What are the sources for the Land Doctrines? (2024)

I have two questions pertaining to the Land Doctrines of Hoi 4. Foundational to either question is a broader question regarding Paradox and sourcing. Is there any publicly available record of what historical sources Paradox relies on? I know many many things they cover are part of "general knowledge" but I'm curious.

Following that, I was wondering two things: One, is there a source for the text of the doctrines themselves? For an example, the Deep Battle focus of the Mass Assault Doctrine reads:

The concept of Deep Operations, or Deep Battle, is to break through the enemy's defensive lines at multiple points and destroy his operational reserves, his operational depth, and occupy as much of his strategic depth as possible.

Click to expand...

Is this part of something or was it written by a developer?

My second question is around the nature of doctrines and the implicit paths of particular nations. It's pretty clear looking at the language (sometimes literally, as with Mobile Warfare and its German words) of the doctrines that some are not only intended for a particular country, but molded on their irl tactics. From that comes the question of who is represented in what and the thought process behind sub-trees in that light.
For an example, I feel safe in assuming that the left path of Mass Assault, the Deep Battle path is meant to represent, well... Deep Battle/Operation as articulated by Tukhachevsky.

What are the others ones aligned to and, generally, would you say the doctrines hold up to scrutiny from a historical angle?
(Not gameplay, I don't really care to have the 400th conversation about why x doctrine is worthless)

Yes, the Soviet doctrine of the Deep Battle is real: it began to be developed in the 1930s and is essentially a Blitzkrieg with the massive use of the Airborne Forces to disorganize the rear of the enemy, delay the reinforcement of the enemy and his supply.

The conceptual basis of the theory of deep offensive combat is a massive impact on the entire tactical depth of the enemy's defensive formations with the aim of encircling and destroying him. For this are used:

- a breakthrough of a continuous enemy front in certain selected directions, which is carried out by a sudden offensive by infantry and tank units, with dense fire support from artillery.
- the introduction of mechanized and cavalry units in the breakthrough sector (echelon of success ) for enveloping strikes against targets in the depths of defense.
- air strikes against enemy reserves and rear areas in combination with parachute operations to maintain high rates of advancement among strike groups.

During the war, it was not always possible to fully realize this concept. The most obvious example is the Vyazma Landing Operation - this is a classic Deep Strike operation, but unfortunately the Soviet military lacked many skills in the early period to fully implement this concept. During the operation "Polar Star" there was supposed to be an airborne operation that assumed the concept of a Deep Strike - five guards airborne divisions (about 50 thousand paratroopers) were to be thrown into the rear of the airborne troops with a massive tank strike (it was thwarted because of a senior officer who defected to the Germans and told about plans for operations, the Germans launched a counterattack and the Airborne Forces had to deal with the defense of the front). The Soviet-Japanese War of 1945 is also an example of Deep Operations - 16,000 soldiers who were involved in airborne operations + a tank breakthrough.

The theory of Deep Operations also remained the basis for the post-war doctrine, but only the Airborne Forces became mechanized (taking into account the experience of the war)

As you can see, the game does not reflect the reality of the concept, there are no bonuses for the Airborne Forces in land doctrines, the USSR does not have a focus for the development of the Airborne Forces or a bonus for the Airborne Forces.

Operation Bagration in 1944 is a good example of Deep Battle doctrine.

Nathraxh said:

The UK also made use of a lot of the things mentioned on the right side of the Grand Battleplan tree, both in the desert and in Burma, just as much as, or possibly more so, than those things mentioned on the left side of Grand Battle plan.

Click to expand...

I think this gets at a core feature of the doctrines. Historically, nations often used something from both sides of the tree, but in HOI4 we have to choose.

I don't mind, because I think interesting game play is generally more important than getting the historical details perfect. But I do have to develop a head canon that my nation is using both sides of the tree, it's just that it 'emphasises' the side I picked more than the other.

Lamartine said:

I think this gets at a core feature of the doctrines. Historically, nations often used something from both sides of the tree, but in HOI4 we have to choose.

I don't mind, because I think interesting game play is generally more important than getting the historical details perfect. But I do have to develop a head canon that my nation is using both sides of the tree, it's just that it 'emphasises' the side I picked more than the other.

Click to expand...

Yeah I've been giving that angle of it a lot of thought, because it's pretty clear from looking at them that they're mixed histories, the mutual exclusvity is more a game thing than a reality thing, but different theaters can't have different doctrines, and shifting them over time, it would be impossible to keep up, as with the Soviet Deep Battle/Org doctrine being shifted *away* from following the purges, only to come back later-- like according to real history, the Soviets would have been halfway down the Mass Assault tree in '36.

I think Paradox has done an alright enough job here with turning it into game mechanics, and your idea of "emphasis" is a helpful framing.

Historically most of these "doctrines" aren't real "doctrines" but late developed nickname given later, like many ppl say theres not a book called "Blitzkrieg" in ww2. So the sources are very scatered, sometimes in dev diaries they mention books they read, sometimes they hire historians. A exception is perhaps the "shock and wave".

Some of them are fictional(like modern blitzkrieg), but very creative and concise.

About mix them to come close to reality would end in

, because the doctrine system is in really emulating the "Specialization" system from MMOPRG's/RPG's games characters building. if u aren't familiar with that, u can take a look: https://dragonage.fandom.com/wiki/Classes_and_specializations_(Inquisition)

But by gods, how i miss the hoi2 doctrines artwork!! i have wiped hoi2 probably 5years or more long time ago from computer, the screenshot of doctrines is the only thing i have saved.

marcelo r. r. said:

But by gods, how i miss the hoi2 doctrines artwork!!

Click to expand...

I really liked the Hoi2 artwork too. Some parts of the Hoi4 style I enjoy more, like the focus icons and division symbols. But I really miss the doctrine photos and scribbles that outline the concept.

Lamartine said:

I really liked the Hoi2 artwork too. Some parts of the Hoi4 style I enjoy more, like the focus icons and division symbols. But I really miss the doctrine photos and scribbles that outline the concept.

Click to expand...

I love the unit icons in HOI2 tbh. Specifically these