Unless you are just walking to moscow after they run out of equipment suciding into your lines, using infantry to attack is a bad idea. The problem is that wide front offensives dont work when the game forces you to spam armored divisions to attack because infantry dont have breakthrough. It is in fact so much, it gives better ORG than SF-1R even with all 5 support companies. MW-L on the other hand gives large org bonus which may be very good idea in defense, even if you lose a bit of both raw SA and Def compared to SF. On the second branch it is not that obvious. That's why SF-1R is considered better - even though its bonuses are in fact lower, it apply them always. Plus, the planning bonus disappear if you click on any of your units, literally penalizing you for playing the game! You can gather planning bonus only on a front where enemy is too weak to attack or if you have another army that occupy the same front and is meant only for attack. On the defensive, it is outright catastrophic as it will shuffle your troops around wasting entrenchment (by itself, removing some 40% benefits from GBP doctrine!) and opening weak spots in places that you considered secure.Īs result, if you are defending, you want to delete the plan for your main defensive army. On the offensive, it will mess up your army organisation and move units from favorable terrain and waste ORG, MP and IC in useless attacks that do not bring you closer to winning the war. But battleplaner is massive malus enough to overweight doctrine bonuses by itself. But to use this bonuses, you need to play with battleplaner (in fact, play as the game is meant to be played).
Click to expand.The problem is that the major points for or against doctrine lay outside doctrine bonuses.įor example GBP-L - between planning bonus, entrenchment and army wide breakthrough it could be considered borderline OP.
0 kommentar(er)
