As several people have pointed out, GBP is more reliant on planning than the other doctrines. However, all doctrines should get max planning before attacking, whether they are GBP or not. This means that you have to wait for planning no matter which doctrine you are. Also, you will retain most of the planning during the battle, anc will only lose about 3% per day of combat. When you have 70%+ max planning, that is not an issue, and especially not exclusive to GBP. And yes, defending is a problem. If you play meta, you will have a large org wall, that will block the majority of the incoming damage, while you recover your org and planning for the next battle. If you are concerned about spies denying your planning, that would only be an issue in MP. But in competitive MP games, this is removed. This is because 0% planning means its impossible to push.
Yeah I just completely disagree, I literally never wait for planning bonus and waiting for planning bonus seems like a terribly inefficient use of time, hence MW being better than GBP.
@@johnteixeira1791 Just do staff office plan. I often can easily beat Expert AI on the highest difficulty by going GBP by simply doing SOP, and then battle planning for like 7 days, rinse and repeating. I often win my wars faster with like half equipped templates
@@truesurvivor585 This is the way. You only need like 10-12 tanks the entire game, and you'd only spend, what, 20 CP to max out planning bonus each time? It's peanuts.
@@JohnSmith-bs9ym Yea. Going GBP as almost any nation is amazing. As Germany I do go with MW simply because of the buffs for it but most if not all other times I usually go GBP UNLESS I am playing smth like Hungary or Canada in MP and I am gonna exclusively be using tanks.
HOI4 just has a general lack of analytical content like this video, the only youtuber who really did before sumzero was 71cloak, but even he wasn't an "mp" player
read doctrines before using them, GBP gives the best defense and offence however you can ruin their planning (entire offence) with spy network stacking
You mean the MP players who have guides on their discord, public available for everyone to see ? The MP players who openly share their knowledge Biggest problem is that people don’t want to listen or a entitled and ignorant and don’t want to learn
Interesting analysis, but I think you missed a key factor and misrepresented the planning bonus. It is not realistic that you have full planning bonus during all battles. You have either 100% before making a move or mixed during battle. Or even nothing when responding to naval invasions. The second issue I found is that you never mentioned recovery rate. That does affect combat a lot, especially during multiple consecutive battles. Mobile warfare shines with its recovery rate buffs, which are completely lacking in GBP. Mobile warfare also reduces organisation loss and speed loss, which is somewhat important in making encirclements. To test such things, spreadsheets are not enough. One would have to do actual "benchmarks" and try different things out on the field. Still liked the video!
Honestly, imo, even in MP it is realistic as what alot of people is do these two things. A. They set a field marshal order with an attack order but no units assigned. This passively builds up Planning at all times B. Staff Office Plan, I cannot tell you how many times ive been in an Endsieg as the Axis in MP and the Allied tanks are wrecking me and then all I do is staff office plan and somehow I won the battle of the bulge and D-Day was pushed out
Absolutely need actual combat benchmark for this. I never get the spreadsheet thing with these games lol...I used to work in a physics experimental lab, and I yawned every time the theoretical physicists brought out their "theories" because every time after the experiment rounds they just got wrecked by actual experimental data lmao.
If you have giga planning you lose less org that needs regaining. Speed is heavily influenced by org, so while your tanks theoretically move slower, they keep more org from the battle, but lose more from moving. The entrenchment is super fun too. 90% entrenchment tanks go hard
Two things first you will have 100% planning more then you think because in mp you can’t click without planning. Second thing is about max planning, think about it like this if you have a tank with 80 planning and 60 planning, then you attack and let’s say you lose 20 planning. Then you have 60 and 40 planning left that still means you have 20% more stats then on the 80 planning.
under-appreciated benefit of GBP is it's really awesome army spirits. Tip of the spear and logistics focus are really nice and theatre training can be straight up broken in the right hands
@gabe75001 theatre training makes you grind terrain traits 20% faster (terrain traits and adaptable are OP). Tip of the spear increases naval invasion capacity, supply grace for Marines, special forces cap and reduces marine template design cost. Logistics focus gives a flat -5% supply consumption (who doesn't like less supply consumption?) and unless you're the US or Soviets, less fuel consumption is always good. That - 5% could mean the difference between running out of fuel for your tanks in Africa or losing a naval battle. - 5% is also an extra civ or two that isn't being traded away.
I would still say mass assault left is acceptable for historical soviets, the less supply consumption and combat width reduction buffs really helps you stack a lot of divisions and combined with supply company in ur tanks, you just get banned from having supply issues.
I will copy my reply from another comment, since it was the same topic: "Supply consumption is nice yes, but you will fight 90% of your battles in perfect supply conditions. If you lose those battles (which you will with deep battle), then it doesnt matter that you MIGHT win the other 10%. The other bonuses of deep battle are tactics as well as the spirit that gives 10% HP. However, these do not make up the lackluster stats compared to other doctrines, so its still worthless." Combat width reductions are only on infantry as well.
@@sumzer_0 MA-L is bad in raw stats but that's because the point of MA-L/Deep Battle is force concentration and offensive tempo. In this example, the supply condition on an ongoing offensive would likely NOT be perfect. The width reduction for inf is also used for orgwalling with smaller width but still decent HP inf divisions, or you can also use that for building dedicated breakthrough divisions by adding tanks to an inf division. Higher HP = less equipment and manpower losses. The extra org recovery and reinforce rate also helps with cycling divisions both in defensive and offensive battles. Treat MA-L like how soviets did, focus on the operational level instead of tactical. Use its jack-of-all-trades bonuses by changing how you fight against which doctrines - against MW you counter-attack often to abuse MWs lack of defensive buffs and tanks lack of hp (meaning higher losses). against GBP, you keep the battle fluid and avoid letting them build up entrench and planning - do this by breaking the enemy lines and go for supply hubs and other strategic objectives like airfields instead of outright encirclements if you can't guarantee holding the pocket closed. or DO go for encirclements and abuse the reinforce rate bonus MA-L gets to keep the enemy from escaping. On the defensive, you can also "drain" GBPs planning bonus by going for elastic defense - MA-L gets the best org recovery for infantry, 2nd best for mobile units (2nd only to MW). In short, stop thinking of hoi4 wars like it's just 1v1 division but on a larger scale - it's not.
When I larp with tanks, I go mobile warfare. When I larp with elite infantry, I go Grand battle plan. When I flood the combat width with an invincible org wall, I go mass assault. When I try to do more I go Superior firepower. There are other special larps like Mechanized Infantry with trickleback and entrenchment that need Grand Battle plan left or... whatever psychotic marine build I make as random allied minors that mostly built navy and have no mills or exp for marines, but these are rare cases. Yes, max planning Grand battle plan is theoretically the strongest, but Intelligence can completely erase your planning, and also it takes time. There is always a tradeoff and in any case the game is more fun if you larp it.
@@12halo3 He means he doesn't decide on doctrine based on what would be the strongest according to the math, but likes to pick the doctrine that fits best in a roleplaying sense because it's more fun.
I like your analytical videos and explanation. But I still come to a different conclusion. It all comes down to the question of how often you fight as the attacker with max planning. And in my opinion even if you try to maximise it, its not that often. SF gives 20% attack, but always without planning and most importantly also while defending. When GBP is counter attacked and has to defend, the max planning is useless. So if we simply say half of fights are attack and half of fights are with max planning then you have your 30% bonus only in one quarter of the fights which makes it an average of 7,5% bonus. While you get the 20% bonus of SF in every single situation.
@ In that case you use Entrenchment. To be fair GBP also gives a Bonus to Entrenchment, but Entrenchment is entirely gone once you only attempt to move out of position.
This consider huge missconception. Tanks in good conditions (plains) should always push out other tank because of masive difrence in breaktrough and defense of tank division. You shouldn't try to def with tank, instead you should just click with your tank enemy pushing tank with division on other tile. It's nice buff to have, but tanks anyway push each other easily.
What do you think about a dozer blade soviet build? Stack as much entrenchment with: Base Maximum 5.00 1. The Red Army +5.0 2. General w/Ambusher +5.0 3. FM w/Ambusher +5.0 4. Division Template +17.60 (8 mech, 1 Heavy SPAA Armour Meme, 9 Heavy TDs) The Division's entrenchment comes from the Dozer Blades fitted in the TDs, Light Tank Recon, Flame Tank, and, the Armoured Engineer Support Company. *The reason I use heavies is because of the additional breakthrough. Multiplicative Modifiers: 1. Static Warfare: +10% 2. Defense Industry: +5% 3. FM Defensive Doctrine: +30% This gives the division a +101% Entrenchment with the MW LR doctrine. I have tested this with GBP but the results on field were slightly worse (even though they shouldn't), but I am not 100% certain if I did it correctly. I think the org and recovery rate gained from MW is far superior than the additional +10 Entrenchment and 30% Planning, since this is more of a defensive build? Let me know what you think, I think this is quite an interesting build.
Also just to clarify, the Heavy vs Medium TD debate is still something I need to look into more. The additional breakthrough may not be worth the additional cost of the tank.
Bro who uses entrenchment in multiplayer unless you are fighting in African mountains or asian jungles entrenchment is not worth it on multiplayer combine it with forts it can only be used in single player 😅
You won't pump out enough of these divisions to hold effectively + you lose entrenchment throuought battles, this build "works" for a trade boosted giga france since the frontilne is much smaller. On soviets, roach light td with dozer is probably a better option if you look for funny def builds. Combined with mass mob it's pretty hard to kill.
GBP is just this Jack of all trades Doctrine that is good for when you start with only infantry but in late game can start putting out armor and motorized.
Missing here: tank org bonuses reduce the necessary mot/mecanized infantry in tank divs, increasing damage, breakthrough and armor. Reducing the amount of time in battle.
Personally, because the military theoreist Heinz Guderian that provides a free +10% armor speed in the designer as well as -15% doctrine cost, I have a hard time using anything but MW L&R when playing as Germany. If micro correctly, I can easily have maxed out doctrine by late 1939 while everyone in the Allies have a difficult time gaining army xp.
Isn't the whole point of MW that you can have a lower Mech/Tank ratio in your template? you should not compare for same template but different templates with same Org. e.g. your template with GBP has 36 org, then modify the template so it has 36 org with MW. and you will have not only significantly more attack, breakthrough and hardness, but also slightly better armor and piercing.
Yeah when you go MW you get more tank battalions, so that you hover around 30 org, maybe a bit less, and usually that gives you a lot stats, attack, breakthrough, hardness, armour...
You do get more stats by increasing the armour/inf ratio but after planning bonus the total stats for GBP are still, higher and the ic cost of divisions goes up for mw so gbp still better
Also realistically you're going to have mech/Amtrak with armour so you're not getting a massive buff to hardness and meta is TDs so armour means very little because you're being pierced regardless
The issue is that you’re going to have more tanks over less HP, which can be very expensive especially in multiplayer and/or when the enemy has lots of CAS (anti-air can only do so much)
Very important detail, mass assault gets guerilla tactics (-50%) combat width, so basicslly it doesnt matter how many tanks they have, most of them wont fight. That is huge
A very important (though less important now with rigid cohesion) trick for grand battle plan is to make a frontline and then unassign your tanks so you can micro them and still get planning
Something people especially SP players have understand is that the defense is wat stronger in MP aswell You need to reach a certain amount of stats to compete against it e.g in Africa ( egypt ) there wait 40 ( 20 inf infront and 20 on el alamein)mass mobilization divs (16 witdh pure inf with at least support aa , support at and sometimes there is MP and/ or signal Rarely u even see field hospitals ) U will have red or if lucky yellow air This is even with fully optimized MP divs hard to break as you have meme the divisions of the tiles ( meming means winning combat before reinforcing) Even harder gets if you come to dday as allies 35 witdh mec units (17 mec + 1 mot at ) fully entrenched , GDP right , all of them last standing (2-3k soft and hard attack and 4-5 k defense ) on every tile with mass mob waiting on the tiles behind I bet most people haven’t really seen a real MP dday yet , than they would understand why GDP is so important and better than SF and MW
Any thoughts on combat tactics? It's another advantage for GBP and SFP because they both get it, but MW L-R is the only tank doctrine which doesn't get the Breakthrough tactic (+25% damage that is only countered by backhand blow). In MP I can see how the extra org wall matters a lot more, but in SP with normal tanks going right side might lead to doing higher damage on average with Breakthrough as a preferred tactic. In single player I tend to go MW-RR with my tanks mainly because my tanks have plenty of attack no matter which doctrine I pick, so I pick it for the speed and org to get better/faster encirclements. If I don't do that, I go SFP-RL because I don't like waiting for planning. I guess the moral of the story is that in single player you don't need the absolute best attack possible so you can min-max for other things. SFP does have the most attack without planning and still has good infantry, which is nice for mixed tanks and special forces builds. That's where Mobile Warfare is weakest. You have org wall infantry but nothing else. GBP and SFP both have way better special forces compared to MW. At the same time, in multiplayer everyone specializes and does one thing only, so it doesn't matter there. I used to play in big MP games, but my last game was probably around when LaR came out, so my meta is outdated. What do people in MP think about Germany's focus tree splitting the tank bonuses from the GBP bonuses so you can't get both?
Left side is more better than breakthough is good. MW R-R is definitely worse than GBP, and both of them have breakthrough tactic. You should get planning no matter doctrine, even 30-40% bonus is massive. Germany players have been doing the «wrong» doctrine according to their focus tree for years, this will likely continue. The bonuses dont change their meta that much.
@@sumzer_0 A few months back EaW mod reworked mass assault left. They left balance back at home, as one of the things they added was giving tanks -0.4 width consumed (copying MA right's lead with infantry width). I don't think they really considered stat density of tanks vs infantry when simply copying that modifier, lol. But hey, at least there's a legitimate reason to go MA-L, even if it's over the top.
I definitely agree with you. In single player, who the hell is waitings to gain max planning while you need to rush to ports, supply hubs, victory points and closing pockets? With breakthrough you can reduce org losses and can continue your operation.
@@TheMelnTeam-.4 width sounds fucking insane, you can have 2 more tanks lol for a 35.2 width, which would be a lot of extra ic but is also +20% stats plus planning plus supply consumption plus inf cw too
@@doodooman4545 It IS insane. The only thing holding it back is that after a few runs with the big nations, that mod has more nations with weak industry and low manpower, making it hard to fully enjoy the benefit before it stops mattering a lot in SP. I don't think EaW has a big competitive MP scene, but if such existed they'd be complaining like crazy or running a submod I suspect.
Nice video, you pointed out important things. My bit is about higher org of MW. I think comparison on same template is little unfair. With MW you could go higher tanks/mot ratio which has its own benefits and negatives. But I would expect that on same org (about 35) MW template with higher tanks than GBP would have better stats and therefore deal more dmg and take less dmg. I think the MW templates you compared have just way too much org.
Less HP -> higher equipment losses. More tanks as a proportion of total equipment means those losses are disproportionately expensive compared to divs with more mech. If you have IC to burn, sure, stack lots of tanks (or better yet, TDs). But if you're building with multiple small cannons and max armor for stats, those tank losses are difficult to replace. Usually better to have more divs even if each is slightly less powerful.
@28lobster28 but like it was said in the video, longer you stay in fight because of high org, higher your losses will be in time you deal your max dmg. With more tanks (and other variants) you also go higher on breakthrough armor and hardness, which can lead to reduced losses. So it reduced hp could be balanced by shorter winning combat and higher defensive stats. As you pointed out there is whole other dimension with tank models design. And that is whole separate debate, but is definitely important part of overall strategy
@@martinbusina6 If you take a given number of hits, you'll take fewer losses with higher HP. If a greater proportion of equipment is cheap mech, those losses will be cheaper to replace on average. Should you choose to keep high org tanks in battle longer, yes, they will take more hits. If you took a low org tank into combat for the same amount of time (i.e. allow it to reorg and go again), it would take more total losses and the average equipment is more expensive to replace. Breakthrough is useless in excess and it's very easy to get a lot of breakthrough. Just stack armor clicks. People build only TDs because they have useful stats (hard/soft attack). People don't build tanks because TDs give enough breakthrough despite the 40% penalty.
@@28lobster28 i understand the bit about hp And about cheaper losses. But I dont need to reorg thats the point. With more tanks and VARIANTS proportional to inf I will have higher Attack, therefore kill enemies faster So I will need to spend less time in battle= less hits. With higher Armor it is more likely enemy will not pierce you = less dmg taken And more dmg dealt= less dmg taken and less time spent in combat= less hits taken. Also higher hardness will help you fare better against soft attack which is more Common. It reduces soft dmg taken =less hits taken. Breakthrough is easy to get I agree. But with these 3 effects above it could balance out with the higher cost per HP.
@@martinbusina6 Killing faster is great, but you're still going to spend lots of time in combat taking losses. One battle (or even one campaign) won't decide the game. If you fight 7-11 vs 8-10 repeatedly, the winner will almost always be the attacker regardless of template. If you alternate attacking and defending, the 7-11 takes more IC losses and battles come out basically 50/50 (because attacker wins in tank on tank battle). Higher hardness is a penalty in MP tank v tank fighting. It's easier to stack hard attack than soft because TDs are better than tanks (and HV gun is better/less expensive than heavy cannon). People still use mech because it gives more HP and defense than cav/camels/moto but you don't actually want the hardness from the mech. Since enemy tank damage is likely to be more than 50% hard, you want to be as soft as possible. The way to do this is to license mech 1 but not research it yourself. People already want to do this (save research time, save 100 XP) but not having mech tech makes the licensed mech you produce 10% softer than if you had the tech. If people valued hardness, they would use mech 2/3. Instead, mech 2/3 are almost never used. The increased stats are penalized by higher hardness and increased cost (and having to spend another 100 XP on production cost upgrades and having to spend research time). Soft attack in quantities that matter (i.e. not from shitty inf) is less common than hard attack. Soft attack almost never exceeds tank breakthrough because no one builds for it and it's harder to stack. Hardness will be over 50% because tanks are hard and even 8-10 is 55% tanks (and even with the mech license trick, mech still has hardness). Designing a tank to beat soft attack is very silly, soft attack is already mitigated by hardness and you're very unlikely to face SPGs or regular tanks.
The main advantage of MA is its reduction of supply use. That is the reason why it suits the Soviet and China, because they infersuctere are poor from the start and they won't have the luxury of building railway and supply center with their civil factory.
Removing line artillery from your infantry isn't gonna work if you don't properly leverage the IC savings. You should either have more tanks or more air as a result. If you're a beginner, I'd focus on air first. Even pure infantry should be able to push against the AI if your air game is good.
SF is literally better than every other doctrine no matter the nation. Using line arty? Dispersed. Using support arty? Integrated. Too small to field tanks and planes? Shock & Awe. Big enough to have mass tank and plane production? Airland Battle.
As GBP-R enjoyer, I recently played Germany with MW-R-R and tanks had so much organization that I did 5-12-1 (mech-tank-AA, 35 width). I am not really meta player but I would think that MW biggest strength is that you can have substantially less mechenatized or motorized in your divisions
The issue in mp with having less mech, is having less than 7 does two things, first, tanks are way more expensive than mech so it’s pricy, second, hp, you will get strength deleted if you have less than 200 hp, and I see some tanks with something bad like 150, which compared to the 250 or so you normally have is huge, at that point sfp left is better since its probably equal stats for lower ic and more hp
I’d love a video on what the game changes are for competitive MP and why they’re used. I don’t care about MP but that shit is interesting and could probably teach me a lot about the game still. I’d click that shit on my recommended instantly and I can’t be the only one.
4:11 Ok, call me insane for defending left path superior firepower, but isn't that insanely op with mountaineers? Like, the ranger bonus to line artillery + the bonus you get from the left path make for an extremely strong mountaineer in the early game, like, 40 width and 1700 soft attack (after bonuses).
It is less bad compared to integrated support than it used to be. You break even at 5ish arty in a division instead of 6 like it was previously. Line arty is lackluster generally. If you insist on using it, whatever you made for SF-left will be worse than making the same thing using GB left.
Mountaineers are best with 0 line arty. You can perhaps justify a single arty to get 25W before doctrines, but the -.2 combat width doctrine lets you make 14-0 mountaineers @ 25.2 width. Pure MTN gives better terrain boni and better stats in general. Line arty soft attack looks decent but it's worse per combat width, per cost, and gives terrain penalties. Support arty is fine, line arty is basically never useful.
But GBP has an issue that planning bonus can be reduced by intel and that you probably won't have full planing bonus all the time, isn't that game changer? Also discord link in discription doesn't work, don't know if it's me, or cause of the link.
Removing planning doesn't do anything since you just give away states in MP and you have full planning again. The only nation it hurts is Soviets which don't do GBP anyways.
If the MP game allows spies, Axis can completely remove their impact on the Eastern front. Just give the spy states to different Axis minors and any spy network will only affect that nation's troops in that land (and the network won't spread). If you give Kiev, Sevastopol, and Rostov to Bulgaria but Germany holds the land in between, you've basically denied the ability to build a network in Ukraine and the only troops impacted will be Bulgarians in those specific states. If Bulgaria is on DDay wall duty, that completely negates the planning impact of spies. This applies to other fronts to some extent as well. Give Marsa Matruh to Bulgaria and the spy network in Libya can't spread to impact troops fighting at El Alamein.
I mean, it is the best option for a WERY specific scenario of a close MP game with max planning, but what percentage of games are that way? Especially sp? Waaay more used strategy (outside of the sweaty part of mp servers) is to constantly micro your deep mechanized pincer maneuvers, and for that after the initial breakthrough you need speed, speed, org, and speed. And supplies, of course... And mobile warfare is what gives you unique bonuses for both (but most valuably speed for mechanized and support companies) that you just can't get in any other way (apart from deviations like pure light tank divisions). Template from a video just doesn't go 14.5km/h (+adviser bonuses +5% from maneuver warfare idea) in grand battleplan...
Its not very specific, its the most common. 90%+ of important combat will be with a large amount of planning, if not, you are doing something wrong. All doctrines should get planning before combat. Speed is nice yes, but for example, GBP also gets -10% supply consumption on a spirit, which is really good.
@@sumzer_0 GBP also gets bonus to grinding terrain traits (which makes you more likely to roll Brilliant/Inflexible generals too) and Well Planned Attack has no counter if you pick it as favorite tactic (as opposed to Breakthrough/Backhand Blow). WPA also 100% more likely to trigger when you take Logistical Focus so you can really double down on that tactic. MA's 10% HP spirit is also really good. Shoutout to Tactical Withdrawal, only tactic to reduce combat width if Guerilla is banned and good for org wall SF (small divs, full supports).
@@28lobster28left side sfp is underrated since tactical withdrawal is the second best defense tactic, and the tank buffs are still okay, plus the support company buffs do help out infantry a lot in sp since support arty is very useful, and in mp if spies do kill planning, it is sometimes used over left gbp though people are usually still stubborn
Counter intel and interrogation techniques, in mp you would give control of states to counter that first of all, and in sp the ai will never have enough spies concentrated to kill your planning, you might lose 20% at the worst, but gbp is still literally 30% more stats unless you have absolutely no planning
I mean this video is just wrong, he's half right and only because he's talking about a scenario where you use MP mods to "balance" the game. In vanilla it's still mobile warfare against people and AI.
Most people don't know how to make the right templates and distribute their armor effectively; moreover, they really underscore the role of the infantry. Take the result of (ic/hp)org to figure what you might lose on the wall, but maybe consider what you would keep and force them to lose if you just supported the infantry in the first place and then you can start trading positively.
Grat video BUT the whole point of mw is moving far after initial engagement and high org for long runs to encircle or at least get better position, while GBP is heavily depends on its planning bonus thus if u get first breakthrough u cant expand it quick enough to gain some tactical advantage. F.e. when u micro barbarossa extra org that u get in mw let u puch further after breaking stalin line and crossing dnipro so as result u gain more space for ur divs after this and now u can puch plain tiles without being heavily debuffed.
I'm not disagreeing, but what i always did, was using the bonus in org to have more tanks and less motorised/mechanized. So you could have only 5 or even 4 mechs and have the same org, but more dmg. But i don't play this game as much anymore, and don't know the meta. But back in the day i would never pick to get 45 org in tanks. 30 was enough.
in MP meta people use very cheap infanry with just support aas and maybe engineers. Would you still use TDs only if your enemy went off meta and used better infantry with support ats, line aa or something like that? would you use more more medium cannons?
If you fight an enemy that is doing infantry only, then you should switch to howitzers, so yes dont do TDs then. However if its just «more» inf and «less» tanks, then TDs will still do fine. They still have ~500 soft attack base, so they will push pretty easily. The most important thing is just to be able to push their tanks.
Tanks will still tend to beat infantry divisions, there's just such a huge damage disparity between the sides due to the hardness. Line AT doesn't have breakthrough, so simply force them to attack you rather than the reverse by going around it. The one possible exception is roach builds where they're going mass assault and rotating org, while they also proc guerilla tactics pretty often (makes damage from both sides horrible and halves width). If someone is doing that, you really do want a lot of soft damage. Maybe medium cannons can still beat that, high vel would struggle a great deal to reinforce meme them.
but hey dont you think org in tanks is basically useless? I think that when you can fill the width of the battle by a large margin org becomes just useless cause you can cycle your units letting the units that lost org recover faster than the enemy can take your organization down, but all in all in multiplayer constantly cycle your infantry divisions in and out of combat is very micro intensive so i understand why org for infantry is very important, but i dont think the same applies for tanks, when you are using tanks you are always micromanaging them and i think you should just focus on as much soft attack as possible for them and greatly neglect org cause if you have enough tanks you can cycle them in and out of the combat while more soft attack is always extremly worth it, also having more soft attack and less org as you already said will increase enemy's casualties while decreasing ur own's and greatly increase your chance to reinforce meme ur enemy, what do you think? ty anyways and keep up the good content!
Firsty, please add some punctuation. Org still matters, if you are fighting enemy tanks, its who loses first that matters. Yes it matters more for infantry, but its not insignificant on tanks.
I think your take on MW is a bit not correct. Because it gives so much more org from doctrines you can slot in more TDs in expense of Motorized/Mech. For example in Vanilla it is optimal to have around 30-35 org so to do it other doctrines will have to have 6 Mechs while MW might require only 5, or even 4 ( it is for 30W tank division). So using the same template for all doctrines is not an optimal comparison imo because it negate each doctrine's strong side and weak side
No, this doesnt work. There isnt a specific amount of org that works especially good. You can also see this when i try with 7/11 MW R-R on the video. 8/10 is the most common template, no matter doctrine, for a good reason.
@@sumzer_0You missed the point of tank divisions. If your tank division can't be penned it always wins. MW gives you significantly more armor because of lower inf count with the same org
If there is something HOI4 needs in the next DLC then it is a complete overhaul of the doctrine system. I mean the state of air and naval doctrines are okay-ish but land doctrine is just such a damn messy thing at the moment, both from a gameplay standpoint as well as the litte immersion it provides.
Agency is destroy planning,you must go to right side of 3 doctrine to take 25% for night attack,in this game night can be longer than day,this is a really god,i have tested infantry on 2 and 3 doctrine,so 3 doctrine had a more damage (80 tanks destroyed,when on 2 doctrine just 42)
If the MP game allows spies, Axis can completely remove their impact on the Eastern front. Just give the spy states to different Axis minors and any spy network will only affect that nation's troops in that land (and the network won't spread). If you give Kiev, Sevastopol, and Rostov to Bulgaria but Germany holds the land in between, you've basically denied the ability to build a network in Ukraine and the only troops impacted will be Bulgarians in those specific states. If Bulgaria is on DDay wall duty, that completely negates the planning impact of spies. This applies to other fronts to some extent as well. Give Marsa Matruh to Bulgaria and the spy network in Libya can't spread to impact troops fighting at El Alamein.
Is it worth it to use mech in your tank divisions (as a major? I would always just use trucks to simply production lines and to use the research elsewhere (I pretty much exclusively play single player or multiplayer against the AI).
I have a Question. Sometimes I do 3 to 4 General lead 24 Infantry division and 1 General lead a combination of Tanks and Motorized Infantry, and I did that with 2 Field Marshal so around 8x 24 standard Infantry (sometimes I add mountaineer in them) and 2 quick division and using GBP L. Is that good? Or there is actually a better option?
Okay but for SP, with small countries if I even do tanks I like to do my poverty tanks with cavalry, would that redeem MW R-R? 😂 (small countries like Estonia)
As i showed in the video, replacing a mech battalion with a tank doesnt really improve the stats, and its even with MW R-R, which should be the best for this strategy. 8/10 is default for a reason.
MW R-R is just worse than L-R, and the potential breakthough does not make up for that. I would still pick the best infantry doctrine if i was doing space marines over a tank doctrine.
@@sumzer_0 I agree that L-R would be better for space marines, I just don't agree that breakthrough is irrelevant in general. Breakthrough is how you can save on tanks and use cheaper mobile infantry instead.
@@mik1984 Excess attack gives you crits, excess breakthrough is wasted. It's really easy to get excess breakthrough just with armor clicks (though still expensive). MW mostly gives breakthrough to tanks - it would be much better if it also gave breakthrough to TDs.
So why not SF if it get out permanent bonuses and not depends on planning? Spy agents, dynamic frontline - those things makes planning useless. Also they usless in defense, trenches take too much time and disappears when you moving. Tanks always moving. SF is just better
You forget something. Every doctrine needs planning to consistently win battles, not just GBP. For example with SF you can still get 40-45% planning, which is ALOT. GBP is actually better if you just lose "some" planning. Say you lose 20% planning from attacking for a week. That means the bonus without GBP goes from lets say 1.4 to 1.2. Thats 14.3% (relatively) less stats. With GBP its 1.7 to 1.5. Thats 11.8% (relatively) less stats. Of course without any planning, SF will win over GBP, but played correctly that should never happen. GBP is worse on defense yes. Probably its biggest downside. Luckily, you have a massive org wall for exactly that reason.
@sumzer_0 Thanks for the detailed answer. In my battles and those I've watched, they were usually very dynamic and often there was no battleplan at all. As always, the choice depends on the situation
Better for defense. You trade 20% max planning for the land night attack, so the total stats on offense is lower, but you do deal more damage on the defensive. Usually what you pick with UK.
Imho, GBP R is the best doctrine. -10% supply reduction (-20% with army spirit) and night atack bonus is VERY good. Additional planning bonus is not worth it overall because for 12 hours you will get only base damage if not less. And if you have no planning bonus you still can push, especially if you have cas (even afghanistan can spam cas)
I always use tank destroyers in mp and I have trouble sometimes pushing super entrenched enemy inf even with air support. Should I also be using regular medium tanks to boost soft attack?
@@arankokabut it feels like a waste of IC if I create a whole new tank and production line which i could be using on other things. And tank destroyers don’t have amazing soft attack.
Two things: 1. what is the best doctrin in early game when you start the war with no comletet doctin full doctrin? second: would you agree that superior firepower in mp is still the best when you're going for antiinf tanks, sice you don't relly have time for planing because the other players will bring their actuall tanks to fight you when you give him time and the orgwallinf will have no decend staats anyways.
Some nations due to an early war or a need to spend army xp on other things may result in players needing to pick a doctrine based on its early bonuses and not all of them total. Grand battleplan has the best 1st pick giving +10 entrenchment. Followed by +10% planning and then the third one is +10 org and +10% defense for infantry. Superior Firepower is good but the first pick of +10% soft attack is only for "frontline units" which ignores support arty. If you think you can get 5 into your doctrine then superior firepower gives that +10% softattack, +10 org and +10% defense, and then +50% soft attack on support companies like arty and recon light tanks with close support cannon. Allows you to make the most of a very small industry.
Why would you build anti-infantry tanks against an opponent with tanks? Tanks are always the bigger threat, focus on them first or your own tanks get clicked. If you're against roach Soviets then sure, build anti-infantry tanks. But then the Soviets have no offensive capacity so you're free to sit there and plan to your heart's content. GBP is best starting doctrine since you can get Theater Training and roll for Brilliant/Inflexible generals and grind terrain traits easier. Even if you're planning to swap out later, you want to take advantage of Theater Training when starting with GBP (though I wouldn't spend 100 XP to take it just for that if I'm planning to go another doctrine).
Depends on use case. SF R/R, GB L (offensively), GB R (defensively), and MA R all make a case. MA R might not be obvious why. Unlike other doctrines, you can attack from one direction, then add directions. It has such a massive reinforce rate that you will (almost) always reinforce first, allowing your divisions to use more combat width than the enemy. If the enemy reinforces, cancel the extra attacks (which kicks their reinforcements out) and repeat. It's difficult to quantify the advantage from doing this compared to other doctrines. It's probably less pure damage than GB L, but the divisions that get kicked out are the ones that joined more recently, so there's reinforce meme chances regardless. Infantry is slow and further relies on sustained pins to make pockets if you breach the line with it, and this also favors MA R greatly due to the org recovery (fewer divisions required to keep attacks going permanently). If you want to battleplan with infantry, MA R is far and away the best doctrine for doing so. Battleplans are so bad that the reinforce rate overpowers everything else + makes that trash spend less time attacking while under width.
Multiplayer is such a shithole and its mods vanilla is another dimension wjen you compare it to multplayer mods.Tanks in multiplayer need to be more than 40 organization at least 500 soft attack and 400 hard attack with 1k breakthrough you can only active these stats with mobile warfare also doctrines depend on the tactics which they give espacially backhand blow on mass assault and mobile warfare.As a sum up mass assault is king for multiplayer games on eastern front for soviets which counter every single tactics for mobile warfare.keep that in mind organization is key for red air in multiplayer because you can stay in battle for longer periods
Any doctrine can make tanks with 40 org and 500/500 soft/hard. You just have to make good TDs and good guns (at high IC cost). MW gives no stats besides org and breakthrough and the breakthrough is mostly on tanks (when you'd rather have it on all armor types so TDs benefit). Org is great, but it doesn't help with attack stats unless you're reducing the mech battalions to add more tanks (which reduces HP and increases losses of more expensive equipment).
The Micro doctrine is Grand battel plan. Auto push is blitzkrieg. Why? Because blitzkrieg has high org and breaktrough base (so spamming cheaper tanks on entire frontline is easier) but blitzkrieg can't concetreate stats in short time because of low max planning... Actually funny. Blitzkrieg is trully autopush doctrine because of: org, planning speed (fast regaining planning after burning it), huge recovery rate. When actually Grand battel plan requires hirurgic strikes because you must first get planning and you want to end combat fast to gain most value from plan. So yeah, he compare Micro doctrine with autopush doctrine, and sadly blitzkrieg auto push is loosing most of the time.
If you're using 15 tanks - 5 mech division (singleplayer), isn't MW-RR definitely better? I understand 15 tanks is pretty low org but MW helps with that.
It actually isnt. I compared in the video 8/10 and 7/11 with MW R-R. You lose max damage, for a pretty small amount of attack. The more mech you replace with tanks, the more IC losses you face as well, since tanks are significantly more expensive than mech. You will also have issues with defense, since mech gievs a lot more defense than tanks do.
Of course its an oversimplification, but i dont think ive ignored benIfits from MW. Ill make a list over pros on each doctrine: MW: - 0.4 + 0.2 (equals to about 0.3) Recovery Rate - 70% Planning Speed - 20% Speed GBP: - 10+5% Defense - -10% Supply Consumption on spirit of division command (much better than MW spirit) - Better Tactics? (Breakthrough vs Backhand Blow) - 10% Coordination (small difference, but still) Id say these are pretty equal, and it comes down to difference in attack vs organization.
Look i dont know much about the stats in hoi4 but when i pick MW_R-R usually i end up with somerthing like 1700 breakthrough on my 30W tanks during barbarossa. Yes i only play SP because who tf wants to play a 6h match with the most sweaty community?
@@Anonymous-bc4dlArms Against Tyranny. DLC where they change Nordic countries and add market and similar. Tbh... I would also suggest giving try on MP games with optimasation mods. They are some times really fast.
Join a MP server and look at the guides section. Most will have div/air/tank templates and country guides. MP players don't want to gatekeep, more people playing makes it easier to find games! But they also don't want incompetent allies, that's a good way to die quickly. Having guides is a great answer. A lot of people don't like to be told "hey, follow this Bulgaria guide to the letter". I get it, experimenting is fun. But if you're not getting 1937 total mob and building good inf/mech for DDay/Barb wall, you're not going to be effective as Bulgaria. 1937 total mob requires a specific focus order and politics clicks and it gets more factories than other builds. Meta slave? Sure, but PDX designed the focus tree to have an objectively correct way to play (assuming you like factories). For the div templates, there's more variety but other players aren't going to trust your build in the first game until you've built some credibility. Seriously though, highly encourage checking out MP discord guide sections. Even if you don't want to play MP, most of it is applicable to SP historical (except for the ability to trust your allies to do something useful and communicate)
@28lobster28 Wow, that is a really good way to put it. I am a part of MP servers, but are there guides better than on Red Baron? I've heard of something like Unnamed but I can't remember
superior firepower is better , gbp is countered by agents, if ur opponents are brain dead and dont do agency , then sure, gbp is better, but it also gives buffs only in attack, not in defence, so you can be clicked back after you break a tile
If the MP game allows spies, Axis can completely remove their impact on the Eastern front. Just give the spy states to different Axis minors and any spy network will only affect that nation's troops in that land (and the network won't spread). If you give Kiev, Sevastopol, and Rostov to Bulgaria but Germany holds the land in between, you've basically denied the ability to build a network in Ukraine and the only troops impacted will be Bulgarians in those specific states. If Bulgaria is on DDay wall duty, that completely negates the planning impact of spies. This applies to other fronts to some extent as well. Give Marsa Matruh to Bulgaria and the spy network in Libya can't spread to impact troops fighting at El Alamein.
If the MP game allows spies, Axis can completely remove their impact on the Eastern front. Just give the spy states to different Axis minors and any spy network will only affect that nation's troops in that land (and the network won't spread). If you give Kiev, Sevastopol, and Rostov to Bulgaria but Germany holds the land in between, you've basically denied the ability to build a network in Ukraine and the only troops impacted will be Bulgarians in those specific states. If Bulgaria is on DDay wall duty, that completely negates the planning impact of spies.
@@28lobster28 u dont have buffs for stats in defence like spf does, planning affects only attack is what i meant. GBP right is great for defending, but the video is about best doctrine for tanks lad.
It should 100% be based around what Doctrine provides you with the most benefits with just infantry but gives you buffs for armored and motorized for when you have the industry for it.
Yeeaah nah, this is the one video that I completely disagree with. I think I speak for majority of the players here that we do not wait for 100% planning in most situations so your calculations are completely biased. MW on top.
Yeah nice and than comes the player air+inf wrecking your tanks like shit and your spreadsheat is allgone because its lacking some details you can not see with a spreadsheat
This is not spreadsheeted he has not tested this. This is what the vanilla mp community has discovered to work the best after playing for thousands of hours of mp.
Literally air and inf spam is trully most spredsheet thing because if you in to math of IC effectivnes, planes has insane scalling basically infinite in numbers when tanks suffer from fact you rare have more than 3 divs in combat. What you described is even more math based tactic of min maxing. You just don't unterstand fact that's you could get this conclusion from math. I personally started to calculate many strats my self (releates to for example industry, like infra, civ, mil moment of building and similar) after making more and more complex calculations. I come to exactly same results with math as typically you play on MP games. The video present you conclusion support by MP community expirence and math backing it. You could get same conclusion with math earlier.
@@serek123-r4x It’s not Inf and air spam since Inf have a hard time pushing a good mass mob wall even with air. Inf also have a really hard time to push tanks while tanks can push inf under red air.
@@G61012 well in terms of IC scalling. And yeah finally best is tanks and air. I not saying tanks are usuless. Just they scalling is difrent. And me intention was to state that's this is both math and game prove.
The reason I use mobile over gbp is because it’s a one trick pony. If you don’t get your planning bonus your f*cked. In multiplayer tank combat especially when the front is mobile you don’t always get a chance to get max planning since you have to sit at the front and hope your enemy doesn’t just click you and since you don’t have any org to speak of and your denied your one advantage which is planning you just lose the battle. In tank warfare you won’t always be the one to click first. That’s why ML is better since it gives you org to defend with and attack with. Only loss is breakthrough tactic but in return you get backhand blow so it balances out
No offense, but i find it hard to believe you have actually played a proper MP game. In multiplayer, you always wait for planning to attack. You also have a giant org wall to defend, so its not "click or get clicked", its more fluid. You get planning no matter doctrine, its too much stats to miss out on.
nah i disagree more org means u can have less motorized and more tanks in a div increasing hard% tanks also have more atk and breakhtrough. u can still avarage at 30 org with half motorized. battleplan is just good for defense whole point is entrenching as poland or france or china. superior firepower is best for small minors as the integrated support org and atk bonus usa, germany should use mobile warfare as they have the industry to pump out tanks and motorized. russia and japan dont.
No. As shown in the video, a 7/11 division is worse than 8/10, both with MW R-R. Its also more losses. There is a reason why 8/10 is the preferred template, GBP is not the best defensive doctrine lol, mass assault is way better.
@@sumzer_0 In 2000 hours of multiplayer in mods with a vanilla combat system, I've never once seen tanks on 1 or 3 doctrine be able to do anything to tanks on 2. 2 doctrine is too strong. You literally get free 2 tank battalions out of thin air.
You cannot rely on planning bonus in MP at all. Very frequently you will be getting the -100% max planning from enemy spy networks if the enemy players are competent, making planning bonus actually rare to give its bonuses in MP. Same goes for entrenchment, if multiple enemy agencies have spy network the max entrenchment can reach 0 pretty fast. Mobile warfare left side is still the best for tank divisions, high org is critical, it must be remembered that a divisions speed scales with its org.
In MP the planning debuff from spies are removed, since they are too strong. Also i have no idea where you got «speed scales with org» from, because that is just not correct.
If the MP game allows spies, Axis can completely remove their impact on the Eastern front. Just give the spy states to different Axis minors and any spy network will only affect that nation's troops in that land (and the network won't spread). If you give Kiev, Sevastopol, and Rostov to Bulgaria but Germany holds the land in between, you've basically denied the ability to build a network in Ukraine and the only troops impacted will be Bulgarians in those specific states. If Bulgaria is on DDay wall duty, that completely negates the planning impact of spies. This applies to other fronts to some extent as well. Give Marsa Matruh to Bulgaria and the spy network in Libya can't spread to impact troops fighting at El Alamein.
@@magnus4945 Org does not affect speed. I believe you are talking about the "low organization" modifier on division speed, however that is a percentage of total org, and not a specific number. Basically, higher org in the template has no impact on its speed.
@@sumzer_0 "Org does not effect speed, but org does effect speed" real genius here. A division with higher org will have a higher org % after taking damage compared to a low org division. Surely you can comprehend this, and understand that org does have an impact on speed. Reply to this I guess if you still really need it spelled out to you, somehow.
Video sucks and is misinformation. Hinges on so many assumptions of which aren't included in the title nor would any sane person assume they would be. Such as "using a MP mod to remove spies". "Only hard attack matters for a tank division" "Infantry are not the units that will be doing the pushing". If you're going to use X Y Z as a basis for why your idea works, you need explain why you're ONLY looking at hard attack, why INFANTRY DON'T MATTER, and WHY YOUR HOI4 MP is NULL AND VOID IF YOU DONT USE A MOD TO REMOVE SPIES.
There are ways to avoid the spy thing without mods. Hard is the only important thing because tanks have enough soft attack to click anyway. And inf can’t push since it does not have enough breakthrough to not get crited.
@@G61012 Okay then list them. The thing about tanks having enough soft attack so more = no value is just wrong. I am well aware of how breakthrough works, and yes they still can if you know what you're doing.
@@drandren9093first. Here is considered typical MP game. In typical MP you see now things like 16 width infantry with no support comapnies. And that's meta division. It's cheap, at most they get AA. The reason why infantry don't push, is fact enemy use masive walls of cheap inf. You not gona breake it without reiforce "meme". In other video author precise. If there is no tanks, go for soft attack from howitzers and don't use TDs, but only if tanks are absolutny not a treat. GBP gets more soft with planning than SFP. And yes, removing stuff from this game is required. Balance of this game is awfoul, bad and design of it is flaweed at many stages (like evey PDX game). I saw recently game where you could use last stand and force attack and it was treat as literally must have unlike other games where always it's banned. Basically you have to prepare your build for game rull set. Like you play difrently USA when there is ban for US to remove isolation to 1 January 1939 than USA rush build for partial mob in moment of Marco Polo Bridge incident.
As several people have pointed out, GBP is more reliant on planning than the other doctrines. However, all doctrines should get max planning before attacking, whether they are GBP or not. This means that you have to wait for planning no matter which doctrine you are. Also, you will retain most of the planning during the battle, anc will only lose about 3% per day of combat. When you have 70%+ max planning, that is not an issue, and especially not exclusive to GBP.
And yes, defending is a problem. If you play meta, you will have a large org wall, that will block the majority of the incoming damage, while you recover your org and planning for the next battle.
If you are concerned about spies denying your planning, that would only be an issue in MP. But in competitive MP games, this is removed. This is because 0% planning means its impossible to push.
Yeah I just completely disagree, I literally never wait for planning bonus and waiting for planning bonus seems like a terribly inefficient use of time, hence MW being better than GBP.
@@johnteixeira1791 Just do staff office plan. I often can easily beat Expert AI on the highest difficulty by going GBP by simply doing SOP, and then battle planning for like 7 days, rinse and repeating. I often win my wars faster with like half equipped templates
@@truesurvivor585 This is the way. You only need like 10-12 tanks the entire game, and you'd only spend, what, 20 CP to max out planning bonus each time? It's peanuts.
thoughts on gbp right with the night attack modifier.
@@JohnSmith-bs9ym Yea. Going GBP as almost any nation is amazing. As Germany I do go with MW simply because of the buffs for it but most if not all other times I usually go GBP UNLESS I am playing smth like Hungary or Canada in MP and I am gonna exclusively be using tanks.
MP players in shambles rn, for they can no longer gate keep their secrets. Keep it up!!!
HOI4 just has a general lack of analytical content like this video, the only youtuber who really did before sumzero was 71cloak, but even he wasn't an "mp" player
read doctrines before using them, GBP gives the best defense and offence however you can ruin their planning (entire offence) with spy network stacking
You mean the MP players who have guides on their discord, public available for everyone to see ? The MP players who openly share their knowledge
Biggest problem is that people don’t want to listen or a entitled and ignorant and don’t want to learn
as a former mp player, this is just a straight lie, they keep guides public and state which stuff works the most better
But speed go *Brrrrr*
This guy is the sworn enemy of larpers
What's stopping you from larping in SP game?
Interesting analysis, but I think you missed a key factor and misrepresented the planning bonus.
It is not realistic that you have full planning bonus during all battles. You have either 100% before making a move or mixed during battle. Or even nothing when responding to naval invasions.
The second issue I found is that you never mentioned recovery rate. That does affect combat a lot, especially during multiple consecutive battles. Mobile warfare shines with its recovery rate buffs, which are completely lacking in GBP. Mobile warfare also reduces organisation loss and speed loss, which is somewhat important in making encirclements.
To test such things, spreadsheets are not enough. One would have to do actual "benchmarks" and try different things out on the field.
Still liked the video!
Honestly, imo, even in MP it is realistic as what alot of people is do these two things.
A. They set a field marshal order with an attack order but no units assigned. This passively builds up Planning at all times
B. Staff Office Plan, I cannot tell you how many times ive been in an Endsieg as the Axis in MP and the Allied tanks are wrecking me and then all I do is staff office plan and somehow I won the battle of the bulge and D-Day was pushed out
Absolutely need actual combat benchmark for this. I never get the spreadsheet thing with these games lol...I used to work in a physics experimental lab, and I yawned every time the theoretical physicists brought out their "theories" because every time after the experiment rounds they just got wrecked by actual experimental data lmao.
If you have giga planning you lose less org that needs regaining. Speed is heavily influenced by org, so while your tanks theoretically move slower, they keep more org from the battle, but lose more from moving. The entrenchment is super fun too. 90% entrenchment tanks go hard
@@JohnSmith-bs9ymThis is not spreadsheet by sumzero this is the result of gameplay experience and spreadsheeting of the vanilla mp community.
Two things first you will have 100% planning more then you think because in mp you can’t click without planning. Second thing is about max planning, think about it like this if you have a tank with 80 planning and 60 planning, then you attack and let’s say you lose 20 planning. Then you have 60 and 40 planning left that still means you have 20% more stats then on the 80 planning.
under-appreciated benefit of GBP is it's really awesome army spirits. Tip of the spear and logistics focus are really nice and theatre training can be straight up broken in the right hands
What's so good about them? I like logistics focus if you're low on oil/fuel only
@gabe75001 theatre training makes you grind terrain traits 20% faster (terrain traits and adaptable are OP).
Tip of the spear increases naval invasion capacity, supply grace for Marines, special forces cap and reduces marine template design cost.
Logistics focus gives a flat -5% supply consumption (who doesn't like less supply consumption?) and unless you're the US or Soviets, less fuel consumption is always good. That - 5% could mean the difference between running out of fuel for your tanks in Africa or losing a naval battle. - 5% is also an extra civ or two that isn't being traded away.
Eugh... tanks go brrrr yiur special forces cant be everywhere while my tanks pinning them down
@@ausar3852 Tell me you never played a versus game, without telling me you never played a versus game.
@@nuclearllama7239doesn't SF also give you Tip of the Spear? And the breakthrough Spirit is also useful
I would still say mass assault left is acceptable for historical soviets, the less supply consumption and combat width reduction buffs really helps you stack a lot of divisions and combined with supply company in ur tanks, you just get banned from having supply issues.
I will copy my reply from another comment, since it was the same topic:
"Supply consumption is nice yes, but you will fight 90% of your battles in perfect supply conditions. If you lose those battles (which you will with deep battle), then it doesnt matter that you MIGHT win the other 10%.
The other bonuses of deep battle are tactics as well as the spirit that gives 10% HP. However, these do not make up the lackluster stats compared to other doctrines, so its still worthless."
Combat width reductions are only on infantry as well.
@@sumzer_0 MA-L is bad in raw stats but that's because the point of MA-L/Deep Battle is force concentration and offensive tempo.
In this example, the supply condition on an ongoing offensive would likely NOT be perfect.
The width reduction for inf is also used for orgwalling with smaller width but still decent HP inf divisions, or you can also use that for building dedicated breakthrough divisions by adding tanks to an inf division. Higher HP = less equipment and manpower losses.
The extra org recovery and reinforce rate also helps with cycling divisions both in defensive and offensive battles.
Treat MA-L like how soviets did, focus on the operational level instead of tactical. Use its jack-of-all-trades bonuses by changing how you fight against which doctrines - against MW you counter-attack often to abuse MWs lack of defensive buffs and tanks lack of hp (meaning higher losses). against GBP, you keep the battle fluid and avoid letting them build up entrench and planning - do this by breaking the enemy lines and go for supply hubs and other strategic objectives like airfields instead of outright encirclements if you can't guarantee holding the pocket closed. or DO go for encirclements and abuse the reinforce rate bonus MA-L gets to keep the enemy from escaping.
On the defensive, you can also "drain" GBPs planning bonus by going for elastic defense - MA-L gets the best org recovery for infantry, 2nd best for mobile units (2nd only to MW).
In short, stop thinking of hoi4 wars like it's just 1v1 division but on a larger scale - it's not.
supply 90% perfect ^^? then u didnt produce enough :D
@@sumzer_0 deep battle is the best tank doctrine and you might as well use inf tanks
When I larp with tanks, I go mobile warfare. When I larp with elite infantry, I go Grand battle plan. When I flood the combat width with an invincible org wall, I go mass assault. When I try to do more I go Superior firepower.
There are other special larps like Mechanized Infantry with trickleback and entrenchment that need Grand Battle plan left or... whatever psychotic marine build I make as random allied minors that mostly built navy and have no mills or exp for marines, but these are rare cases.
Yes, max planning Grand battle plan is theoretically the strongest, but Intelligence can completely erase your planning, and also it takes time. There is always a tradeoff and in any case the game is more fun if you larp it.
Wtf does more mean?
@@12halo3 He means he doesn't decide on doctrine based on what would be the strongest according to the math, but likes to pick the doctrine that fits best in a roleplaying sense because it's more fun.
I like your analytical videos and explanation. But I still come to a different conclusion. It all comes down to the question of how often you fight as the attacker with max planning. And in my opinion even if you try to maximise it, its not that often. SF gives 20% attack, but always without planning and most importantly also while defending. When GBP is counter attacked and has to defend, the max planning is useless.
So if we simply say half of fights are attack and half of fights are with max planning then you have your 30% bonus only in one quarter of the fights which makes it an average of 7,5% bonus. While you get the 20% bonus of SF in every single situation.
But GBP has that beautiful +10 Entrenchment and +%25 Entrenchment speed
Doesn't planning bonus also work on the defence? I always got the impression it works no matter the situation as long as you have it built up
@ In that case you use Entrenchment. To be fair GBP also gives a Bonus to Entrenchment, but Entrenchment is entirely gone once you only attempt to move out of position.
@@jamskimornik7287it's attack planning. It's only boosts your attack and breaktrough.
This consider huge missconception. Tanks in good conditions (plains) should always push out other tank because of masive difrence in breaktrough and defense of tank division. You shouldn't try to def with tank, instead you should just click with your tank enemy pushing tank with division on other tile. It's nice buff to have, but tanks anyway push each other easily.
What do you think about a dozer blade soviet build? Stack as much entrenchment with:
Base Maximum 5.00
1. The Red Army +5.0
2. General w/Ambusher +5.0
3. FM w/Ambusher +5.0
4. Division Template +17.60 (8 mech, 1 Heavy SPAA Armour Meme, 9 Heavy TDs)
The Division's entrenchment comes from the Dozer Blades fitted in the TDs, Light Tank Recon, Flame Tank, and, the Armoured Engineer Support Company.
*The reason I use heavies is because of the additional breakthrough.
Multiplicative Modifiers:
1. Static Warfare: +10%
2. Defense Industry: +5%
3. FM Defensive Doctrine: +30%
This gives the division a +101% Entrenchment with the MW LR doctrine. I have tested this with GBP but the results on field were slightly worse (even though they shouldn't), but I am not 100% certain if I did it correctly. I think the org and recovery rate gained from MW is far superior than the additional +10 Entrenchment and 30% Planning, since this is more of a defensive build? Let me know what you think, I think this is quite an interesting build.
Also just to clarify, the Heavy vs Medium TD debate is still something I need to look into more. The additional breakthrough may not be worth the additional cost of the tank.
Bro who uses entrenchment in multiplayer unless you are fighting in African mountains or asian jungles entrenchment is not worth it on multiplayer combine it with forts it can only be used in single player 😅
@@heinrichkressenstein7356 I get what u mean, but this is really just a troll build for a static barb front lol
@@heinrichkressenstein7356 Everyone who plays a defensive game uses entrenchment in MP
You won't pump out enough of these divisions to hold effectively + you lose entrenchment throuought battles, this build "works" for a trade boosted giga france since the frontilne is much smaller.
On soviets, roach light td with dozer is probably a better option if you look for funny def builds. Combined with mass mob it's pretty hard to kill.
GBP is just this Jack of all trades Doctrine that is good for when you start with only infantry but in late game can start putting out armor and motorized.
Missing here: tank org bonuses reduce the necessary mot/mecanized infantry in tank divs, increasing damage, breakthrough and armor. Reducing the amount of time in battle.
Personally, because the military theoreist Heinz Guderian that provides a free +10% armor speed in the designer as well as -15% doctrine cost, I have a hard time using anything but MW L&R when playing as Germany.
If micro correctly, I can easily have maxed out doctrine by late 1939 while everyone in the Allies have a difficult time gaining army xp.
Isn't the whole point of MW that you can have a lower Mech/Tank ratio in your template? you should not compare for same template but different templates with same Org. e.g. your template with GBP has 36 org, then modify the template so it has 36 org with MW. and you will have not only significantly more attack, breakthrough and hardness, but also slightly better armor and piercing.
Yeah when you go MW you get more tank battalions, so that you hover around 30 org, maybe a bit less, and usually that gives you a lot stats, attack, breakthrough, hardness, armour...
You do get more stats by increasing the armour/inf ratio but after planning bonus the total stats for GBP are still, higher and the ic cost of divisions goes up for mw so gbp still better
Also realistically you're going to have mech/Amtrak with armour so you're not getting a massive buff to hardness and meta is TDs so armour means very little because you're being pierced regardless
@@LaroldLlamabut GBP tank divs won't penetrate MW tank divs so they'll always lose
The issue is that you’re going to have more tanks over less HP, which can be very expensive especially in multiplayer and/or when the enemy has lots of CAS (anti-air can only do so much)
Very important detail, mass assault gets guerilla tactics (-50%) combat width, so basicslly it doesnt matter how many tanks they have, most of them wont fight. That is huge
Guerrilla tactics is super cancer and op and is usually banned in mp, -70% stats and -50% width is like next level aids
Its amazing how a single strategy game can have videos made so specific as this
lets go my favourite goon4 content creator ❤
容許我說上一兩句：
我會選擇不同軍隊配上戰術學說，因為本來要發揮它們最大的功效就要相對應的配置
機動作戰左側，是以高機動為主的繞後政策，更高的速度與油料補給，不是突破對手的防線，而是找到突破點打亂防禦； 4T/6M 的部隊有著更持久的戰鬥力，可以強勢推進戰線
MW 右側，是坦克為主的超高突破性，突破，一個被人們完全無視的特效，重點在於即使部隊更小，也可以攻破敵人的前線，矛頭部隊的存在就是進攻敵人的補給線，突破低於敵人的防禦時，進攻就會變成很艱難(總突破VS總防禦)，在戰術上更需要優秀的指揮； 8T/7M 的部隊可以帶來優秀的突破能力與持續作戰，要注意的是每個部隊會需要步兵師填充戰線避免被包圍
決戰計畫，比較尷尬的，它沒有主要的部隊。我個人認為它是最強的，但也是最難用的，作戰計畫的消耗速度其實比我預想的還要快，往往成功前進一個格子，就會消化一半，再加上新的補給系統，前進太多就會開始補給不足，更需要詳盡地推進計畫；但加成是最高的，比起其他的作戰學說，計畫加成是無視差異，只要花點時間就可以做出最高的BUFF(這點還可以繼續用指揮官加強)，要是在進攻突破一格後，還可以利用強攻繼續破壞性突進；大量的小作戰師(W20) 更多的火力支援(火力支援營) 會是更好的配置；尋求特種部隊作為矛頭部隊也是個方式、大規模師強調突破屬性的裝甲支援
A very important (though less important now with rigid cohesion) trick for grand battle plan is to make a frontline and then unassign your tanks so you can micro them and still get planning
Something people especially SP players have understand is that the defense is wat stronger in MP aswell
You need to reach a certain amount of stats to compete against it
e.g in Africa ( egypt ) there wait 40 ( 20 inf infront and 20 on el alamein)mass mobilization divs (16 witdh pure inf with at least support aa , support at and sometimes there is MP and/ or signal
Rarely u even see field hospitals )
U will have red or if lucky yellow air
This is even with fully optimized MP divs hard to break as you have meme the divisions of the tiles ( meming means winning combat before reinforcing)
Even harder gets if you come to dday as allies 35 witdh mec units (17 mec + 1 mot at ) fully entrenched , GDP right , all of them last standing (2-3k soft and hard attack and 4-5 k defense ) on every tile with mass mob waiting on the tiles behind
I bet most people haven’t really seen a real MP dday yet , than they would understand why GDP is so important and better than SF and MW
Any thoughts on combat tactics? It's another advantage for GBP and SFP because they both get it, but MW L-R is the only tank doctrine which doesn't get the Breakthrough tactic (+25% damage that is only countered by backhand blow). In MP I can see how the extra org wall matters a lot more, but in SP with normal tanks going right side might lead to doing higher damage on average with Breakthrough as a preferred tactic.
In single player I tend to go MW-RR with my tanks mainly because my tanks have plenty of attack no matter which doctrine I pick, so I pick it for the speed and org to get better/faster encirclements. If I don't do that, I go SFP-RL because I don't like waiting for planning. I guess the moral of the story is that in single player you don't need the absolute best attack possible so you can min-max for other things. SFP does have the most attack without planning and still has good infantry, which is nice for mixed tanks and special forces builds. That's where Mobile Warfare is weakest. You have org wall infantry but nothing else. GBP and SFP both have way better special forces compared to MW. At the same time, in multiplayer everyone specializes and does one thing only, so it doesn't matter there.
I used to play in big MP games, but my last game was probably around when LaR came out, so my meta is outdated. What do people in MP think about Germany's focus tree splitting the tank bonuses from the GBP bonuses so you can't get both?
Left side is more better than breakthough is good. MW R-R is definitely worse than GBP, and both of them have breakthrough tactic.
You should get planning no matter doctrine, even 30-40% bonus is massive.
Germany players have been doing the «wrong» doctrine according to their focus tree for years, this will likely continue. The bonuses dont change their meta that much.
@@sumzer_0 A few months back EaW mod reworked mass assault left. They left balance back at home, as one of the things they added was giving tanks -0.4 width consumed (copying MA right's lead with infantry width).
I don't think they really considered stat density of tanks vs infantry when simply copying that modifier, lol. But hey, at least there's a legitimate reason to go MA-L, even if it's over the top.
I definitely agree with you. In single player, who the hell is waitings to gain max planning while you need to rush to ports, supply hubs, victory points and closing pockets? With breakthrough you can reduce org losses and can continue your operation.
@@TheMelnTeam-.4 width sounds fucking insane, you can have 2 more tanks lol for a 35.2 width, which would be a lot of extra ic but is also +20% stats plus planning plus supply consumption plus inf cw too
@@doodooman4545 It IS insane. The only thing holding it back is that after a few runs with the big nations, that mod has more nations with weak industry and low manpower, making it hard to fully enjoy the benefit before it stops mattering a lot in SP.
I don't think EaW has a big competitive MP scene, but if such existed they'd be complaining like crazy or running a submod I suspect.
Nice video, you pointed out important things.
My bit is about higher org of MW. I think comparison on same template is little unfair. With MW you could go higher tanks/mot ratio which has its own benefits and negatives. But I would expect that on same org (about 35) MW template with higher tanks than GBP would have better stats and therefore deal more dmg and take less dmg.
I think the MW templates you compared have just way too much org.
Less HP -> higher equipment losses. More tanks as a proportion of total equipment means those losses are disproportionately expensive compared to divs with more mech. If you have IC to burn, sure, stack lots of tanks (or better yet, TDs). But if you're building with multiple small cannons and max armor for stats, those tank losses are difficult to replace. Usually better to have more divs even if each is slightly less powerful.
@28lobster28 but like it was said in the video, longer you stay in fight because of high org, higher your losses will be in time you deal your max dmg.
With more tanks (and other variants) you also go higher on breakthrough armor and hardness, which can lead to reduced losses. So it reduced hp could be balanced by shorter winning combat and higher defensive stats.
As you pointed out there is whole other dimension with tank models design. And that is whole separate debate, but is definitely important part of overall strategy
@@martinbusina6 If you take a given number of hits, you'll take fewer losses with higher HP. If a greater proportion of equipment is cheap mech, those losses will be cheaper to replace on average. Should you choose to keep high org tanks in battle longer, yes, they will take more hits. If you took a low org tank into combat for the same amount of time (i.e. allow it to reorg and go again), it would take more total losses and the average equipment is more expensive to replace.
Breakthrough is useless in excess and it's very easy to get a lot of breakthrough. Just stack armor clicks. People build only TDs because they have useful stats (hard/soft attack). People don't build tanks because TDs give enough breakthrough despite the 40% penalty.
@@28lobster28 i understand the bit about hp And about cheaper losses.
But I dont need to reorg thats the point. With more tanks and VARIANTS proportional to inf I will have higher Attack, therefore kill enemies faster So I will need to spend less time in battle= less hits.
With higher Armor it is more likely enemy will not pierce you = less dmg taken And more dmg dealt= less dmg taken and less time spent in combat= less hits taken.
Also higher hardness will help you fare better against soft attack which is more Common. It reduces soft dmg taken =less hits taken.
Breakthrough is easy to get I agree. But with these 3 effects above it could balance out with the higher cost per HP.
@@martinbusina6 Killing faster is great, but you're still going to spend lots of time in combat taking losses. One battle (or even one campaign) won't decide the game. If you fight 7-11 vs 8-10 repeatedly, the winner will almost always be the attacker regardless of template. If you alternate attacking and defending, the 7-11 takes more IC losses and battles come out basically 50/50 (because attacker wins in tank on tank battle).
Higher hardness is a penalty in MP tank v tank fighting. It's easier to stack hard attack than soft because TDs are better than tanks (and HV gun is better/less expensive than heavy cannon). People still use mech because it gives more HP and defense than cav/camels/moto but you don't actually want the hardness from the mech. Since enemy tank damage is likely to be more than 50% hard, you want to be as soft as possible. The way to do this is to license mech 1 but not research it yourself. People already want to do this (save research time, save 100 XP) but not having mech tech makes the licensed mech you produce 10% softer than if you had the tech.
If people valued hardness, they would use mech 2/3. Instead, mech 2/3 are almost never used. The increased stats are penalized by higher hardness and increased cost (and having to spend another 100 XP on production cost upgrades and having to spend research time).
Soft attack in quantities that matter (i.e. not from shitty inf) is less common than hard attack. Soft attack almost never exceeds tank breakthrough because no one builds for it and it's harder to stack. Hardness will be over 50% because tanks are hard and even 8-10 is 55% tanks (and even with the mech license trick, mech still has hardness). Designing a tank to beat soft attack is very silly, soft attack is already mitigated by hardness and you're very unlikely to face SPGs or regular tanks.
The main advantage of MA is its reduction of supply use. That is the reason why it suits the Soviet and China, because they infersuctere are poor from the start and they won't have the luxury of building railway and supply center with their civil factory.
I removed line artillery from my infantry because of this guy. Got rolled by the AI. There are times when I think he's doing some high-level trolling.
Did you have green air and cas?
Removing line artillery from your infantry isn't gonna work if you don't properly leverage the IC savings. You should either have more tanks or more air as a result. If you're a beginner, I'd focus on air first. Even pure infantry should be able to push against the AI if your air game is good.
They really need to buff Superior Firepower
SF is the best doctrine especially in multiplayer bc GBP relies on planning bonus witch is reduced by intel network
Nah, Superior Firepower is the best, they should buff Mobile Warfare. For Example by making the Org Loss when moving modifier actually work
what are you on about
SF is literally better than every other doctrine no matter the nation. Using line arty? Dispersed. Using support arty? Integrated. Too small to field tanks and planes? Shock & Awe. Big enough to have mass tank and plane production? Airland Battle.
@@Hoi4withRobin mobile warfare in general needs more speed and breakthrough bonuses for the rest of the army outside of tanks.
I remain fully convinced that Superior Firepower is just the best to pick straight up if you don't know what else you want to do.
As GBP-R enjoyer, I recently played Germany with MW-R-R and tanks had so much organization that I did 5-12-1 (mech-tank-AA, 35 width). I am not really meta player but I would think that MW biggest strength is that you can have substantially less mechenatized or motorized in your divisions
The issue in mp with having less mech, is having less than 7 does two things, first, tanks are way more expensive than mech so it’s pricy, second, hp, you will get strength deleted if you have less than 200 hp, and I see some tanks with something bad like 150, which compared to the 250 or so you normally have is huge, at that point sfp left is better since its probably equal stats for lower ic and more hp
I’d love a video on what the game changes are for competitive MP and why they’re used. I don’t care about MP but that shit is interesting and could probably teach me a lot about the game still.
I’d click that shit on my recommended instantly and I can’t be the only one.
I really enjoy watching your videos I have several thousand hours in the game and I still learn new stuff
4:11 Ok, call me insane for defending left path superior firepower, but isn't that insanely op with mountaineers? Like, the ranger bonus to line artillery + the bonus you get from the left path make for an extremely strong mountaineer in the early game, like, 40 width and 1700 soft attack (after bonuses).
It is less bad compared to integrated support than it used to be. You break even at 5ish arty in a division instead of 6 like it was previously.
Line arty is lackluster generally. If you insist on using it, whatever you made for SF-left will be worse than making the same thing using GB left.
Mountaineers are best with 0 line arty. You can perhaps justify a single arty to get 25W before doctrines, but the -.2 combat width doctrine lets you make 14-0 mountaineers @ 25.2 width. Pure MTN gives better terrain boni and better stats in general. Line arty soft attack looks decent but it's worse per combat width, per cost, and gives terrain penalties. Support arty is fine, line arty is basically never useful.
But GBP has an issue that planning bonus can be reduced by intel and that you probably won't have full planing bonus all the time, isn't that game changer?
Also discord link in discription doesn't work, don't know if it's me, or cause of the link.
Its a game changer yes, but AI wont do it, and its removed in MP mods.
Link should work, many have already joined.
Removing planning doesn't do anything since you just give away states in MP and you have full planning again. The only nation it hurts is Soviets which don't do GBP anyways.
If the MP game allows spies, Axis can completely remove their impact on the Eastern front. Just give the spy states to different Axis minors and any spy network will only affect that nation's troops in that land (and the network won't spread). If you give Kiev, Sevastopol, and Rostov to Bulgaria but Germany holds the land in between, you've basically denied the ability to build a network in Ukraine and the only troops impacted will be Bulgarians in those specific states. If Bulgaria is on DDay wall duty, that completely negates the planning impact of spies. This applies to other fronts to some extent as well. Give Marsa Matruh to Bulgaria and the spy network in Libya can't spread to impact troops fighting at El Alamein.
@sumzer_0with counter intel and interrogation ai literally can never concentrate spies to kill planning
I mean, it is the best option for a WERY specific scenario of a close MP game with max planning, but what percentage of games are that way? Especially sp?
Waaay more used strategy (outside of the sweaty part of mp servers) is to constantly micro your deep mechanized pincer maneuvers, and for that after the initial breakthrough you need speed, speed, org, and speed. And supplies, of course...
And mobile warfare is what gives you unique bonuses for both (but most valuably speed for mechanized and support companies) that you just can't get in any other way (apart from deviations like pure light tank divisions).
Template from a video just doesn't go 14.5km/h (+adviser bonuses +5% from maneuver warfare idea) in grand battleplan...
Its not very specific, its the most common. 90%+ of important combat will be with a large amount of planning, if not, you are doing something wrong.
All doctrines should get planning before combat. Speed is nice yes, but for example, GBP also gets -10% supply consumption on a spirit, which is really good.
@@sumzer_0 GBP also gets bonus to grinding terrain traits (which makes you more likely to roll Brilliant/Inflexible generals too) and Well Planned Attack has no counter if you pick it as favorite tactic (as opposed to Breakthrough/Backhand Blow). WPA also 100% more likely to trigger when you take Logistical Focus so you can really double down on that tactic. MA's 10% HP spirit is also really good. Shoutout to Tactical Withdrawal, only tactic to reduce combat width if Guerilla is banned and good for org wall SF (small divs, full supports).
@@28lobster28left side sfp is underrated since tactical withdrawal is the second best defense tactic, and the tank buffs are still okay, plus the support company buffs do help out infantry a lot in sp since support arty is very useful, and in mp if spies do kill planning, it is sometimes used over left gbp though people are usually still stubborn
as a superior firepower and grand battle plan enjoyer i see this as a win
Mobile warfare lets you get way more tanks in your tank div with the same org, which gets you significantly more armor and not get pierced
Maybe, unfortunely-
*counter your planning bonus with spies*
There are ways around that in vanilla.
Counter intel and interrogation techniques, in mp you would give control of states to counter that first of all, and in sp the ai will never have enough spies concentrated to kill your planning, you might lose 20% at the worst, but gbp is still literally 30% more stats unless you have absolutely no planning
I find this to be the funniest thing sense I always use grand battle plan over mobile warfare knowing this just gives me a "I told you so midmaxers"
I mean this video is just wrong, he's half right and only because he's talking about a scenario where you use MP mods to "balance" the game.
In vanilla it's still mobile warfare against people and AI.
@@drandren9093No this is about vanilla and in their it’s still gbp left tank meta.
@@G61012 He makes points in the video about using a mod and even in his pinned comment he speaks about it, so you're wrong again.
@@drandren9093 It’s a mod that only removes non ww2 nations does not change combat.
Supply consumption reduction is where it's at.
Most people don't know how to make the right templates and distribute their armor effectively; moreover, they really underscore the role of the infantry.
Take the result of (ic/hp)org to figure what you might lose on the wall, but maybe consider what you would keep and force them to lose if you just supported the infantry in the first place and then you can start trading positively.
Grat video BUT the whole point of mw is moving far after initial engagement and high org for long runs to encircle or at least get better position, while GBP is heavily depends on its planning bonus thus if u get first breakthrough u cant expand it quick enough to gain some tactical advantage. F.e. when u micro barbarossa extra org that u get in mw let u puch further after breaking stalin line and crossing dnipro so as result u gain more space for ur divs after this and now u can puch plain tiles without being heavily debuffed.
This would be me if I knew how to make videos. Thank you so much for this
Nice video, I'd like to see an overall review of every doctrine tho, especially mass mob since it gets far more hate than it deserves
I'm not disagreeing, but what i always did, was using the bonus in org to have more tanks and less motorised/mechanized. So you could have only 5 or even 4 mechs and have the same org, but more dmg. But i don't play this game as much anymore, and don't know the meta. But back in the day i would never pick to get 45 org in tanks. 30 was enough.
The planning bonus could be broken because of enemy spies on your country. It is a huge problem.
Not really there are ways around that in vanilla.
Do my eyes deceive me? Field hospitals? Has the meta really changed so much?
in MP meta people use very cheap infanry with just support aas and maybe engineers. Would you still use TDs only if your enemy went off meta and used better infantry with support ats, line aa or something like that? would you use more more medium cannons?
If you fight an enemy that is doing infantry only, then you should switch to howitzers, so yes dont do TDs then.
However if its just «more» inf and «less» tanks, then TDs will still do fine. They still have ~500 soft attack base, so they will push pretty easily. The most important thing is just to be able to push their tanks.
@sumzer_0 thanks
Tanks will still tend to beat infantry divisions, there's just such a huge damage disparity between the sides due to the hardness. Line AT doesn't have breakthrough, so simply force them to attack you rather than the reverse by going around it.
The one possible exception is roach builds where they're going mass assault and rotating org, while they also proc guerilla tactics pretty often (makes damage from both sides horrible and halves width). If someone is doing that, you really do want a lot of soft damage. Maybe medium cannons can still beat that, high vel would struggle a great deal to reinforce meme them.
@@TheMelnTeam thanks
but hey dont you think org in tanks is basically useless? I think that when you can fill the width of the battle by a large margin org becomes just useless cause you can cycle your units letting the units that lost org recover faster than the enemy can take your organization down, but all in all in multiplayer constantly cycle your infantry divisions in and out of combat is very micro intensive so i understand why org for infantry is very important, but i dont think the same applies for tanks, when you are using tanks you are always micromanaging them and i think you should just focus on as much soft attack as possible for them and greatly neglect org cause if you have enough tanks you can cycle them in and out of the combat while more soft attack is always extremly worth it, also having more soft attack and less org as you already said will increase enemy's casualties while decreasing ur own's and greatly increase your chance to reinforce meme ur enemy, what do you think? ty anyways and keep up the good content!
Firsty, please add some punctuation.
Org still matters, if you are fighting enemy tanks, its who loses first that matters. Yes it matters more for infantry, but its not insignificant on tanks.
I think your take on MW is a bit not correct. Because it gives so much more org from doctrines you can slot in more TDs in expense of Motorized/Mech. For example in Vanilla it is optimal to have around 30-35 org so to do it other doctrines will have to have 6 Mechs while MW might require only 5, or even 4 ( it is for 30W tank division). So using the same template for all doctrines is not an optimal comparison imo because it negate each doctrine's strong side and weak side
No, this doesnt work. There isnt a specific amount of org that works especially good. You can also see this when i try with 7/11 MW R-R on the video.
8/10 is the most common template, no matter doctrine, for a good reason.
@@sumzer_0 you missed his point unfortunatley
@@sykes5000it’s not about org hp id much more important
@@sumzer_0You missed the point of tank divisions. If your tank division can't be penned it always wins. MW gives you significantly more armor because of lower inf count with the same org
Literally me: already GBP for my divisions for the org and defense
If you could, I think it adding some music in the backgorund of the vids could help a little. (Thats just me tho so dont take it to seriously)
If there is something HOI4 needs in the next DLC then it is a complete overhaul of the doctrine system. I mean the state of air and naval doctrines are okay-ish but land doctrine is just such a damn messy thing at the moment, both from a gameplay standpoint as well as the litte immersion it provides.
TL:DW; use Mobile Warfare Left-Right for single player and Grand Battleplan Left for Multiplayer.
Agency is destroy planning,you must go to right side of 3 doctrine to take 25% for night attack,in this game night can be longer than day,this is a really god,i have tested infantry on 2 and 3 doctrine,so 3 doctrine had a more damage (80 tanks destroyed,when on 2 doctrine just 42)
Just attack in winter for longer nights
If the MP game allows spies, Axis can completely remove their impact on the Eastern front. Just give the spy states to different Axis minors and any spy network will only affect that nation's troops in that land (and the network won't spread). If you give Kiev, Sevastopol, and Rostov to Bulgaria but Germany holds the land in between, you've basically denied the ability to build a network in Ukraine and the only troops impacted will be Bulgarians in those specific states. If Bulgaria is on DDay wall duty, that completely negates the planning impact of spies. This applies to other fronts to some extent as well. Give Marsa Matruh to Bulgaria and the spy network in Libya can't spread to impact troops fighting at El Alamein.
heres a question ORG on it's own is not great but if used to get more in a dev and better support hows that impact the overall battle?
why not SFP R-R?
We are just comparing tank stats. R-L gives more tank stats.
Tank Japan underrated
Is it worth it to use mech in your tank divisions (as a major? I would always just use trucks to simply production lines and to use the research elsewhere (I pretty much exclusively play single player or multiplayer against the AI).
Yes, mech is very much worth it. You can (should) also spend XP to make it cheaper if its too expensive.
I have a Question. Sometimes I do 3 to 4 General lead 24 Infantry division and 1 General lead a combination of Tanks and Motorized Infantry, and I did that with 2 Field Marshal so around 8x 24 standard Infantry (sometimes I add mountaineer in them) and 2 quick division and using GBP L. Is that good? Or there is actually a better option?
What is the INF Brick template in the video?
Okay but for SP, with small countries if I even do tanks I like to do my poverty tanks with cavalry, would that redeem MW R-R? 😂 (small countries like Estonia)
Still waiting for someone to present some numbers to reinforce my Mass Assault bias......
Mass assault is still best infantry doctrine in vanilla. Its just boring to play in SP, and not very good with tanks.
If you have more org you can put more tank batalions in the divison.
But you don’t want that much tanks as it lowers your HP which is a overlooked stat by SP players
As i showed in the video, replacing a mech battalion with a tank doesnt really improve the stats, and its even with MW R-R, which should be the best for this strategy. 8/10 is default for a reason.
What about relatively cheap space marine mot/mech infantry? Extra breakthrough is useful because you are just adding one singe tank to a division.
MW R-R is just worse than L-R, and the potential breakthough does not make up for that. I would still pick the best infantry doctrine if i was doing space marines over a tank doctrine.
@@sumzer_0 I agree that L-R would be better for space marines, I just don't agree that breakthrough is irrelevant in general. Breakthrough is how you can save on tanks and use cheaper mobile infantry instead.
@@mik1984 Excess attack gives you crits, excess breakthrough is wasted. It's really easy to get excess breakthrough just with armor clicks (though still expensive). MW mostly gives breakthrough to tanks - it would be much better if it also gave breakthrough to TDs.
So why not SF if it get out permanent bonuses and not depends on planning? Spy agents, dynamic frontline - those things makes planning useless. Also they usless in defense, trenches take too much time and disappears when you moving. Tanks always moving. SF is just better
You forget something. Every doctrine needs planning to consistently win battles, not just GBP. For example with SF you can still get 40-45% planning, which is ALOT.
GBP is actually better if you just lose "some" planning. Say you lose 20% planning from attacking for a week. That means the bonus without GBP goes from lets say 1.4 to 1.2. Thats 14.3% (relatively) less stats. With GBP its 1.7 to 1.5. Thats 11.8% (relatively) less stats. Of course without any planning, SF will win over GBP, but played correctly that should never happen.
GBP is worse on defense yes. Probably its biggest downside. Luckily, you have a massive org wall for exactly that reason.
@sumzer_0 Thanks for the detailed answer. In my battles and those I've watched, they were usually very dynamic and often there was no battleplan at all. As always, the choice depends on the situation
you should make a vid on naval doctrines.
What is your opinion of GBP-R with its +25% land night attack?
Better for defense. You trade 20% max planning for the land night attack, so the total stats on offense is lower, but you do deal more damage on the defensive. Usually what you pick with UK.
Imho, GBP R is the best doctrine. -10% supply reduction (-20% with army spirit) and night atack bonus is VERY good. Additional planning bonus is not worth it overall because for 12 hours you will get only base damage if not less. And if you have no planning bonus you still can push, especially if you have cas (even afghanistan can spam cas)
And 7 out of 10 times you will not use all of that planning bonuses you get from GBP L
Ur the best hoi4 ytb ive seen
Why do you do tank destroyers not tanks in MP?
And why there’s one battalion of heavy tank?
@@Allen-fe1nq lucky for you i have (almost) an entire video on this. Its the one on tank designs
I always use tank destroyers in mp and I have trouble sometimes pushing super entrenched enemy inf even with air support. Should I also be using regular medium tanks to boost soft attack?
? ofc.
SA+BT lets u win vs inf.
@@arankokabut it feels like a waste of IC if I create a whole new tank and production line which i could be using on other things. And tank destroyers don’t have amazing soft attack.
What about GBP-R?
Better doctrine for defensive (due to land night attack), but has worse attacking potential.
Two things: 1. what is the best doctrin in early game when you start the war with no comletet doctin full doctrin?
second: would you agree that superior firepower in mp is still the best when you're going for antiinf tanks, sice you don't relly have time for planing because the other players will bring their actuall tanks to fight you when you give him time and the orgwallinf will have no decend staats anyways.
Some nations due to an early war or a need to spend army xp on other things may result in players needing to pick a doctrine based on its early bonuses and not all of them total.
Grand battleplan has the best 1st pick giving +10 entrenchment. Followed by +10% planning and then the third one is +10 org and +10% defense for infantry.
Superior Firepower is good but the first pick of +10% soft attack is only for "frontline units" which ignores support arty. If you think you can get 5 into your doctrine then superior firepower gives that +10% softattack, +10 org and +10% defense, and then +50% soft attack on support companies like arty and recon light tanks with close support cannon. Allows you to make the most of a very small industry.
Why would you build anti-infantry tanks against an opponent with tanks? Tanks are always the bigger threat, focus on them first or your own tanks get clicked. If you're against roach Soviets then sure, build anti-infantry tanks. But then the Soviets have no offensive capacity so you're free to sit there and plan to your heart's content. GBP is best starting doctrine since you can get Theater Training and roll for Brilliant/Inflexible generals and grind terrain traits easier. Even if you're planning to swap out later, you want to take advantage of Theater Training when starting with GBP (though I wouldn't spend 100 XP to take it just for that if I'm planning to go another doctrine).
Sfp is the worst doctrine in mp
What is the best doctrine for infantry, GBP R?
Depends on use case. SF R/R, GB L (offensively), GB R (defensively), and MA R all make a case.
MA R might not be obvious why. Unlike other doctrines, you can attack from one direction, then add directions. It has such a massive reinforce rate that you will (almost) always reinforce first, allowing your divisions to use more combat width than the enemy. If the enemy reinforces, cancel the extra attacks (which kicks their reinforcements out) and repeat.
It's difficult to quantify the advantage from doing this compared to other doctrines. It's probably less pure damage than GB L, but the divisions that get kicked out are the ones that joined more recently, so there's reinforce meme chances regardless. Infantry is slow and further relies on sustained pins to make pockets if you breach the line with it, and this also favors MA R greatly due to the org recovery (fewer divisions required to keep attacks going permanently).
If you want to battleplan with infantry, MA R is far and away the best doctrine for doing so. Battleplans are so bad that the reinforce rate overpowers everything else + makes that trash spend less time attacking while under width.
Multiplayer is such a shithole and its mods vanilla is another dimension wjen you compare it to multplayer mods.Tanks in multiplayer need to be more than 40 organization at least 500 soft attack and 400 hard attack with 1k breakthrough you can only active these stats with mobile warfare also doctrines depend on the tactics which they give espacially backhand blow on mass assault and mobile warfare.As a sum up mass assault is king for multiplayer games on eastern front for soviets which counter every single tactics for mobile warfare.keep that in mind organization is key for red air in multiplayer because you can stay in battle for longer periods
Any doctrine can make tanks with 40 org and 500/500 soft/hard. You just have to make good TDs and good guns (at high IC cost). MW gives no stats besides org and breakthrough and the breakthrough is mostly on tanks (when you'd rather have it on all armor types so TDs benefit). Org is great, but it doesn't help with attack stats unless you're reducing the mech battalions to add more tanks (which reduces HP and increases losses of more expensive equipment).
did he just compered mikro doctrine and green arow doctrine interms of tanks?
The Micro doctrine is Grand battel plan. Auto push is blitzkrieg. Why? Because blitzkrieg has high org and breaktrough base (so spamming cheaper tanks on entire frontline is easier) but blitzkrieg can't concetreate stats in short time because of low max planning...
Actually funny. Blitzkrieg is trully autopush doctrine because of: org, planning speed (fast regaining planning after burning it), huge recovery rate. When actually Grand battel plan requires hirurgic strikes because you must first get planning and you want to end combat fast to gain most value from plan.
So yeah, he compare Micro doctrine with autopush doctrine, and sadly blitzkrieg auto push is loosing most of the time.
@@serek123-r4x grand battle plan have plan bonuses thast why its green arow doctrine
If you're using 15 tanks - 5 mech division (singleplayer), isn't MW-RR definitely better? I understand 15 tanks is pretty low org but MW helps with that.
It actually isnt. I compared in the video 8/10 and 7/11 with MW R-R. You lose max damage, for a pretty small amount of attack. The more mech you replace with tanks, the more IC losses you face as well, since tanks are significantly more expensive than mech. You will also have issues with defense, since mech gievs a lot more defense than tanks do.
B-But my larp.
Er du norsk? østlandet tror jeg?
ja oslo ja
Appreciate the attempt at analysis, but this is an extreme oversimplification and as pointed out, ignores a number of benefits from MW.
Of course its an oversimplification, but i dont think ive ignored benIfits from MW. Ill make a list over pros on each doctrine:
MW:
- 0.4 + 0.2 (equals to about 0.3) Recovery Rate
- 70% Planning Speed
- 20% Speed
GBP:
- 10+5% Defense
- -10% Supply Consumption on spirit of division command (much better than MW spirit)
- Better Tactics? (Breakthrough vs Backhand Blow)
- 10% Coordination (small difference, but still)
Id say these are pretty equal, and it comes down to difference in attack vs organization.
Look i dont know much about the stats in hoi4 but when i pick MW_R-R usually i end up with somerthing like 1700 breakthrough on my 30W tanks during barbarossa. Yes i only play SP because who tf wants to play a 6h match with the most sweaty community?
Tbh MP games have gotten better time-wise. They improved optimization a lot in AAT. Its definitely worth a try.
@sumzer_0 okay sounds good, might give MP a try though i still dont have that much time at hand. Sorry whats AAT again?
Breakthrough is not as useful as you think especially not in sp
@@Anonymous-bc4dlArms Against Tyranny. DLC where they change Nordic countries and add market and similar.
Tbh... I would also suggest giving try on MP games with optimasation mods. They are some times really fast.
Extraordinarily true. Finally someone who revealed the MP secrets to the SP peasants
Join a MP server and look at the guides section. Most will have div/air/tank templates and country guides. MP players don't want to gatekeep, more people playing makes it easier to find games! But they also don't want incompetent allies, that's a good way to die quickly. Having guides is a great answer. A lot of people don't like to be told "hey, follow this Bulgaria guide to the letter". I get it, experimenting is fun. But if you're not getting 1937 total mob and building good inf/mech for DDay/Barb wall, you're not going to be effective as Bulgaria. 1937 total mob requires a specific focus order and politics clicks and it gets more factories than other builds. Meta slave? Sure, but PDX designed the focus tree to have an objectively correct way to play (assuming you like factories). For the div templates, there's more variety but other players aren't going to trust your build in the first game until you've built some credibility.
Seriously though, highly encourage checking out MP discord guide sections. Even if you don't want to play MP, most of it is applicable to SP historical (except for the ability to trust your allies to do something useful and communicate)
@28lobster28 Wow, that is a really good way to put it. I am a part of MP servers, but are there guides better than on Red Baron? I've heard of something like Unnamed but I can't remember
@@bonciutalentadv7599Red baron is the best vanilla server in terms of player skill and minmax
Discord invite expired
SPEAK KING..
Or, better yet, deep battle doctrine
Do you actually think PDX understands their own doctrine trees? Mass Assault is a sad state of affairs RIP..
superior firepower is better , gbp is countered by agents, if ur opponents are brain dead and dont do agency , then sure, gbp is better, but it also gives buffs only in attack, not in defence, so you can be clicked back after you break a tile
If the MP game allows spies, Axis can completely remove their impact on the Eastern front. Just give the spy states to different Axis minors and any spy network will only affect that nation's troops in that land (and the network won't spread). If you give Kiev, Sevastopol, and Rostov to Bulgaria but Germany holds the land in between, you've basically denied the ability to build a network in Ukraine and the only troops impacted will be Bulgarians in those specific states. If Bulgaria is on DDay wall duty, that completely negates the planning impact of spies. This applies to other fronts to some extent as well. Give Marsa Matruh to Bulgaria and the spy network in Libya can't spread to impact troops fighting at El Alamein.
You have a mass mob wall behind you and there is ways to make agents not do anything.
If the MP game allows spies, Axis can completely remove their impact on the Eastern front. Just give the spy states to different Axis minors and any spy network will only affect that nation's troops in that land (and the network won't spread). If you give Kiev, Sevastopol, and Rostov to Bulgaria but Germany holds the land in between, you've basically denied the ability to build a network in Ukraine and the only troops impacted will be Bulgarians in those specific states. If Bulgaria is on DDay wall duty, that completely negates the planning impact of spies.
Also GBP gives max entrenchment and entrenchment speed. Idk why you classify as a "defensive buff" but it sure seems like entrenchment counts.
@@28lobster28 u dont have buffs for stats in defence like spf does, planning affects only attack is what i meant. GBP right is great for defending, but the video is about best doctrine for tanks lad.
GP enjoyers win again.
But i do mobile warfare to make 45km/h tanks
if u need battle plannig bonus on sp dont do tanks bruh
GBP? No thanks
If I want to die from old age I'd play Minecraft
It should 100% be based around what Doctrine provides you with the most benefits with just infantry but gives you buffs for armored and motorized for when you have the industry for it.
lol deep battle is the best tank doctrine, you simply don't understand the game and blinded by your mp "meta"
Yeeaah nah, this is the one video that I completely disagree with. I think I speak for majority of the players here that we do not wait for 100% planning in most situations so your calculations are completely biased. MW on top.
Yeah nice and than comes the player air+inf wrecking your tanks like shit and your spreadsheat is allgone because its lacking some details you can not see with a spreadsheat
This is not spreadsheeted he has not tested this. This is what the vanilla mp community has discovered to work the best after playing for thousands of hours of mp.
Literally air and inf spam is trully most spredsheet thing because if you in to math of IC effectivnes, planes has insane scalling basically infinite in numbers when tanks suffer from fact you rare have more than 3 divs in combat. What you described is even more math based tactic of min maxing. You just don't unterstand fact that's you could get this conclusion from math. I personally started to calculate many strats my self (releates to for example industry, like infra, civ, mil moment of building and similar) after making more and more complex calculations. I come to exactly same results with math as typically you play on MP games. The video present you conclusion support by MP community expirence and math backing it. You could get same conclusion with math earlier.
@@serek123-r4x It’s also spreadsheeted the point is that is that it’s not only spreadsheeted it has been tested in hours of games.
@@serek123-r4x It’s not Inf and air spam since Inf have a hard time pushing a good mass mob wall even with air. Inf also have a really hard time to push tanks while tanks can push inf under red air.
@@G61012 well in terms of IC scalling. And yeah finally best is tanks and air. I not saying tanks are usuless. Just they scalling is difrent. And me intention was to state that's this is both math and game prove.
The reason I use mobile over gbp is because it’s a one trick pony. If you don’t get your planning bonus your f*cked. In multiplayer tank combat especially when the front is mobile you don’t always get a chance to get max planning since you have to sit at the front and hope your enemy doesn’t just click you and since you don’t have any org to speak of and your denied your one advantage which is planning you just lose the battle.
In tank warfare you won’t always be the one to click first. That’s why ML is better since it gives you org to defend with and attack with. Only loss is breakthrough tactic but in return you get backhand blow so it balances out
No offense, but i find it hard to believe you have actually played a proper MP game. In multiplayer, you always wait for planning to attack. You also have a giant org wall to defend, so its not "click or get clicked", its more fluid. You get planning no matter doctrine, its too much stats to miss out on.
This is a very good video, but I have a very dumb brain so I didn't really understand what would be the best doctrine, can someone please explain
Grandbattel plan left part.
Becaude you just use planning bonus and in general stack it.
nah i disagree more org means u can have less motorized and more tanks in a div increasing hard% tanks also have more atk and breakhtrough. u can still avarage at 30 org with half motorized.
battleplan is just good for defense whole point is entrenching as poland or france or china.
superior firepower is best for small minors as the integrated support org and atk bonus
usa, germany should use mobile warfare as they have the industry to pump out tanks and motorized.
russia and japan dont.
No. As shown in the video, a 7/11 division is worse than 8/10, both with MW R-R. Its also more losses. There is a reason why 8/10 is the preferred template,
GBP is not the best defensive doctrine lol, mass assault is way better.
@@sumzer_0 In 2000 hours of multiplayer in mods with a vanilla combat system, I've never once seen tanks on 1 or 3 doctrine be able to do anything to tanks on 2. 2 doctrine is too strong. You literally get free 2 tank battalions out of thin air.
You cannot rely on planning bonus in MP at all. Very frequently you will be getting the -100% max planning from enemy spy networks if the enemy players are competent, making planning bonus actually rare to give its bonuses in MP. Same goes for entrenchment, if multiple enemy agencies have spy network the max entrenchment can reach 0 pretty fast.
Mobile warfare left side is still the best for tank divisions, high org is critical, it must be remembered that a divisions speed scales with its org.
In MP the planning debuff from spies are removed, since they are too strong.
Also i have no idea where you got «speed scales with org» from, because that is just not correct.
@@sumzer_0 you are mistaken. org does effect speed, when moving into an enemy tile, low org lowers the speed. you're just wrong.
If the MP game allows spies, Axis can completely remove their impact on the Eastern front. Just give the spy states to different Axis minors and any spy network will only affect that nation's troops in that land (and the network won't spread). If you give Kiev, Sevastopol, and Rostov to Bulgaria but Germany holds the land in between, you've basically denied the ability to build a network in Ukraine and the only troops impacted will be Bulgarians in those specific states. If Bulgaria is on DDay wall duty, that completely negates the planning impact of spies. This applies to other fronts to some extent as well. Give Marsa Matruh to Bulgaria and the spy network in Libya can't spread to impact troops fighting at El Alamein.
@@magnus4945 Org does not affect speed. I believe you are talking about the "low organization" modifier on division speed, however that is a percentage of total org, and not a specific number.
Basically, higher org in the template has no impact on its speed.
@@sumzer_0 "Org does not effect speed, but org does effect speed" real genius here.
A division with higher org will have a higher org % after taking damage compared to a low org division. Surely you can comprehend this, and understand that org does have an impact on speed. Reply to this I guess if you still really need it spelled out to you, somehow.
Video sucks and is misinformation. Hinges on so many assumptions of which aren't included in the title nor would any sane person assume they would be. Such as "using a MP mod to remove spies". "Only hard attack matters for a tank division" "Infantry are not the units that will be doing the pushing".
If you're going to use X Y Z as a basis for why your idea works, you need explain why you're ONLY looking at hard attack, why INFANTRY DON'T MATTER, and WHY YOUR HOI4 MP is NULL AND VOID IF YOU DONT USE A MOD TO REMOVE SPIES.
There are ways to avoid the spy thing without mods. Hard is the only important thing because tanks have enough soft attack to click anyway. And inf can’t push since it does not have enough breakthrough to not get crited.
@@G61012 Okay then list them. The thing about tanks having enough soft attack so more = no value is just wrong. I am well aware of how breakthrough works, and yes they still can if you know what you're doing.
@@drandren9093first. Here is considered typical MP game. In typical MP you see now things like 16 width infantry with no support comapnies. And that's meta division. It's cheap, at most they get AA.
The reason why infantry don't push, is fact enemy use masive walls of cheap inf. You not gona breake it without reiforce "meme". In other video author precise. If there is no tanks, go for soft attack from howitzers and don't use TDs, but only if tanks are absolutny not a treat. GBP gets more soft with planning than SFP.
And yes, removing stuff from this game is required. Balance of this game is awfoul, bad and design of it is flaweed at many stages (like evey PDX game). I saw recently game where you could use last stand and force attack and it was treat as literally must have unlike other games where always it's banned. Basically you have to prepare your build for game rull set. Like you play difrently USA when there is ban for US to remove isolation to 1 January 1939 than USA rush build for partial mob in moment of Marco Polo Bridge incident.
i kissed a guy after i watched this crap.....what did you do to me?
You’re either 8 or 40