Doctrine Analysis

The goal of this article is to carefully analyse the advantages and disadvantages of each of the four doctrines in Call of War, and help you to determine which best suits your playstyle, as well as whether any have an objective mechanical advantage over the others. I will try to keep this accessible and simple but I am definitely going to nerd out, so be warned!

## Universal Changes

Each doctrine comes with a set of buffs/debuffs that applies to your entire army. These determine the overarching features and gameplay of the doctrine, but play less of a role in determining tactics (although they still can have a lot of impact).

### Axis Doctrine

Starting things off we have the Axis doctrine, favoured by the majority of players, due to its power and simplicity, making it easy to pick up and learn. Every Axis unit gains a +15% boost to both hit points and damage, an absolutely stellar buff. The downside of the doctrine is that all units cost an extra 10% of all resources.

A quick number crunch demonstrates the power of these units. If an Allied (used for standardisation because the units have no power buffs/debuffs) infantry attacks an Allied infantry, both have 15 HP, but the attacking unit deals 3 damage as opposed the the defending unit's 4.5. This means that on average an infantry unit attacking an infantry unit of equal power should expect to lose. However, when an Axis infantry attacks an Allied infantry, the Axis unit has 17 HP and deals 3.5 damage - this can be enough (if you are lucky) to win the fight! Overall, this demonstrates that Axis units can overwhelm most others in a simple 1v1.

These particular buffs and debuffs suggest a highly offensive, blitzkrieg attack style - the extra damage and hitpoints will allow units to last through more fights, whilst the +10% cost for unit production means that the resources gained from conquering land will be vital. Axis countries will be in significant danger if they are hesitant or wait to attack, as the next doctrine will demonstrate.

### Allied Doctrine

Now we have the Allied doctrine, my personal favourite doctrine (I will try very hard not to be biased, but there will definitely be some slip-ups). The Allied doctrine is one of the 2 doctrines to gain three bonuses rather than two, although one is quite mediocre. The production time of Allied units is reduced by an astonishing 30%, reducing production times to around 2/3 of their original value. Research time and costs are reduced by 25%, and upgrade time and costs are reduced by 20%. This makes the process of producing higher level units faster and easier. The disadvantage of Allied units is a 10% reduction in movement speed.

It is easily apparent how this could begin to stack up and become dangerous after a while. To demonstrate, let's imagine a simulation across the first 4 days of a CoN game, where both Germany and France want the best possible infantry. Realistically during this time, Germany will research to lvl 2, whilst France will research to lvl 3. The French infantry will each have 25 hit points and will deal 5.5 / 8 damage (the a / b notation means offensive / defensive damage). Meanwhile, the German infantry will each have 23 hit points and will deal 4.6 / 6.9 damage. Given Axis' increased costs and Allies' reduced production time, France's army will probably also be larger than Germany's. The outcome is clear - upgrades beat static buffs. The worst aspect for Axis is, this compounds over time because the more extra researches Allied countries will be able to get in.

These buffs and debuffs suggest a wait until around day 4 or 5 to launch attacks, during which time should be spent producing and most importantly upgrading units, as well as stabilising the economy (although that topic would require another whole page!) - the reduced speed of units makes an early-game attack mostly nonviable. Allied countries should be able to withstand the brunt of an early-game onslaught by taking advantage of the defensive capabilities of their infantry and their reduced production times, but they risk both early-game annihilation by Axis and late-game collapse under the weight of our next doctrine.

### Comintern Doctrine

The Comintern doctrine is one of the least popular doctrines, and frankly I can see why. It feels instinctively unappealing - all units get a 10% reduction to damage, and the only compensation is economic - 15% reduced production costs and 30% reduced upkeep costs. It is often hard to see how these factors will return a net benefit.

But that is indeed what they do, because upkeep costs can become a huge deal late-game. Comintern countries can support a 43% larger army for the same costs, which towards day 10+, when armies begin to get very big, can mean 20 or 30 extra units. Furthermore, the reduced production costs make it very easy for Comintern countries to protect themselves during the early-game; just spam infantry and/or militia and most countries won't be able to mount a successful offense. To be fair, they are extremely vulnerable to Allied nations during the mid-game, when their army size will be outranked by more powerful units; however, by around day 12, the balance tips in the favour of the Comintern.

This suggests a clear general strategy: survive! If a Comintern country can survive to the late-game intact, its vast armies will demolish everything in their path and dominate the game. Comintern countries should avoid PVP fights until day 6 or so, when they can start seeking to take over weakened Axis nations. However, the period of waiting will be well-rewarded and a skilled player can use a Comintern country to simply crush every other nation under its weight. There will definitely be danger during the first few days, but rapid production of infantry can avoid most of the risks.

### Pan-Asian Doctrine

Due to not being present in several CoW maps, the Pan-Asian doctrine is the least well-known doctrine. However, it is also very interesting, providing very unique bonuses unlike almost anything else in the game. To start things off, every unit gains an absolute +20% bonus to terrain-based damage increases. What this actually means is that if a unit gains a damage increase on specific terrain types, that increase is upped, absolutely, by 20%. (For non-mathematicians, an absolute increase is an additive one - the two bonuses are just added together). For instance, regular infantry gains a +20% damage bonus while in forests, whereas Pan-Asian infantry gains a +40% bonus. Pan-Asian units are also 20% faster and can see 30% further, making it possible to detect the units of other players without them being aware of your presence. On the downside, the health of all Pan-Asian units is reduced by 10%.

In practice, smart players should easily be able to make the terrain-specific damage buff outweigh the health debuff. For instance, Pan-Asian militia in urban terrain deals an extra 45% damage, granting a total of 3.6 defensive damage to unarmored targets at level 1 (compared to 3.1 damage for Allied units and also 3.6 for Axis troops). This will be considerably more significant than the 1 hp reduction to hit points. In addition, the extra speed makes it very easy for Pan-Asian players to retreat from fights that they do not want to take, and the bonus to view range makes identifying such fights easier. Unlike the other three doctrines, the strength of Pan-Asian armies remains relatively stable throughout the game, although they do tend to be strongest early-game and when attacking.

Due to its unique and skill-favouring buffs, the strategy for the Pan-Asian doctrine can be more versatile than for the others. However, similarly to Axis (both gain damage buffs and have no economy buffs) other nations tend to be weaker compared to them at the start of the game. Pan-Asian countries are strongest when on the offensive, as their bonus to speed makes them able to invade quite rapidly. Since speed and strength are the main advantages of Pan-Asian armies, they should aim to "kite" (dodge around enemies) as much as possible, in an effort to encircle enemy armies and attack provinces from the flanks. Engaging in direct combat should only be done on terrain which provides a buff to the units - ideally this buff should be as small as possible (for math reasons). Overall, the Pan-Asian doctrine can be a real joy to play, and experienced players will thrive using it.

## Specific Unit Buffs

Certain units in each doctrine also gain bonuses. These can range from extra health and extra damage (against specific armor classes or generally) to a boost to attack range (for aerial and ranged units) and a reduction to costs. These buffs determine which units nations of each doctrine should focus on producing (although of course it is important to have a well-rounded army as well as a powerful one).

I will sub-classify this section by armor class rather than by doctrine, partly for the sake of the contents box but mostly because I feel the analysis makes more sense that way.

### Unarmoured Units

Unarmoured units are units produced in barracks. They typically have relatively low health and are strongest against other unarmoured units. They are also generally inexpensive in terms of manpower, and mostly require food and goods to produce.

Axis unarmoured units are focused on offense. The only unit which gains bonuses is the Motorised Infantry, which is similar to regular infantry except it deals more damage when attacking than when defending. The speed and infantry damage bonus encourage rapid attacks whilst the availability acceleration makes it possible to produce them on day 1.

Comintern unarmoured units counter this very well. Focused on providing the vulnerable nation some protection during the early game, Militia gain an increase to terrain-based damage, especially in mountainous regions, whilst standard Infantry become faster to produce and cheaper to hold on to. This can help to repel early Axis invasions, and can effectively protect the country from infantry attacks unit around day 13 or 14 (after which time there are no more Militia upgrades).

Allied infantry are focused on the late-game. Paratroopers and Mechanised Infantry gain extra hp and become cheaper to produce, implying that they should form the main body of the infantry army. Commandos are faster, stronger and more accessible, and should be used for strike teams to take out large divisions of lightly armoured units or unarmored units.

The only buffed Pan-Asian unarmoured units is the regular Infantry, but those buffs are easily sufficient to make that unit the best infatry unit for Pan-Asian countries throughout the vast majority of the game. A further 30% increase to damage in forests means that level 1 Pan-Asian infantry can deal an incredible 7.7 defensive damage to infantry while in forests. They also have their health, decreased from the universal debuff, restored to 15 hp (at lvl 1). This implies that Pan-Asian countries should not heavily focus on acquiring advanced infantry and should use them mainly as a defensive resource.

### Ordnance

Ordnance units are produced in Ordnance Foundries. They typically have very low health but high damage against a specific type of unit. Artillery, the core early-game ranged unit, is also a member of this class.

Pan-Asian ordnance is focused on use as early as possible. For this reason, Artillery units gain a +15% damage bonus against infantry (which they normally struggle to deal with) and are also cheaper. No other Pan-Asian ordnance unit is buffed, and for this reason there is no reason for a Pan-Asian nation to have more than one Ordnance Foundry for most of the game.

Axis countries gain a buff to Anti-Air, causing it to deal extra damage to heavy armor and aircraft. Frankly, there isn't a lot to say about this, except that it supports the Axis policy of "only produce defensive units at the last minute, when absolutely necessary".

Allied Self-propelled Artillery has more health and deals extra damage - this suggests a more offensive approach to artillery, rather than keeping it behind the front lines. This tactic is hindered by the reduced speed of Allied units, making it a poor synergy, but in itself it is an effective plan, so it is worth bearing in mind nonetheless.

Comintern nations gain bonus damage to anti-tank units and reduced costs and production time for artillery. This encourages mass production of those units, especially artillery, early-game, which synergises very well with a defensive strategy as recommended for that doctrine.

SP anti-air is never buffed. Just another reason why it is completely useless.

### Tanks

Tanks are mid- to heavily-armored units that are produced in Tank Plants. They are generally strongest against other tanks, but due to their vast hit point stock they can also be effective when fighting infantry.

Both Comintern and Axis tanks are focused on the late-game, with heavy buffs to damage and hit points for Medium and Heavy Tanks. This can play into the Comintern strategy of waiting until the late-game to launch an attack, as well as slightly compensating for the struggles that Axis armies experience as the game progresses. It also provides a way for Axis armies to fight back against the rampaging day 12+ Commintern troops.

Pan-Asian Armored Cars and Light Tanks gain an increase to damage against unarmored and lightly armored targets. This very effectively synergises with the early offensive Pan-Asian strategy, but unlike the infantry buffs will definitely become obsolete later in the game. This makes it clear that Pan-Asian armies should not focus on producing the most advanced tanks possible, but should use what they possess as a shield. Armored Cars and Light Tanks also move **very** fast, and when combined with the Pan-Asian speed bonus, can move at incredible speed of 83 on plains. This supports a lightning-fast offensive playstyle.

The only buffed Allied tank is the Tank Destroyer - this implies that tanks should not be the main focus for those countries, and instead they should aim to wreak havoc on any enemy tanks. However, a strong army of Medium Tanks will inevitably be important late-game, so completely ignoring the tank tech tree is a mistake.

### Planes

Planes (interestingly enough) do not cover all aerial units - Rocket Fighters and Paratroopers are not technically planes. They are capable of flying a great distance in a short amount of time, but require Aircraft Factories or Airstrips to take off and land. They're main use is to carry out rapid attacks on enemy troops and buildings from a far distance.

Axis Attack Bombers gain a +15% boost to damage against infantry and heavy armor - this implies that they should form the main body of any bombing squadron. This can help Axis players to deal with powerful Commintern tanks in the late-game.

Commintern nations also gain buffs to the Attack Bomber, specifically extra health and faster production. These are more "neat and occasionally useful" than really powerful, but they can help flesh out an aerial divison - at a bare minimum they can function as a meat shield.

Allied Tactical Bombers and Strategic Bombers both gain a boost to attack range, as well as extra damage for Tactical Bombers. This suggests that Allied nations should keep aerial enemies at an arm's length, using the superior range of their bombers to destroy units and buildings.

Pan-Asian countries have stronger Interceptors and Naval Bombers. This suggests that their goal should be to take the fight out of the skies as much as they can. Pan-Asian nations are strongest on land and at sea, due to their powerful infantry, terrain-specific buffs (which don't apply to aerial or naval units) and lethal battleships.

### Ships

Ships are the only units that can effectively wage war at sea. Their main purpose is to destroy land armies, either when travelling by sea in convoy form, or by bombarding them from a coastline. They also need to be able to effectively counter enemy ships trying to do the same thing.

Axis nations have stronger and faster Submarines, allowing for more effective ambushes on large groups of naval vessels. However, Allied nations counter this with extra damage and speed for their Destroyers, making it difficult for Axis countries to effectively fight Allied ones at sea.

Commintern Cruisers have extra health. Again, this is better to have than not, but hardly a game-changer. However, to be fair, Crusiers have to wear the most hats of any one ship, fighting both against ships, planes and land units, so the extra hp is definitely welcome.

Pan-Asian countries have beautifully synergised ships. Their Battleships have "normal" (for another country) health and deal 10% more damage to all units, making them perfect for fighting enemy ships and bombarding coastlines. Furthermore, their Aircraft Carriers have superior carrying capacity, allowing them to carry more buffed Naval Bombers to fight in sea battles - this is also an effective way to counter submarine attacks.

### Special

Special, or secret, units are a strange collection of units that all generally fulfill a very specific function. Because they are developed from the old CoW 1.0, they have some weird discrepancies. For example, Artillery is an ordnance unit, but Rocket Artillery, which is effectively the same but with the greatest damage dealt to unarmored instead of heavily armored troops, is a special unit. In addition, the Rocket Fighter, which functions like a regular Interceptor but with much more damage and much less range, is considered a special unit, whilst practically all other aircraft are planes. As a rule, anything rocket-related is a special unit.

Axis Railroad Guns have buffs to attack range and speed, making them the longest-range artillery in the game. In addition, Rockets and Rocket Fighters deal extra damage - this is less to feed into strategies, and more to reflect the real-world heavy Axis use of rockets, especially the infamous V2. However, it does provide Axis armies with a way to counter Pan-Asian Interceptor domination. In addition, because Flying Bombs are accessible a day earlier for Axis nations, they can be produced on day 1, granting a way to easily hamper a country's economy during the opening stages of the game.

Allied countries have one major special unit advantage - Nuclear weapons are available two days earlier. This can have an enormous impact on the course of the late-game, as Nuclear Bombers and Rockets can decimate vast swaths of enemy armies. This almost guarantees a nation victory on a small map if they can survive long enough to produce these weapons. [Note: I do not endorse the use of nuclear weapons IRL. Please Russia, just give up on Ukraine.]

Commintern countries can produce Rocket Artillery earlier and faster, granting access to it on day 1. This allows Commintern nations to have more balanced artilleries early-game, since for other doctrines Rocket Artillery cannot be produced until day 2. SP Rocket Artillery is also stronger, faster and more easily accessible, making it a valuable offensive weapon for these countries. This can support a defensive strategy by firing from the back lines during combat.

Pan-Asian Flying Bombs are buffed. In all fairness, the buffs are enormous, with a 20% increase in damage and a 30% reduction to production time, but Flying Bombs become obsolete as soon as Rockets are available. This can play into a very offensive early-game, but is otherwise mostly useless.

## External Factors

As is true of all games, there will always necessarily be an element beyond the features of the game itself to take into account, whether it be the player base or psychology. Although these may not play as significant a role as more direct factors, they are nonetheless worth of consideration.

### Player demographics

Each doctrine appeals the most to a certain type of player. Aggressive players, as well as players new to the game, generally prefer the Axis doctrine, due to its fast-paced, offensive nature. Slower, more economic players (which are pretty rare) may prefer to play a Commintern nation, as a consequence of that doctrine's focus on gradually building up a large, deadly army and developing buildings and finance. More experienced players might favour the Pan-Asian doctrine, due to its high skill floor (a certain amount of ability is needed to play it effectively), especially attacking players looking for an alternative to Axis. Allied nations are the preference of players who fall somewhere inbetween a "rush" vs an economic strategy.

Most new players use the Axis doctrine, for a number of reasons. Partly it feels like the default, situated on the left-hand side of the doctrine list and with extremely simple mechanical buffs. It is also easy to play competently, and its early-game offensive style makes it less punishing to newer players, who tend to want to instigate as soon as possible. This is worth bearing in mind when fighting an Axis nation, as most will be fairly inexperienced players; however of course some Axis countries will be played by more skillfull and knowledgeable players.

Pan-Asian nations tend to be played either very well or very badly. This is due to their high skill floor (which is created as a result of the complex manoeuvring required to take full advantage of its buffs). Most Pan-Asian players will either be novices trying out a new doctrine, or advanced players looking for an alternative to Axis.

Commintern players don't tend to stay active for very long, because the doctrine is not very immediately rewarding to play early on. This means that most Commintern nations will be inactive, and thus AI-controlled and pretty easy to defeat, by day 6 or 7. However, the rare Commintern player who sticks it out for an entire game will be a massive threat by day 13 +, and so Allied, Axis and Pan-Asian nations should make efforts to take care of Commintern countries early on - it will be relatively easy compared to if they choose to wait.

I've personally noticed much less of a pattern with Allied players - some seem experienced, some new, and some are just playing a random doctrine. Generally Allied has a similar demographic to Pan-Asian, but to a lesser extent - some people play it very well, some play it very badly. Interestingly, the two doctrines are pretty opposite to each other - Pan-Asian units get a speed buff, Allied units get a speed debuff; Pan-Asian advocates minimal waiting, whilst Allied nations should choose carefully where to strike. Overall, all doctrines should be pretty effectively countered by another, but a certain level of skill is required for this to actually be the case.

### Psychology

In pretty much any game, people like to win. In a slow-paced online game, constantly demanding your time and attention, people have very little motivation to put in any effort if they are not succeeding. This is where the strategy of depressing your opponents into quitting comes into play. If you can convince your opponent that you are too much of a threat for them to have any chance of succeeding, *even if this is not the case*, you will have a good chance at causing them to stop playing or at the very least attempt to negotiate. This technique can allow you to take out opponents who are stronger than you with a few well-placed strikes, granting you an initial advantage.

How is this connected to doctrines? Because this strategy is more effective used by, and used against, certain doctrines - this also ties into demographics. For example, Axis players tend to be more on the side of having lower motivation, as they chose the doctrine that takes the least effort to play well - they also generally have more experience as attackers. This indicates that if you can halt or break through their rampaging armies, they may feel as if they have been defeated, even if they still have a good chance at victory. On the other hand, Commintern players tend to be more patient and able to bear onslaught, as they would have been expecting it, due to playing a defensive doctrine. The point is, you can use a player's chosen doctrine to gather small amounts of information about who they are, and what the most effective strategy to counter them would be.

## Conclusion

So, is there a "best" doctrine? What would such a question even mean? Let's start by defining what makes one doctrine better than another. Consistent outperformance is one point worth of note. If one doctrine, thoughout the entire game, leads to superior military power to another, then it should be considered better than it, from a purely competetive point of view. But there is another factor which is equally, if not much more, important, and that is enjoyment. If a player finds a doctrine dull, stressful or uncomfortable to play, then that doctrine is not a good choice for the player. So we could spend hours debating over which doctine gives you the best chance of winning (probably Allied or Axis), drawing up spreadsheets and poring over limited game data. But I think that it is more important that every player has fun - that is why we play games after all! Try branching out from time to time, but if you find a doctrine that is consistently exciting, strategic and all-round enjoyable to play, then stick with it. That is truly what the best doctrine is.

--Article by Qweifomapsvoiams, thanks to Inferno46 for help with links and correcting