Does doctrine matter in this series?

[Trac_511]

I've never looked into any WW2 nation's doctrine but does it even matter at this scale? Just wondering because I have never played NATO, WP, Allies, nor Axis any differently in any title of this series. Of course, varying unit abilities and environmental conditions affect play, otherwise for me it's just been moving counters as smartly as possible and keeping all formations nice and neat.

[Mr Grumpy]

I just play a particular side to the best of its abilities, sometimes that means you do follow similar real life doctrines but not always.

[Steel God]

In my very humble opinion.....everything from 1939 forward is the same doctrine (which would be German Doctrine) no matter what army happens to be employing it.  These games all represent the art of armored mobile warfare, and they all use Blitzkrieg as their blueprint.

[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.

[Liebchen]

I've never looked into any WW2 nation's doctrine but does it even matter at this scale? Just wondering because I have never played NATO, WP, Allies, nor Axis any differently in any title of this series. Of course, varying unit abilities and environmental conditions affect play, otherwise for me it's just been moving counters as smartly as possible and keeping all formations nice and neat.

I think that the WWI titles do an excellent job of prompting historical play, due to their command ranges, fix/release rules, etc.

[Mr Grumpy]

I've never looked into any WW2 nation's doctrine but does it even matter at this scale? Just wondering because I have never played NATO, WP, Allies, nor Axis any differently in any title of this series. Of course, varying unit abilities and environmental conditions affect play, otherwise for me it's just been moving counters as smartly as possible and keeping all formations nice and neat.

I think that the WWI titles do an excellent job of prompting historical play, due to their command ranges, fix/release rules, etc.

I agree, if you use WW2 PzC tactics when playing FWWC you will get your fingers seriously burnt.

[Andrea G]

The italian doctrine of changing side when things get tight is not implemented in PzC
:-(

[Mike Prucha]

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

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

No point in doing that in PzCs since PzCs is operational in nature. That is something that would belong in a game that is strategic in nature.

[Sir John Cope]

I think that the WWI titles do an excellent job of prompting historical play, due to their command ranges, fix/release rules, etc.

I agree - the instances I can recall of artificial or ahistorical actions in my PBEM games are very few. 

(OK, in an ongoing FR 40 campaign I did see the German Rhineland rail system torn all to hell by some Dutch border guards-turned-commandos operating deep in enemy territory [well played, Iley!], when probably in reality my line-of-communication troops, not to mention local Schutzpolizei on their bicycles, would have rounded up these desperate fellows with little trouble. But I count that as a minor example!) 

Edit: Ooops - misread WWI for WWII here. Never mind!