Does doctrine matter in this series?

[Sir John Cope]

What a great question. In my opinion, military doctrine is usually a hypothesis about the best way to use a given set of assets in the next war. I think one the (many) inevitable differences between historical wargaming and war is that a game designer has at his disposal a hypothesis which has already been tested (that is, the "next war" has already been fought). In a sense, the question of doctrine is usually settled for the player by the designer's decisions, in everything from unit ratings to game-system functions. That being said, in some games (France 40 comes immediately to mind) I will usually consciously avoid adopting the historical doctrine - if I'm playing the Allied side, that is.

I might add to that by suggesting that doctrine can also be a reflection of (sometimes unfortunate) military or political realities that a nation faced. Commonwealth doctrine in Northwest Europe was largely shaped by Britain's manpower crisis. The slow tempo of operations, preference for concentration on a narrow front, and reliance on firepower served to minimize casualties and could be carried out by an army filled with replacements whose training was sometimes doubtful. While it might not have been the best approach in theory, it was the only approach that would enable Britain to win battles, keep up morale, and maintain a relevant land force on the European continent. Another note - I think it is fascinating how strikingly similar the British way of war in 1944-45 was to the early war French doctrine of "methodical battle." The essential are the same, thought British in '44 had a stronger appreciation for tactical air support and a broader accepted view on the role of tanks.  Both were derived from a manpower crisis and the need to maintain fighting strength and morale.

As for whether doctrine plays a role in PzC - I think it depends on the individual title. Unit morale, command range, supply levels, etc. all play a role into whether a player is encouraged to recreate historic doctrine, and, as Sir John Cope says above, there may be some instances where it would be in a player's interest not to emulate historic doctrine. I tend to think that if an OOB overemphasizes Quality A & B troops doctrine can become particularly irrelevant - you can kind of do whatever you want at that point.

-Mike P

Good points, Mike, thanks.  The only late-war game I own is Scheldt, but from what I've seen so far the game mechanics, unit ratings and so forth do restrain the British/Commonwealth forces from pursuing an all-out offensive, so to that extent the game is pretty faithfully enforcing the historical doctrinal reality.  I wonder if people with more experience of the late-war titles would agree?

[Elxaime]

I would say the starkest difference in doctrines enforced through the character of the armies themselves that I have experienced is an ongoing game of Japan 46'. The US and allies have complete air and naval superiority, a massive firepower superiority on land and late war heavy armor. However the terrain in most areas is dreadful for mobile forces but good for dug-in defense. The Japanese have some artillery and a few inferior tanks, but the core of their lethality is the high assault values and fanatical morale of their regular infantry, which are all higher than C morale and many of A and B, and can operate in large battalions with twice the recovery rate of the Allies.

As a result, the Allies dominate the few open spaces, but in close country have to engage hand to hand. US tanks get swarmed by assaults if they are not cautious, and basically operate as mobile pillboxes shelling from 2-hex distance (Japanese lack of decent AT guns is mitigated by relatively high Japanese infantry AT values, presumably due to their willingness to use suicide satchel charges, etc.). The US Marines have several tough divisions with high fire and assault values, and there are plentiful US combat engineers. But due to the numbers, morale and toughness of the Japanese infantry, once the initial Allied advance slowed due to arrival of Japanese reinforcements, fighting has evolved into a WW1 style slugging match reminiscent of Verdun. It is basically now a question of Japan getting battered during clear weather, holding their own during rain and mud, and seeing if the Japanese recovery rates can keep pace with Allied ability to inflict casualties. The entire setting, a last ditch defense of Japan evolves into a very grim feeling as you know as Japan you cannot win the war militarily, but you have to defend the home and Emperor.

In my experience, early Japanese victories in these PZC titles come mainly from first time Allied players who are shocked by the high casualties of the early beach landings and despair and give up. The US has to stomach these and push through, Omaha Beach style, as casualties drop considerably once you are off the beaches. Right now, around turn 100+, Japan has lost about three times as many men as the Allies.

[Liebchen]

I would say the starkest difference in doctrines enforced through the character of the armies themselves that I have experienced is an ongoing game of Japan 46'.  The US and allies have complete air and naval superiority, a massive firepower superiority on land and late war heavy armor.  However the terrain in most areas is dreadful for mobile forces but good for dug-in defense.  The Japanese have some artillery and a few inferior tanks, but the core of their lethality is the high assault values and fanatical morale of their regular infantry, which are all higher than C morale and many of A and B, and can operate in large battalions with twice the recovery rate of the Allies.

As a result, the Allies dominate the few open spaces, but in close country have to engage hand to hand.  US tanks get swarmed by assaults if they are not cautious, and basically operate as mobile pillboxes shelling from 2-hex distance (Japanese lack of decent AT guns is mitigated by relatively high Japanese infantry AT values, presumably due to their willingness to use suicide satchel charges, etc.).  The US Marines have several tough divisions with high fire and assault values, and there are plentiful US combat engineers.  But due to the numbers, morale and toughness of the Japanese infantry, once the initial Allied advance slowed due to arrival of Japanese reinforcements, fighting has evolved into a WW1 style slugging match reminiscent of Verdun.  It is basically now a question of Japan getting battered during clear weather, holding their own during rain and mud, and seeing if the Japanese recovery rates can keep pace with Allied ability to inflict casualties.  The entire setting, a last ditch defense of Japan evolves into a very grim feeling as you know as Japan you cannot win the war militarily, but you have to defend the home and Emperor. 

In my experience, early Japanese victories in these PZC titles come mainly from first time Allied players who are shocked by the high casualties of the early beach landings and despair and give up.  The US has to stomach these and push through, Omaha Beach style, as casualties drop considerably once you are off the beaches.  Right now, around turn 100+, Japan has lost about three times as many men as the Allies.

I, for one, wouldn't mind reading the occasional meta-AAR on this campaign as you experience it.

[Trac_511]

Hello everyone, and wow, thanks for the feedback! Sorry for the late reply, but my computer time has been derailed by first-time home-buying process!