack into your level 7 mountain/hill forts anyway so sfp is just better in all situations
First of all: All your Hoi 4 Guides are informative and i never saw Hoi 4 Guides so in depth like your. Pls, KEEP GOING with this work.
I slightly disagree with the Mass Assault Doctrine. I know its maybe the weakest doctrine in Stats, but you can build up a whole Fortress of Infantry in Places with low supply (Africa, Asia, Russia). I had multiple MP Matches with my Mate (He was Italy and i played Ger) The allies didnt achieve to reconquer all of Africa till we went to the Urals (42). I know that Tanks are not stopped by pure Infantry but they will have a tough time to get through after all that Divisions supported by AA (Sup) and AT GUNS.
Nevertheless THX A LOT for your GREAT Videos!!!!! I hope i will learn after so many years even more :D.
I've seen Mass Mobilization Italy cause nightmares in Fortress Mediterranean. If they make nothing but guns, and planes with Naval Targeting they can wipe UK fleet.
This is the kind of testing every game's balancing department should do to balance their game perfectly (or close to perfect), however i don't think that paradox do as in depth testings as you're, which is a shame, because i've the impression that their patches are mostly approximative...
In the end i'm very surprised seing Great Battleplan being that good, most players would say that it's a bad doctrine (and me first, i believed it before). This video shows that in the end that every doctrine is descent in its own way.
I'm very impressed by your work! Keep up that amazing work!
Well.... Every doctrine except Mass Assault. As he said, only reason to use it is if you just so happen to start with it.
You underestimate -20% supply consumption in Mass Assault. It means that you basically can fight in more dire supply situation without caring about logistics and not getting big penalties out of it. USSR can be played without tanks really with it and you can hold fine and square bombarding enemy logi to the ground by using factories to dish out shit ton of planes instead of tanks.
EDIT: And Superior Firepower is the only doctrine that gives you bonus for planes out of all land doctrines. +20% Air Superiority is good on air controller.
Agree, likewise Base Strike provides Naval Targeting (early) which destroys fleets.
Air Superiority is a combat modifier, meaning it doesn't affect planes, but it affercts how the planes affect ground troops. 20% better Air Superiority means that units defending will have 20% better stats due to green air
Infantry russia is a singleplayer thing. In multiplayer you're basically handing the game to the axis no matter how good the allies are.
-20% supply consumption also effectively means you can stack 20% more units on the frontline
@@cm01 in Vanilla good 10w infantry with air and railway guns will hold fine. Going MA gives you reinforce ratio, so you can just shuffle units around and grind off enemy units in battle.
Sometimes I go meme strat bombers on Russia instead of tanks. Fucking up axis airfields, then civs, then militaries and logi in the end is waaay too OP.
A specific strat with using dispersed support doctrine, is to use 8 infantry with 8 artillery, in MP games, as people usually spam out infantry, making this a very good for early to mid. The soft attack can usually push, just need green/yellow air.
While 8/8 have worked in the past they are pretty bad now and their smaller brother 4/4s. 8/8s can't push 18, 16, or 10 width infantry in plains even with full air superiority (no cas) if the enemy is entrenched. Even with full SF L R versus just the first doctrine of Grand Battleplan (trench warfare) they fail to push.
6/10 is modern variation, shit hovewer
Thats not IC efficient in this meta I think.
Artillery is way more expensive so half art half inf is a bad move
I thought Mass Assault Right was for those who produce nothing but infantry, for SP I used that as Ethiopia and managed to invade Italy all by myself, not counting the Allies ships that help with naval invasion. No artillery, no supports, just infantry. Also, Mass Charge is fun, I overrun just about anything if it gets picked.
Yeah, it's basically for fielding as many men with as little equipment as possible. good if you have a large population but shit industry.
@@megaton666not really since you need a big industry to field these hundreds of divisions and to make them useful with support companies and artillery
In my opinion Mass Assault is just what the name says: just throw everything you can at the enemy until they die, not caring about IC costs
Man what a brilliant video, thanks so much for this. Quality and breakdown was excellent
Dude I'm telling you, Grand Battleplan is underrated as fuck
Easily the best hoi4 content maker out there. You know what your doing and the detail included is unparalleled. Keep it up with staying up to date on the content. Love the channel
12:46 (-13:05)
I think it's still worthwhile to include a tank template for Mobile Warfare; Left-Right.
I've gone with that most times, because I noticed that tanks usually had _plenty_ of breakthrough already.
Excess breakthrough doesn't do anything, right? So, instead, I wanted to increase their soft attack.
The MW-LR path actually helps your soft attack because it increases the Org your division gains from one extra Motorized battalion by so much, that you need fewer of those battalions in your division as a whole, and can get more mot-arty/SPGs instead.
Additionally, I also go for tank division templates that have 40-55 Org in total. That's _way_ too high for what you _need,_ but your Org-Regain slows down above 50% of its max. So by going MW-LR, I actually get tank divisions with _insanely_ fast recovery rates (at least, to the point of what most people would have as their max Org anyways, hehe).
note: my approach is _really_ specific for Germany in Single Player - I'm sure you could win with SF too, but I found you take _way_ more casualties with lower (max) Org...
Great guides. Just on point. And because of your videos I started how to learn excel. So thanks for that.
I'd like to make the case for mass mobilization, at least in certain situations. Granted I've found it terribly manpower inefficient, but in countries where manpower isn't an issue it's pretty powerful.
Take a look at Mass Charge. It's a tactic that has no counter, low requirements, and nullifies over stacking. Combined with the other bonuses in the doctrine of recovery and reinforce. You simply are constantly hitting enemy tiles until they deorg.
Perhaps I've been playing too much kaiserreich though because they have division limits. When I swapped my full 500 xp from mass mobilization to deep battle I had a sudden attack power drop due to losing mass charge.
Is it just me or is the AI in Kaisrreich pretty weird when it comes to air? Its like they never even bother making planes.
@@elseggs6504 its not just you but im not playing germany versus internationale though.
@@rogerr.8507 its with like every country for me. They might have thousands of planes in storage but they never deploy them. And they are much less aggressive than vanilla AI.
@@elseggs6504 Yeah you're right. I've seen very stupid AI moves in KR and KRX. Like for example, Dutch-Ost Asia making a premier 200 ship navy while I was playing Australia. I have no idea how they were able to fart out that many dockyards or why but they did.
I've played HOI4 for 2500 hours, and it took until recently to try GBP. I rarely choose a different doctrine now.
taureor needs to watch this asap.
Japanese doctrines are generally underrated. Especially Night Attack and Naval Targeting bonus from Base Strike. How do you feel about Ground Support Air Doctrine as Japan?
When playing the Soviets, I find that sending volunteers to Spain and China, the military advisors in Spain focus, and the army reformer will get me enough army experience for switching to superior firepower to be worth it.
I'd like to make a case for MM R: It counters supply issues. Putting aside Tip of the Spear and Logistics Focus can replicate some of the effect, the added Grace period [for Paras and Marines], and reduction in out of supply penalty allows the side using MM R to keep fighting and sustain in areas where supply is deep red. This is less of an issue in the Euro theater until perhaps Barbarossa in the east happens, but practically all of the rest of the world, especially China and Africa, you are constantly going to be in the red unless you have exceptionally small units. Added in with general traits and abilities, specifically commando and logi wizard/extra supplies, fighting in low supply areas becomes significantly less of a problem given you maintain the majority of your organization. By comparison with MW's added raw organization, which can near double org of tanks and infantry, MM R in a red supply area ends up with more org due to the fact the penalty is percentile, not flat.
On a side note, Para and Marines have a grace period in terms of supplies which they ignore the supply of a given state. Paratrooper trait adds 240h, or 10 days, of grace on top of the base 2 days. MM R adds 2 more days and reduces supply consumption by a bit. While not the best tactic, I've seen people dropping Paras onto their own front line in addition to behind enemy line to supplement their position with units unaffected by the supply state. Additionally, both MM reduce infantry width by 0.4, or 1/5th of it's normal width, meaning you can either have 1 'free' battalion for every 5 infantry so long as it's 2 or less, or have a smaller unit in terms of width which effects the new coordination system. Especially now that 10w is becoming more common, this can see a shift in how common matchups go.
Mass mobilisation used to be amazing because before NSB DLC, there was a bug with the supplies in which if you stacked supply reduction with general you could walk your fat 50 width stacks into places and their org would stay at 70% even if they had no supplies, which made them brutal in naval invasions or paratrooper modes.
You could make 15/6 which desimated anything in its path LOL or 17/4 which were brutal in defense.
Just 24 x 15/6 was enough to do world conquest in SP mode before the supply rework, in MP these were brickwalls you could troll so hard with even tanks struggled to destroy them and everyone were hopeless in places with poor supply and you rolled up with a full org div that were bunch of cannibals.
I always liked GBP as counter-attack doctrine. First grind them on your entrenchment then proceed rolling them with planning bonus. It also fits nicely for nations with weak industry but relatively large manpower as you can always spend more time on digging/planning without spending single IC. Prefer this doctrine on Poland, Nationalist/Communist China. It also works nicely in bad supply because your units pack more punch per same supply cost.
Mass Assault Left could be incredibly strong with space marines (high velocity cannon) in low supply envoirment, and it has massive reinforce rate.
Hilariously late to the party, but I've recently been doing a bunch of digging to get better at the game. A couple of perks for Deep Battle: Breakthrough and Backhand Blow. As well as less org loss when moving, less supply consumption, and a generally higher reinforce rate.
Still probably something that only Soviets can regularly take advantage of, but Deep Battle does have its perks. Hold the line, amass an overwhelming counter-attack, and then never stop advancing.
I'm curious if you've learned anything new in the near year its been since this video was uploaded tho
Mass assault right can somewhat reliably get a width boost tactic on offense. I don't think that's good enough to make it competitive with the others on its own, but it's something roach setups can use if they ever want to go on the offensive.
WIth the way the new width combat system wroks, i hate that tactic now. Its a nightmare due to the irregular combat widths.
Could you do a video about the different roles of the several countries in the game?
For example in MP the UK player has to secure the sea lines, Japan must be aggressive etc.
best video on this topic. by far.
grand battleplan enthusiast here!
btw i think you are underestimate mass mob, i think its a great doctrine!
you just need to adjust your divisions to fit into the widths you are using: 20-40w by adding more inf or more arty.
it has 2 of the best tactics (well, 1 excellent and 1 ok-ish) guerrilla tactics (wich is ok as cannot be counter) and mass charge your units rarely suffer attrition, and you have a TON of reinforcement rate and recovery rate (+50%), not to mention you have 5% more pop, wich is huge.
the thing is its only for infantry as it offers nothing for tanks or special forces.
which nation would it be useful for? The only nations I can see it being useful for is China.
@@nominatorchris5591 if you ignore the resistance thing and Center on the stats, france or italy maybe? What ever country that fights on Bad terrain with low supply and needs defensive stats, it is kinda a support role.
Mass Assault is also good for the Soviets because they can further reduce their supply consumption through a propaganda campaign, and because they can boost their org via national foci and propaganda campaigns.
Once they rid themselves of the org debuffs via foci, they can have enough org.
But the premier doctrine for tanks remains MW/RR because with the new tank designer you can create very expensive, very high breakthrough tanks, and then only use a few of them per divisions, but use the doctrines to ratchet up their breakthrough stat so much that the division has a lot of room for mechanized infantry to grant org and cheap SPGs to provide soft attack. The extra hard attack for tanks also combos really well with medium cannons on the tanks.
I think my biggest problem with choosing GB over SF is just the fact that you NEED the planning bonus for it to be effective. But with that the enemy also gets the advantage of fully entrenching his units, which is a huge boost to his defense. With SF the initial push might be harder, but after that (at least imho) the SF just performs better, because you can micro better, look for gaps and encirclements and have huge bonuses to your soft and hard attack without the need to waste time planning. But with GB you are slowly losing your planning bonus and then have to stop your attack when you do, allowing your enemy to entrench on strategic positions once again.
Also, if you ever need to set up fallback line, you do not get planning bonus from that whatsoever, so you are wasting a lot of what makes GB so good. And yeah, you can argue that GB is better for defense, but if you wanna defend all game, you wont achieve that much anyway...
You do realize you can spend command mana or whatever it is called on that Staff Planning mode which boosts your planning speed by 500% ?
Very insightful, thanks!
I personally prefer Mobile Warfare because for all divisions other than tank divisions, they aren't going to be doing as much damage to the enemy as CAS is, so the single most important stat to deciding the outcome of combat is org, followed by breakthrough, staying power so that planes can do the damage.
I've always been for GBP; best defense/entrenchment, night attack and sooo much planning bonus! Not to mention the preferred combat tactic 'Well-Planned Attack' which has 15% attacker tactic damage which isn't the best, but it has no counters at all!
And the Officer Corps bonuses with Theatre Training, Tip of the Spear & Logistical Focus is bonkers.
Best Doctrine all-around in game.
SF tanks can compete with MW if you go smaller width and more support companies. I've been enjoying 7-3-1 moto-MTD-moto AA with support engi, arty, rocket arty, logi, LT recon. LT recon is enough breakthrough for attacking infantry but the div really has to be on the defensive against tanks. Still, it's cheap and trades well against those tanks, especially if they've stacked up hard attack. Switching to mech makes it better against inf but the extra hardness means you take more damage from tanks.
maybe GBP is underrated, maybe not, but either way it should not be considered a viable choice unless you're doing special forces in MP and only really have to take chokepoints (ports and mountains); you're stacking entrenchment for dday wall, or you're in SP and would just be battleplanning either way. and for the special forces one you should obviously be going GBP-left. if you plan on microing, which is necessary for optimal results in both MP and SP, you simply cannot compete with MW or SF tanks after your planning runs out, which will happen relatively quickly. i've tried it several times, especially as France, it does not work even with equal base stats (yes there's an advisor disparity but even with green air, which would cancel that out, and equal tank counts i've still struggled). i'd argue that for that same reason MW (maybe left) is better than SF for tank nations, because even if it takes you far longer to break and you trade worse, which reduces your ability to encircle, you will be able to fight for longer and reorg more quickly which is far more vital to micro. also, if you're fighting mot/mech TD only divisions then you will be critted if you don't stack the breakthrough.
I often play a mod with reduced manpower and getting that 5% from Mobile Warfare LL lets me stay on Extensive Conscription or at worst, 10% law. It wouldn't be useful for something like the USA, Soviet Union and especially China and India.
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised no one seems to think the extra manpower from mobile warfare is important, I'm frequently running out of it in my games. I do tend to play modded though, which often means several back to back grindy wars, while I guess the meta for vanilla HoI is to win the war lightning fast?
@@BremenSA Service by Requirement is enough manpower for most countries and the penalty isn't much. By the time you need SbR, you have roughly +100% factory output so the -10% from SbR takes you from 200% to 190%, only a 5% change. Basically every front in the game maxes out on supply before you can use your entire manpower pool. The only front that really benefits from constantly adding more divisions is DDay wall, so you'll occasionally see Italy/Bulgaria go Mass Mob. But the entrenchment from GBP is also really strong for DDay wall so it's not a given that you go MM.
The best part of MM is guerilla tactics. If you have it, you can deploy a thin screen of infantry to an ally's frontline. If your generals are higher leveled, they'll take charge of the battles and have a pretty good chance of nerfing enemy damage when attacking. But you're consuming supply that could have otherwise been used by your ally's army to bring more troops with good stats to the front so it's a trade off.
Most of the boni that MW gives you are oriented towards mechanized warfare, thus it requires a lot of IC to take the advantage of the most boni.if you don't have manpower to support your army, you most likely don't have the IC either, so solely going off for manpower the right branch of Mass Assault is so much better for infantry warfare, and can be finished much quicker.
@@28lobster28 You should probably rephrase that to "most majors". Just about anything that isn't a major can run into severe manpower issues if you're not careful.
@@Gustav_Kuriga Minors manpower issues depends on their role. For AC or tank minors manpower is less of an issue than for DDay wall
Mass mobilization is great if you playing as China(or others China nations), or Etiopia, because you won't have tecnology and resources to make a more versatile army early due to early agression!
With china you have a lot of manpower to spend, while etiopia is more of recovery because Italy will keep attacking, giving very short pauses to recuperate.
I disagree with the desperate defense, as germany once your army gets huge you will run into manpower problems and be forced to take service by requirement, which is not ideal, granted this will mostly happen at the later stages of the game where you could argue some production does not really matter.
thanks so much for this. I have a specific request! Can you test the value of overstacking breakthrough or defense? I also assume it's not worth that much, but I feel it should still be tested to be sure (vs infantry)
There is no value to over stacking Breakthrough or defense. If your breakthrough/defense is higher than their attacks then you have a 10% chance of getting hit for each attack. The amount over their attacks doesn't matter.
If you have 1000 defense and the opponents 4 divisions have a combined 800 soft attack then you can't get crit under any circumstances.
@@71Cloak What about bad terrain? If the terrain reduces your breakthrough by 50%, surely it's worthwhile to have extra breakthrough.
Breakthrough buffs In infantry division its not kinda useless? since it would never be enough to overcome the enemy division attack defending
Even if you have less breakthrough then they have attack, the amount less matters. If the enemy has 200 soft attack and i have 140 breakthrough, 140 of their attacks have a 10% chance of hitting and 60 of their attacks have a 40% chance of hitting. Which gives an expected value of 38.
If instead you only had 100 breakthrough, 100 attacks would have 10% chance of hitting and 100 attacks would have a 40% chance of hitting. This gives and expected value of 50. That is 32% higher than 38. So on average you will take 32% more attacks with 100 breakthrough versus someone with 140 breakthrough.
This is also why over stacking breakthrough and defense does nothing. Coordination was not taken into account in this scenario.
@@71Cloak wow, ok, thank you very much, I didn't know about these maths, now I understand.
Very good point, keep doing more videos mate
Yo so GBP is for the lazys, MW and SF are for the micros, am i right?
Land night attack seems good, but it is only really useful when you aren't beating their defense/breakthrough and if you can't beat their defense you might as well not push. Any attacks that over a target's defense are 4x more likely to do damage than attacks that are blocked by defense. This means you want to stack as much attack as possible to overwhelm their defenses and deal a ton of damage even if it is only for a short amount of time. Peaking in the day with a tiny bit more attack will do a lot more than 50% more attacks at night when they will likely all be blocked anyways.
Assuming all attacks are blocked, land night attack will mean you only get 1/7 more attacks over 24hrs, that is equivalent to a 16.67% flat increase to attacks, which seems really good, but you really shouldn't be pushing at times like that. If you are beating their defense in the day though (and not beating them at night still), then land night attack is only equivalent to a 5% flat increase to attacks, which is fairly mediocre. If you are beating their defense at both night and day, it goes back up to being equivalent to a flat 16.67% bonus, but at that point it isn't really needed since you are doing a ton of damage anyways.
This means it is only great when you don't really need it. A bonus that better improves your ability to win close fights would be much more useful for winning the war.
I was thinking If this night bonus Attack is Wörth as stated in this Video.
I remember i used to always go grand battleplan, and with this i can say that i was right
mass assault is onlu viable for soviet or china. but its greatlu underestimated. the goal is having a 50 width inf. even if u go over the -5% dmg is negated b a whole 4 extra inf on offense. with 42 weapons its OP
GBP is great for minors or france if u know ur gonna be on the defense. generals can get an abilitu to attack while entrenched and keep reconbonus. which is amazing to wear out troops
Hello, do expeditionary forces on loan to me benefit from my 25% night attack bonus? what about mobile warfare speed bonus or big ORG buffs?
dont use mass assault even if im playing china?
Good video, will have to watch it again those number go wayyyyyyyyyy too fast for me lol
did you take into account the soft attack per combat width?
what i'm saying is that with Mass Assault, when your divisions have -20% combat width, that means in battle they'll have a flat +20% stat increase, which also multiplies with the other stat effects if you know what I mean. Math and all that
of course this only counts for infantry but i think it's a very important thing to look into
I uped mass assault in the comparison to 11 infantry instead of 9.
@@71Cloak thanks i didnt notice
This was interesting, but also reaaallly hard to follow since I ain't used to the tank designer, nor the, well, anything really. :D
I have a couple hundred hours in the game, but it just feels overwhelming. My takeaway however, was: Grand Battleplan Right ftw!
id be interested to see if the math works out for man power vs stats on mass assault right against the others is it better to have more units or better units
I always liked GBP and didn't understand why people preferred SF. I'd put it like this: GBP is more effective, if you're willing to sacrifice time (for planning and entrenching) and if you're more experienced. You can make many mistakes with GBP, yes SF is useful in many situations, but I still prefer GBP. It's so.. elegant :D
Also, SF demands a large industry to produce all the artillery and support equipment. If you manage your divisions the right way, GBP is really really efficient with both equipment and manpower.
I like how, a year or two ago when ground units mattered, spreadsheet junkies like us were saying GB R had better damage simply because of the night attack bonus and we got laughed off as idiots and trolls.
Now that Ground is far less important and air is significantly better, NOOOOOW people are realizing that we weren't wrong. I guess all it takes is having a youtube channel :/
It would be interesting to see the analysis for templates with mech + mot. rocket artillery, since they don't fit clearly into MW/SF
Mass Assault is powerful for long wars or fighting in chokepoints. Superior Firepower is the real jack of all trades that only relies on high stats without any demands on play style.
Grand battle plan is good on both offense and defense when the war is decided quickly or if there are nations with lots of command points to get super fast planning repeatedly. Micro is bad for grand battle plan because the bonus drains faster but it is good because you can get more done while you still have the bonus. Entrenchment speed from generals is synergetic.
Mobile warfare is also better for quick wars where you have enough org to just dive all victory points without any regen.
this is amazing
MW LL works in some niche situations. When combined with the Baltic’s ridiculous mechanized buffs and low manpower, it’ll supplement your shit manpower and buff up your dirt-cheap mechanized
Definitely interesting. Personally though I don't like the "best doctrine" idea though. If you wanna focus on tanks and fancy moves, go mobile warfare, even if it's statistically subuptimal. Heavy artillery focus? Superior firepower. Trench warfare? Grand Battleplan. Scorched earth? Mass Assault.
As Turkey I always play with grand battle plan rr and guarantee Finland and get soviets before Barbarossa with the help of agency.
Why do you always use 30w in this video? I thought the meta/standard was 40?
IIRC going left on the last branch of Superior Firepower is the only way to make your doctrine buff your Armour Variants (SPHs, SPAT, SPAA etc.) - which makes it the only viable one for trying to substitute your artillery with SPHs.
Is it worth going GBP on Germany then?
Why use 30W tanks? I get that 30W is the best mix of Org + HP, but 30W doesn't fit into Forests or Hills quite as cleanly as 42/44W, and 41-44 fits more cleanly in difficult terrain types where you need a lot of attack and defense to break through, such as hills and forests.
1. Flexibility, smaller divisions can spread out more and don't take as much supply.
2. Coordination: if you use 40ish width tanks and I use 30, my attacks won't get spread out but yours will across multiple divisions. 40ish width tanks also struggle more against infantry for the same reason.
3. If forest/hills are the big of a deal drop down to 28 width.
@@71Cloak from my experience playing multiplayer using mostly vanilla combat width mods the bigger divisions coordination dosnt matter that much because usually you won’t be attacking 8 tanks per tile more like 2-4 max the smaller divisions just don’t have enough power to kill the 42 widths
@@jaydengraham8303 I have had no problems using 30 widths in the HMM mod (don't think it changes tanks) As either the Germans or USA. I have found the extra tactical flexibility of having 50% more units to be quite useful.
@@71Cloak you should do a test where on one side you have 3 42 widths and on the other you have 5 30s and see cuz idk what would happen
@@jaydengraham8303 I have done it 3 vs 2 before. If you are using the same tanks in your division the side attacking should win because breakthrough is higher than defense. 30 widths win the fight in1 day 17 hours while 42 widths take 2 days 12 hours.
30 widths when attacking take 60% of the losses 42 widths do when they attack. 30 widths when defending take 27% more losses then 42 widths. Overall losses for attacking once and defending once is 147 tanks versus 154. So 30 widths are taking 95% of the strength damage that 42 widths are.
But...But.. I like desperate Defense, The Manpower/Recruitable population buff without any debugg is really nice D:
Incomplete GBP is worse than Incomplete SF.
When people pick GBP in MP they get made fun of because its not useful unless you grind it to nearly the end. (Although most people just don't see it as viable)
SF has an early advantage because the first branch is just better.
GBP is structured in the same way your combat will progress when you start on defensive. First 3 parts are highly defensive(the second one adds a nice 0.25 command power that allow you to spam last stand more often) and let you hold the enemy off while you grind them for xp to get the latter parts, which are all about your incoming counteroffensive.
SF is somewhat the same, but the first tech is purely offensive instead.
What would you buff in mass assault to make it worthwhile?
How impactful is including support flame tanks on infantry templates? I’m think of using the cheap interwar light flame tanks to make them as cheap as possible
Depends on where you are fighting an what size divisions you are using. Flame tanks add terrain bonuses at the cost of fuel. If you are using small divisions the bonuses won't be much and you'll use a lot of fuel. If you are using large divisions then the bonuses can be good but circumstantial.
They are really good if you are fighting through the pacific, but if you are fighting through northern France most of the tiles are plains and they will provide no bonuses.
How much does a full set of support companies change the div org in those tank and infantry templates, especially since MW gets such a bonus, it's average is hurt more and SF's support companies are boosted so much higher?
That depends on the size of the division. Larger the division the less support companies impact overall org.
BASE ORG table
MW LR 105
MW RR 95
SF RL 75
SF RR 80
GBP L 75
GBP R 80
MA L 70
MA R 75
7:30 your analysis here is not perfect. It is definitely not a 50% increase. For example 200 SA during day and 0 during night is much better than 100 sa in day and 100 in night. Because if the soft attack is above the enemy units breakthrough or defense stat they will deal bonus damage almost 4 times the damage.
Facts idk if he didn't take into account that night penalty doesn't effect defense or if he forgot to mention. Still probably really strong on high stat divs with tanks but the rest of that side of the doctrine is bad for tanks anyway so it's a pretty shit bonus over all from what I can tell.
Mass mobilisation and desperate defence give you recruitable population but as you didn't mention it, does that mean they're totally worthless? For instance on a minor nation will either of those two be useful?
Singleplayer yeah they could be nice
Multiplayer theyre a death sentence
Woth the soviets i go mobile, use 35 army XP to make my 40 width tank divisions for free, the XP you save in that is more than worth it
just so you know, your audio cuts out at 0:46 for ~10 seconds
I use Mass Assault.
You left out the crown jewel of right-left Superior Firepower which is Airland Battle.
Always go for an air superiority bonus when you can.
Would it be possible for you to share that sheet?
he's the HOI4 prophet, but line art in SF left i count as better. 1support art gets %50 of 1art right, and 1 line gets %10 left. But thats pound for pound.
Art at 40soft support right gives 60soft. But 4 line art left gives 224 soft if a 9/4 template used.
224v60 , of course the line division costs more but come on thats not even close.
SF right is for smaller art challenged countries.
SF left is for majors going lots of art.
Line artillery is viable but trash compared to just going tanks. Especially as a major but even Luxembourg or Bhutan can go tanks. Even for special forces, marine tanks are better and medium tanks push mountains better than line arty too. I sometimes go line arty builds for fun but it's ass comparitavely. SF L buffs the worst unit in the game but if you're going for a build that uses it then yeah it will work better.
How do you know that GBP R is is 75% atk at night and not 62.5%? at 62.5% it's 181 soft at night or 235 soft attack average which is worse than GBP L at full planning and a lot worsethan SF RR.
Load the game up. Use console commands for xp. Go GBP right. Then engage in combat. At night you will only take a 25% penalty.
What does night attack really do though? You still have less attack than day so most of the progress is still made in the day? Also you can spend the night planning and recovering instead.
You attack every hour of combat. Half of those hours are at night and half are during the day. At night with no other modifiers your attack is multiplied by 0.5, with GBP R it's instead multiplied by .75. .75 is 50% higher than .5 so the penalty reduction from GBP R is quite significant.
Other doctrines will struggle to fight at night but GBP R doesn't which makes up for its slightly worse performance during the day.
@@71Cloak That is ofcourse with 1940 tech. Later in the game there is a 25% penalty for those who don't have GBP R. So the 50% advantage at the start of the war turns into a 33% advantage near the end.
@@Vincrand that tech is from 1946. Most games will end long before you research that tech.
@@71Cloak Yeah I know most games end fast, but it's worth taking into consideration if you are planning a world conquest or other type of long game. Not sure at which year the first nightvision tech is. I guess 1944, which might be of little relevance for normal campaigns.
In my current solo Mexico game f.e. both the axis and commitern have been defeated by mostly the allies, but there hasn't been an end screen yet in 1960. USA, UK and Norway, Raj and all of Oceania have been capitulated.
I thing the bigger thing on mobile warfare for tanks is the org, on the template you shown you get 38% more org on mobile warfare, which basically translate to being 38% more powerfull during battle (-strength damage, but it still should hold above 30%) while the breakthrough is mostly overkill ( tho traded for tds makes it even more powerfull on the offensive). Tho nice thing for sf rl is the org on support companies, you can make super high soft attack divisions with added support artillery, or just make decision to start making tanks later in the game, as most of the tech now for tanks is unlocked with artillery research, while still having super powerfull infantry.
The game changer for me is the night attack on grand battleplan, as yet another time you show that it doesn't scale with debuff, which makes it super powerfull doctrine. But.
It's the last doctrine, which makes it worth only late in the war, and any attempt to micro on the defensive destroys your entrenchment, making it much harder to defend against stronger opponent.
Oh, and another thing going for the org is that it makes you less vulnerable to cas dmg
Takeaway for Germany: mobile right, right. Correct?
In single player? Mobile Warfare Left/Right. You don't need all the tank breakthrough from Right/Right in single player. Getting the organization bonuses for the whole army is more important.
I thought the manpower boost from desperate defence made it clearly the better path
But is the land night attack bonus a percentage of base or total inrease?
As far as I know, it's works the same as other modifiers, so it's a bonus to the base values, not an additional multiplier to the final number. If you already have +400% attack increase from somewhere else, the +25% night attack will make it +425% during the night, not 500%. It should show in the combat window when hovering over the stats.
(EDIT: More or less completely rewrote my comment, I got the question wrong.)
The land night attack bonus works exactly as I showed it in the math.
@@FLUX.2226 Haha thanks for answering, I wasn't sure if it was being applied logically or using PDX math
Я бы перевел на английский , но перевод был бы не корректный . Однажды в мультиплеере (ещё до NSB) один француз используя верблюдов и пто + GBP спокойно держал тяжёлые немецкие танки на равнинах . Это было ужасное зрелище . . .
Это классика за Францию была - рашим инженерные роты до 3-4, разведку, ПТО и ресерчим доктрину для еще большего окапывания и обороноспособности.
Щас понерфили, за Францию доктрину до войны прокачать крайне проблемно, но ПТО всё еще тащит, невозможно сделать непробиваемый танк.
10 width infantry only + lots and lots and lots of CAS + mass mobilization is freaking OP if you can afford the manpower loses give it a try as the soviet union and you'll breakthrough german divisions like knife through butter
10 width infantry wo arty is bad
Mass mob is arguably bad
Cas is so OP that you break anything in the game with almost anything so it negates those two
@@eskihesap9985 the trick with it is that u only need to produce infantry equipment + Cas + Fighters so you get more of your production towards your air power and with mass mob you get so much reinforce rate that your divisions keep reinforcing until they overwhelm their enemies with the amount of firepower they are dealing along with cas, give it a try and youll know what im talking about
10 width should be used with Sf RR and artillery, plus rocket artillery. With this your losses won't be that extreme. With mass assault you are going to bleed manpower like no tomorrow.
@@71Cloak As the Soviet Union manpower isn't something you should be concerned about spending.
I really want to develop a strategy for paratrooper UK. Stack the special forces buffs they get with GBP entrenchment speed and add dozer tanks to create a really hilarious strategy
mass mob is good on soviet roach tho
First!
Grand battle plan Soviet Union+heavy tank destroyers in every frontline division= MP game ruined
Grand battleplan is trash because spies lmao, unless playing singleplayer