VBAM Games Forums

Has anyone thought of tactical doctrines.?
For the menagerie or a tech research?

For example Capital Ship doctrine.
The race favours large warships.

Carrier Doctrine (Like WC)
Squadron Doctrine. (favour Small warship groups)
etc.

These would define what sort of ship a race would favour.
To change would require a major overhaul, rethink of tactics and tech investment.

Could be a good idea for NPC races. Yes I saw the idea in CIV4 Beyond the final frontier. It would also make the campaign favour a certain type of fleet combat? Like WC is quite fighter based etc.

That's a cool suggestion Ian, something I've kicked around from time to time but never got around to doing anything with.

-Mark

This idea rears its head ever so often. So far no one has been able to put it together in a package that really works (myself included). Maybe this will be the time!

Charles Lewis wrote:This idea rears its head ever so often. So far no one has been able to put it together in a package that really works (myself included). Maybe this will be the time!

I do still have our old notes on the subject. The last working rule was built around technology, and Rainer was testing it in his Stranded campaign.

-Jay

Sounds like a challenge..

Just need some ideas for doctrines that'd fit in a VBAM game.
You can understand a race who was avian in nature would favour Fighters.

I figure on the one hand tactical doctrines more for flavour and says what a race/power likes and on the other it could mean some sort of cost break for ships that are in that Doctrine, that they make.

It could be fun: A race who favours big capships then meets a race who favours fighters. Do start building fighters? Or caphips with area defence (higher AF scores?)
We could even make A doctrine that means a race favours ground combat over space combat.


If we was using Starmada we could add tactical doctrines.
While these have no real bearing much on day to day running of an empire they would show how an empire fights. Mind you I guess using the SX rules it could say what an empire invests his EPS in for research.

Tactical doctrines would be: Short Range combat, :Long Range fire, Ship Capture, hit and run etc..

Just need some hints and ideas. I will have another look at CIV4..

mwaschak wrote:I do still have our old notes on the subject. The last working rule was built around technology, and Rainer was testing it in his Stranded campaign.

-Jay

Even then, IIRC, the doctrines were more about production than combat.

That might be a simple enough way of introducing doctrines - simply let the faction introduce designs fitting their doctrine 2-3 years earlier than their normal ISD - and designs contrary to their doctrine 2-3 years later.

Then by the time the "second generation" designs contrary to doctrine are becoming available third generation designs in doctrine are available, so the player has plenty of impetus to keep in-doctrine.

(it seems reasonable that an empires R&D and production is leaning towards its countries doctrines - why would you put a lot of effort into something the military doesn't "like" using - so this seems a reasonable mechanic to emphasize it)

If a country switches doctrines then you could simply enforce mothballing of all designs which have gone out of favour until such a time that "military experts decide how best to employ the designs given current doctrine". Which would allow a faction to switch doctrines - but at a potentially heavy penalty,

I can see setting up a "doctrine" technology tree for VBAM. In the real world it wasn't just a matter of the sophistication of the equipment used in combat, but the actual skill of the troops that used the equipment.

WWII example (I'm going with ground combat here because I've been playing West End Game's "Front" series with my brother recently). Germany had inferior tanks to the Soviet Union when it invaded in 1941, but the Germany tactical skill made up for this and allowed them to defeat the superior Russian tanks (in both quality of armor and armament and quantity of tanks on battlefield) time and time again. Using combined arms techniques the Germans were able to maximize the effectiveness of their available units in any given battle.

VBAM doctrine technology could start with the 4.3 Advanced Dedicated Mission rules from the CM book (pg 73-76). Just because you have units with long and short range capability if you don't have the tactical doctrine in place to capitalize on these abilities, you'll not reap the benefits.

A second layer of doctrine technology becomes available as well based on actual combat experience. After a class of ships has seen combat (doesn't matter who won the battle, truly professional military learn as much or more from defeat than victory), they will have chance to develop specific doctrine (tech) to further enhance their ablities.

Escort class ships would be able to research "Squadron Screening" and earn a +1 DV once completed or "Squadron AF tactics" to gain +1 AF. Scouts would have to research a specific mission type (squadron defense would be the default role scouts could do) which would make them less "overpowering" unless an empire dedicated serious EP for maximizing them with all available missions.

Command ratings and command cost could also be affected by this, with destroyers going from CC 2 to CC 1 with "Precision escort squadron formation flying" (which is a CC -1 tactical doctrine). See below for class breakdowns and restriction suggestions.

I'd break down VBAM ships as follows for tactical doctrine research purposes:

Escorts--corvettes, destroyers, frigates, etc

Cruisers--light, heavy, attack, explorer ships perhaps

Carriers--anything with carrier special ability

Capital Ships--battle cruisers and so forth

Scouts--the EW boys

Attack Boats--and maybe heavy fighters here too since this is "gray" area

Fighters--I wouldn't break them down by size (light, medium) but maybe by specific type: AS emphasis, AF emphasis, "balanced" fighters (AS 2, AF 2 for example) would be "multi-role" fighters and able to research both AS and AF doctrine trees.

And just like the 10.0 Elite Officer and Crew rules (CM pg 201), no ship, fighter, etc can gain more than double (or half) its original value. So a frigate with DV 3, AS 1, AF 2 can only be increased to DV 6 even if empire has "Squadron Screening +4". And the DD going from CC 2 to CC 1 would not be able to go to CC 1/2 (since 1/2 is below half the original class CC of 2).

That is my "organized" initial thoughts on the topic that I've wanted to propose for a while so I hope that gets the ball rolling in a constructive, helpful direction.

-Mark

Gareth_Perkins wrote:That might be a simple enough way of introducing doctrines - simply let the faction introduce designs fitting their doctrine 2-3 years earlier than their normal ISD - and designs contrary to their doctrine 2-3 years later.

Then by the time the "second generation" designs contrary to doctrine are becoming available third generation designs in doctrine are available, so the player has plenty of impetus to keep in-doctrine.

(it seems reasonable that an empires R&D and production is leaning towards its countries doctrines - why would you put a lot of effort into something the military doesn't "like" using - so this seems a reasonable mechanic to emphasize it)

If a country switches doctrines then you could simply enforce mothballing of all designs which have gone out of favour until such a time that "military experts decide how best to employ the designs given current doctrine". Which would allow a faction to switch doctrines - but at a potentially heavy penalty,

That's an interesting notion that could work for settings using ISD ship lists. However, given that most ISD ship lists already have inherent doctrines built in by the nature of the specific factions, it might be redundant.

Charles Lewis wrote:That's an interesting notion that could work for settings using ISD ship lists. However, given that most ISD ship lists already have inherent doctrines built in by the nature of the specific factions, it might be redundant.

For games that don't use ISD-based force lists, you could alternatively apply the doctrine concept to some hybridized version of the unit availability rules. What I am thinking here is that units aligned with your currently favored doctrine could be built in any quantity desired, while those of other doctrines would have a spending cap associated with them.

If you had a limited number of doctrines in play, you could order them on a descending scale:

Prevailing Doctrine: Unlimited construction
Secondary Doctrine: Max 50% per turn military spending
Tertiary Doctrine: Max 33% per turn military spending
All Other Doctrines: Max 10% per turn military spending

In this case, an empire could always build at least 1 unit of each type per campaign turn, but it would only be able to build unlimited numbers of units that correspond to its primary doctrine.

For a practical example, let's assume that an empire has the following doctrines (in descending order): Carrier, Warship, Ground. If it spent 42 EP this turn on military purchases, it could spend a maximum of 21 EP on Warship doctrine units, 14 EP on Ground units, or 4 EP for any other doctrines; but it could elect to spend it all on Carrier doctrine units (carriers, fighters, whatever).

You could just adjust the availability ratings for games using availibility:

So for in-doctrine designs availability goes down one level (uncommon->common, rare->Uncommon, etc)

And out of doctrine pulls the availability up by one level
(uncommon->rare, common->uncommon)

To alter doctrines you must then be legal under the new doctrine before changing (this should stop total reversals, and represent slow doctrinal changes)


Tech levels could be done using the first method.


Another tweak might be to adjust the "effective" maintenance rating denominator instead - +1 for in-doctrine, -1 for out of doctrine?

Charles Lewis wrote: However, given that most ISD ship lists already have inherent doctrines built in by the nature of the specific factions, it might be redundant.

This is very true - however, having just designed and tried to balance five factions for a game I can say that it might be easier to remove doctrine from the lists,

This would make balancing the game much easier, and doctrine could then be applied as a racial trait?

Gareth_Perkins wrote:
This would make balancing the game much easier, and doctrine could then be applied as a racial trait?

Bingo! Thats what I was thinking. You hit the nail on the head.
Without making the system more complicated, it just tells you the sort of vessels/combat a race prefers.

Its more for flavour than a game thing I thinks.

For ISD ship lists it tell you the sorts of vessels they favour?
Can't quite decide how we manage ships out off this doctrine?
Perhaps the cost just are slightly cheaper or something.

I think keep the doctrine idea very simple is the way to go.
Perhaps doctrine favours a design based system, give ships in that doctrine a small cost break or ones out of that need researching 1st but only if they meet that ship in combat>>??

Interesting discussion fellers.

(argh silly me after only 4 hours sleep and a car spitting oil the old grey matters none too right.. didnt read the previous)

You know I'm half tempted to if this will all work..

Hi, guys. I've mentioned this before but Hearts of Iron 2 is a computer game by Paradox Interactive (World War 2 strategy). It has a fun, interesting tech research setup, with different areas (Infantry, Armor, Naval, Aircraft, etc.). But it also has Land, Air and Naval Doctrine research trees.

This link gives some idea of it.

The point is, I think, that there are a couple ways to do this. One is to have players choose a racial doctrine -- this will have effects both on combat and on economics. For example, a Big Gun Doctrine would result in some kind of stat boost to DN, BB, BC type ships, perhaps. But it would also make them cheaper to build, or quicker to build, or whatever.

Another way would be to have a doctrine tree. That is, there would be some linkages on the tree which would allow crossover but players would research specific doctrines, which would open branches to new doctrines, all of which would have incremental effects.

For example:
Big Gun Doctrine I -- All BB, BC, DN ships get +1 AS.
Big Gun Doctrine II -- All BB, BC, Dn ships get +1 DV
Big Gun Doctrine III -- All BB, BC, DN ships cost -1 EP less to purchase
Big Gun Doctrine IV -- All BB, BC, DN ships are built in 10% less time.
Decisive Battle Doctrine (Requires Big Gun Doctrine II) -- When three or more BB, BC, DN ships are grouped in the same squadron, each one is treated as if it has +1 DV when crippled.

The same player might also be investing in:
Escort Doctrine I -- All DD, CL ships receive +1 AF when two or more of the same class are grouped in the same squadron.
Escort Doctrine II -- All DD, CL ships receive +1 DV when two or more of the same class are grouped in the same squadron.


Or something like these (I just threw these together right now).

Just some thoughts for the fire. I am actually working on something like this for a VBAM mod. Hopefully it will see the light of day sometime this year.

Kevin