Making up differant Doctrines for various battles

[gazfun]

I have been toying with the idea of having differant doctrines to suit the battle situation that presents itself.
For Example
"Assault Doctrine" where I feel I have the numbers and use the pursuit options in the doctrine and instruct the regiment to a more aggesive stance and to run down the enemy, who the players might be in low morale.

"Defend Doctrine" where I dont have the numbers and just want to hang on to this bit of ground as long as possible while inflicting as much damage as possible to an attacker turn off all the pursuit options in the Doctrine to conserve strenght for example.

Also there is other posibities like "Cordon" "Probe" "Attack"
Particulalry if you wanted to stage a few withdrawing battles to slow down an enemy, without over commitment of forces
All these variation would be more usefull in tornaments or Campaigns where there is a series of battles.
Has anyone else thought along these lines yet?

[LNDavout]

Has anyone else thought along these lines yet?

Sure this will be the secret book for any clan.

I think this is an inportant part to be superior in a battle.

[gazfun]

So you think by not saying anything to anyone or keeping it a secret, would be better then?

[Hook]

Each American football team will have a playbook, which is kept secret.  You don't want your opponents knowing what plays you might use.  LNDavout is probably thinking along similar lines.  I can imagine competitive clans thinking their secret playbook is better than the other clan's secret playbook.

For my own part, I expect to be both attacking and defending at some point in any given battle, so I'd rather have one generic set to be used everywhere, with the doctrines tailored to the way I do battle.  There may be advantages to having a specific doctrine for a specific situation, but I haven't experimented with the doctrine editor to find out.

Hook

[gazfun]

By the amount of posts neither has many people atm

[HarryInk]

No, you're a bit ahead of us there, Gaz.

[Gunner24]

When I get the full game I will set up some form of "standard" doctrine I like for each nation I use. 

I don't want to be changing it with every MP game, I prefer to know how my troops will behave.

[gazfun]

When I get the full game I will set up some form of "standard" doctrine I like for each nation I use. 

I don't want to be changing it with every MP game, I prefer to know how my troops will behave.

Im sure a lot of people would be happy to know that if it where true

[Hook]

When I get the full game I will set up some form of "standard" doctrine I like for each nation I use.
I don't want to be changing it with every MP game, I prefer to know how my troops will behave.

Im sure a lot of people would be happy to know that if it where true

And the moment you start to rely on it being the same, he'll change it. Surprise!

Hint:  Always send the doctrine file to the host, even if you aren't changing it often.  This way he never knows for sure.

Gazfun, you've had more experience with this than any of us.  What kind of changes have you found useful?

Hook

[Montecuccoli]

The idea of gazfun is interesting for he uses terms that can be liked to other games; the doctrines names he said are like the tactics for pitched battle in Empires in Arms, so this should even lead to a way in using Empires in Arms pitched battle choices to solve battle with HWLG 

[LNDavout]

Hint:  Always send the doctrine file to the host, even if you aren't changing it often.  This way he never knows for sure.


Hook

So in MP the game doesn´t use my doctrine automatic?

So the host can read see and use it?

btw you are right with the playbook

LND

[Hook]

So in MP the game doesn´t use my doctrine automatic?

Actually, I don't know.  Your computer will use your doctrine, obviously, because it's the only one it has.  I don't know if the opponents' computers will need it as well, or if it's sent automatically on startup and never seen by a human, or whatever. 

I'm so confused.



Hook

[gazfun]

Im sure a lot of people would be happy to know that if it where true


And the moment you start to rely on it being the same, he'll change it. Surprise!

Hint:  Always send the doctrine file to the host, even if you aren't changing it often.  This way he never knows for sure.

Gazfun, you've had more experience with this than any of us.  What kind of changes have you found useful?

Hook

Well its like this.
Its the like the paper, scissor and rock approach, to your formations, and depending what the background strategy is going to be for a battle you are playing IMO
For example if you are playing a one off battle you would probably select a more general order for reactions to your regiments to cover all contingencies.
Now in a tournament or Campaign you would have a better Idea what your opponent is going to do. I.E. To make your regiments to go after an inferior enemy, in a better formation for charging.  This can be adjusted to be more aggresive to charge his Line formations more often when the opportunity is presented to the regiment.  And because your oponent would be in a more defensive posture because if he didnt have the numbers on the battlefield, and perhaps you think he is wanting to withdraw from a superior enemy (you) this should reflect and will reflect in your doctrine.
If you study the formations types in the manuel, you will see that there is a better formation to be in when your opponent is in Line, for example, he may chose line because it has many advantages, but it also has disadvantages.
The formation that moves your regiments into position fastest is the one to use, before they are in combat range. if you got them moving around in Line you will find they will get tired easier, and they will be slow to respond, but its a good defensive position, but it has its weaknesses.
You can move then into other formations, that would give you a more universal.
Deep Formations are those mainly used in reserve, and the formation you want them in, depends on the  number of troops you have, over the enemy
I can only give you a breif outline here but look at the differances each formation can do for you, and what disadvantages and advantages each has.
Myself I will probably make up abut 5 differant doctrine types, but even these will have to be tested to get the better result, and this is the most wonderfull things about this, its variety, it can be ever changing.
Its a dynamic system. IMO

[gazfun]

So in MP the game doesn´t use my doctrine automatic?

So the host can read see and use it?

btw you are right with the playbook

LND

Im not sure but I dont think he can, Ive treid to have a look at one given to me, and I couldnt make any sense out of it.  So looks to me that its hidden.
Also there wouldnt be time, as you send this to the host at the time the battle starts

[gazfun]

The idea of gazfun is interesting for he uses terms that can be liked to other games; the doctrines names he said are like the tactics for pitched battle in Empires in Arms, so this should even lead to a way in using Empires in Arms pitched battle choices to solve battle with HWLG  

Exactly, and I beleive a lot of these tactics have similarities.
I have studied a lot of chit choices that have been made of recent, and there is a direct connection between the dominance of an Army on the EIA battlefield and one that hasnt got dominance.
But of course you cant be too complacent, because if you are too predictable, you are giving your opponent a message. And therby you must continue to adjust your future chit choices or tactics........its a lot of fun!
For example "outflank" seems to have its seasons, its devastating if the other side chose "defend"  some say it comes down to luck, but I beleive you make your own luck.