doctrine

[Duck Doc]

I was intrigued by a comment made by Arjuna in another thread about the inclusion of doctrine in this game. I would be interested in hearing more about how doctrine is employed by the ai. I asked this question about COTA & never got a response. Does the BftB ai use the historical doctrine of either side?

[Arjuna]

I use the term doctrine to cover several things all of which relate to how the forces/units behave. Within the engine we have PlanDoctrine and TacticalDoctrine. PlanDoctrine deals with the development of plans. So when you issue an order to a force it will use these doctrines to develop its plan. This will see it creating one or more tasks to execute, allocating forcese and sending orders down the line. PlanDoctrine is scalable in that it can work for a corps down to a company. When combined with the scheduling code it can cascade down through a command structure. Also it can morph according to the situation and the decision making it employs. For example, a force might receive an order to secure X. It says OK I'll use the PlanSecure doctrine. This starts off by assessing the situation and determining if the force is already at X. If it is it invokes the PlanDefend to create a defend plan at X. It may also invoke the PlanDelay doctrine for part of the force to delay the enemy approaching X. Now if its not at X, it could invoke the PlanMove doctrine to create a Move plan to advance to X. But if there were enemy in the way it may invoke the PlanAttack doctrine to launch an attack. It's also smart enough to split the force and invoke different doctrine for each component. Eg it can invoke the PlanConstructBridge doctrine for engineers needed to build a crossing.

I have to go right now, but I'll return to elaborate on TacticalDOctrine a little later.

[PirateJock]

Great minds Dale [;)] - there's been a couple of references to the AI employing the WW2 West Front doctrine and I was wondering what that meant.

- see we've been given a teaser [:D]

[Henri]

For Bradley, it meant replace the commanders so Ike will not blame you, for Monty it meant avoid having to attack, for Patton it meant hold them by the nose and kick their butts, and for the Italians, it meant make sure that the reverse gear on your tanks is in good order, and for the Germans it meant blame the Fuhrer, but wait until the war is over. [:D]

Henri

[FredSanford3]

Perhaps "doctrine used" could be an assignable charachteristic to a "Side"/"Service" in the estab editor once more than one doctrine is modeled? I'm guessing that many of the defining behaviors of a 'doctrine' are pretty deeply embeded in the code however, and not necessarily an easily distinguished list of functions/behaviors.

[ElchDivision]

ORIGINAL: Henri

For Bradley, it meant replace the commanders so Ike will not blame you, for Monty it meant avoid having to attack, for Patton it meant hold them by the nose and kick their butts, and for the Italians, it meant make sure that the reverse gear on your tanks is in good order, and for the Germans it meant blame the Fuhrer, but wait until the war is over. [:D]

Henri

Very nice mate, very nice indeed. [:D]

[thewood1]

So does this mean that even though I can create a 1940 OOB for France, it won't function as one would expect for 1940.  It would behave like a 1944 US Army OOB?

[FredSanford3]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

So does this mean that even though I can create a 1940 OOB for France, it won't function as one would expect for 1940.  It would behave like a 1944 US Army OOB?

I think it'd be ok with West Front in 1940, but I'd adjust the French staff efficiencies downward to account for lack of tactical radios.

I think the game would need additional 'doctrines' (AI implementations) for say Russian tank-infantry desant, nations or time periods that conducted infantry charges, cavalry, partisans, etc.

There should also be changes in how units are rendered- as companies or maybe as bn/regts. If a bn staff didn't really have the training, organization or ability to delegate control of the companies, then the unit should be rendered as a single bn unit, since the individual companies couldn't really operate seperately anyhow.

[thewood1]

What do you think about Western Desert? Is the defined doctrine close enough to cover Italians and early war UK armies?

[thewood1]

Also, I haven't seent he answer to what is different between BFTB and COTA.

[moet]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
I use the term doctrine to cover several things all of which relate to how the forces/units behave. Within the engine we have PlanDoctrine and TacticalDoctrine. PlanDoctrine deals with the development of plans. So when you issue an order to a force it will use these doctrines to develop its plan. This will see it creating one or more tasks to execute, allocating forcese and sending orders down the line. PlanDoctrine is scalable in that it can work for a corps down to a company. When combined with the scheduling code it can cascade down through a command structure. Also it can morph according to the situation and the decision making it employs. For example, a force might receive an order to secure X. It says OK I'll use the PlanSecure doctrine. This starts off by assessing the situation and determining if the force is already at X. If it is it invokes the PlanDefend to create a defend plan at X. It may also invoke the PlanDelay doctrine for part of the force to delay the enemy approaching X. Now if its not at X, it could invoke the PlanMove doctrine to create a Move plan to advance to X. But if there were enemy in the way it may invoke the PlanAttack doctrine to launch an attack. It's also smart enough to split the force and invoke different doctrine for each component. Eg it can invoke the PlanConstructBridge doctrine for engineers needed to build a crossing.

Are those sets of Plan and Tactical Doctrines are the same for the Allies and the Axis ?

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: moet

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
I use the term doctrine to cover several things all of which relate to how the forces/units behave. Within the engine we have PlanDoctrine and TacticalDoctrine. PlanDoctrine deals with the development of plans. So when you issue an order to a force it will use these doctrines to develop its plan. This will see it creating one or more tasks to execute, allocating forcese and sending orders down the line. PlanDoctrine is scalable in that it can work for a corps down to a company. When combined with the scheduling code it can cascade down through a command structure. Also it can morph according to the situation and the decision making it employs. For example, a force might receive an order to secure X. It says OK I'll use the PlanSecure doctrine. This starts off by assessing the situation and determining if the force is already at X. If it is it invokes the PlanDefend to create a defend plan at X. It may also invoke the PlanDelay doctrine for part of the force to delay the enemy approaching X. Now if its not at X, it could invoke the PlanMove doctrine to create a Move plan to advance to X. But if there were enemy in the way it may invoke the PlanAttack doctrine to launch an attack. It's also smart enough to split the force and invoke different doctrine for each component. Eg it can invoke the PlanConstructBridge doctrine for engineers needed to build a crossing.

Are those sets of Plan and Tactical Doctrines are the same for the Allies and the Axis ?

For BFTB there is no difference in Tactical Doctrine for either side. This is a feature may get developed if we move to the Eastern Front battles.

[Lieste]

That is appropriate - the US doctrine was largely based on the 1933/1934 Werhmacht "Truppenfurung". Except where an increase in mechanisation exists on the US side there should be little doctrinal difference.

[Duck Doc]

Here I go again. Had the demo installed & was getting ready to pull the trigger on a purchase. Working my way through the tutorials (which are very good btw). Got ready to spring my attack on the Steinebrueck bridge when lo & behold who led the attack by the 318th? It was the foolhardy, anti-tank platoon. I got to tell you they are the bravest of the bunch racing ahead of perfectly good infantry companies who were indolently finishing up their k-ration breakfasts & policing up the campgrounds before plunging at those nasty Germans behind the anti-tank platoon.

Can't get my head around this kind of result & stopped me cold in my tracks. What is the sense of all the planning gone on before when there seems to be no doctrine involved at the pointy end? Now please tell me this is an atypical result & that there are ways to see more believable kinds of attacks in the game. This is what I was asking about in my previous posts about doctrine.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Dale H

Here I go again. Had the demo installed & was getting ready to pull the trigger on a purchase. Working my way through the tutorials (which are very good btw). Got ready to spring my attack on the Steinebrueck bridge when lo & behold who led the attack by the 318th? It was the foolhardy, anti-tank platoon. I got to tell you they are the bravest of the bunch racing ahead of perfectly good infantry companies who were indolently finishing up their k-ration breakfasts & policing up the campgrounds before plunging at those nasty Germans behind the anti-tank platoon.

Can't get my head around this kind of result & stopped me cold in my tracks. What is the sense of all the planning gone on before when there seems to be no doctrine involved at the pointy end? Now please tell me this is an atypical result & that there are ways to see more believable kinds of attacks in the game. This is what I was asking about in my previous posts about doctrine.

That bit about the AT platoon is indeed weird. Moreso when Bn AT platoons were - supposedly - removed from the OOB and integrated into Rifle Coys.

Doctrine in Command Ops - as I understand the term "doctrine" and the engine workings - consists basically in deciding how to implement the missions you give to your commands (such as Attack or Move). This means that the forces under that command will be given some "Role" and a task which fits this Role and the overarching Mission assigned. This process of allocating units to fulfill some roles, which in turn define what low level tasks to achieve a particular goal a unit is assigned, is indeed hard-coded in the engine.

Seeing an AT platoon leading an attack is indeed strange and there might be quite a few factors influencing it:

* The Judgement attribute of the command that directs the planning
* A problem in the Force definition in the Estab (Line, Line-Support, Support, etc.) and Infantry/Engineering/Recon values. Depending on the particular situation, the AI might get "confused" if the numbers there interact in a weird way with the particular situation. Let's say the AT platoon has - for some reason I can't fathom - assigned the Line combat class and a substantial Infantry or some Recon value. Why not using them as the advance guard for the main attack force?

[wodin]

Dale,
What your talking about isn't "doctrine" but a problem the game had for while, yet it has been alleviated alot since the first release...more so since the first patch. I don't believe the demo has been updated. It does happen at times but not as often. I just blame the unit commander and if he survives I court marshal him.
Infact it happens so little now it's barely raised in the forum and at one time it was a major sticking point. Now it's routing that everyone has an issue with. I also think moral drops off way to quickly and way to much myself, which maybe a reason for the routing behavior. I still get units like AT and Mortar units way to close to the enemy, but if I look at their position they have positioned themselves well with a good FoF but just to close to the enemy, though with this game there is so much movement I think it's asking the impossible for these unties to position themselves in a place where the enemy want get to them yet in range...

Doctrine as mentioned here with regards to the EF title hasn't really to my knowledge been implemented in any wargame. So I salute Panther for talking this. I also think that doctrine doesn't play a massive role in the West but does do in the east.

I always ask myself this when assessing a game. I go by how much praise it receives from people who I know know their wargames. I know that if this game had really bad issues it wouldn't get the praise it gets. Its not perfect, but it's more perfect than most. If the problem you've just seen (which has got better since the last patch) was happening constantly and enough to stop people playing it certainly wouldn't get the praise it gets from all quarters. If you except every game has quirks and you know that Dave and Panther work tirelessly to develop the best wargames out there then you can be sure the game is well worth the money.

[Phoenix100]

i don't think it happens at all now the AT units have been incorporated into the companies, no? How would it? Sounds like a pre-patch version problem. HQs used to do that as well. But haven't seen that since the patches.

Just looked at the tutorial - full version, not demo - and I haven't got any AT units.

[wodin]

I don't think the demo is updated.

[Duck Doc]

Just purchased. It took me a long time to bite. Thanks for all the replies. I will keep my fingers crossed.

[Arjuna]

Yes as noted above the demo is still on the original BFTB build. This behaviour ( non line units and HQs leading the attack ) has been addressed in subsequent patches. When I get a moment we should update the demo. Thanks for the reminder.