You Are Using the WRONG Tank Doctrine

[@sumzer_0]

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.

[@johnteixeira1791]

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.

[@truesurvivor585]

@@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

[@JohnSmith-bs9ym]

@@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.

[@YakubMyBeloved]

thoughts on gbp right with the night attack modifier.

[@truesurvivor585]

@@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.

[@depayss2428]

MP players in shambles rn, for they can no longer gate keep their secrets. Keep it up!!!

[@RobbiusBossius]

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

[@cactusz0n371]

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!

[@truesurvivor585]

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

[@JohnSmith-bs9ym]

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.

[@goji3908]

This guy is the sworn enemy of larpers

[@nuclearllama7239]

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

[@PrismaPog_17]

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.

[@martinbusina6]

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.

[@YeahILoveTea]

lets go my favourite goon4 content creator ❤

[@RobinMeineke]

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.

[@orlandodanielgonzalezalcar3360]

But GBP has that beautiful +10 Entrenchment and +%25 Entrenchment speed

[@jamskimornik7287]

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

[@RobinMeineke]

@ 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.

[@MrLapadite1]

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.

[@MrLapadite1]

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.

[@heinrichkressenstein7356]

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 😅

[@MrLapadite1]

@@heinrichkressenstein7356 I get what u mean, but this is really just a troll build for a static barb front lol

[@saucy743]

@@heinrichkressenstein7356 Everyone who plays a defensive game uses entrenchment in MP

[@maciekGTR]

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.

[@bonciutalentadv7599]

Extraordinarily true. Finally someone who revealed the MP secrets to the SP peasants

[@roypone6158]

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"

[@jimmcneal5292]

They really need to buff Superior Firepower

[@adamk2893]

SF is the best doctrine especially in multiplayer bc GBP relies on planning bonus witch is reduced by intel network

[@Hoi4withRobin]

Nah, Superior Firepower is the best, they should buff Mobile Warfare. For Example by making the Org Loss when moving modifier actually work

[@squiggles5640]

what are you on about

[@hyperdimensionbliss]

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.

[@rance2799]

​@@Hoi4withRobin mobile warfare in general needs more speed and breakthrough bonuses for the rest of the army outside of tanks.

[@panpsalt6757]

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.

[@maciekGTR]

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

[@scholzb100]

This would be me if I knew how to make videos. Thank you so much for this

[@maksimkuskov1400]

The planning bonus could be broken because of enemy spies on your country. It is a huge problem.

[@ryankolbe365]

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.

[@blahmaster6k]

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?

[@sumzer_0]

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.

[@СтавридесКелевра]

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...

[@sumzer_0]

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.

[@stalin_2283]

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)

[@negrorussiangoidazov]

Just attack in winter for longer nights

[@Phantlos]

If you have more org you can put more tank batalions in the divison.

[@MrTomcus1234]

Still waiting for someone to present some numbers to reinforce my Mass Assault bias......

[@scopiieee9271]

you should make a vid on naval doctrines.

[@mateuszstepien865]

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?

[@sumzer_0]

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.

[@mateuszstepien865]

@sumzer_0 thanks

[@andret8423]

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.

[@sumzer_0]

Its a game changer yes, but AI wont do it, and its removed in MP mods. Link should work, many have already joined.

[@segl1281]

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.

[@HqBlays]

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!

[@sumzer_0]

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.

[@ultimatedespair9087]

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).

[@senji7217]

What is the INF Brick template in the video?

[@heinrichkressenstein7356]

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

[@mik1984]

What about relatively cheap space marine mot/mech infantry? Extra breakthrough is useful because you are just adding one singe tank to a division.

[@sumzer_0]

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.

[@mik1984]

@@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.

[@Spielkind104]

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.

[@RazgrizDemonAce]

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.

[@barrycabbageM34]

B-But my larp.

[@hiddenskigaming]

did he just compered mikro doctrine and green arow doctrine interms of tanks?

[@CyrilYajuj]

What is the best doctrine for infantry, GBP R?

[@frp3337]

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

[@antosqa7343]

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

[@sumzer_0]

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.

[@luukvst1032]

But i do mobile warfare to make 45km/h tanks

[@td6460]

Appreciate the attempt at analysis, but this is an extreme oversimplification and as pointed out, ignores a number of benefits from MW.

[@sumzer_0]

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.

[@3bizmark]

What about GBP-R?

[@sumzer_0]

Better doctrine for defensive (due to land night attack), but has worse attacking potential.

[@GeorgianDissident]

Discord invite expired

[@magnus4945]

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.

[@sumzer_0]

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.

[@magnus4945]

@@sumzer_0 you are mistaken. org does effect speed, when moving into an enemy tile, low org lowers the speed. you're just wrong.

[@StephenDelahoy]

i kissed a guy after i watched this crap.....what did you do to me?

[@alexmannen1991]

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.

[@sumzer_0]

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.

[@SomeUser-s6m]

@@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.