Does doctrine matter in this series?

[Sir John Cope]

What a great question. In my opinion, military doctrine is usually a hypothesis about the best way to use a given set of assets in the next war. I think one the (many) inevitable differences between historical wargaming and war is that a game designer has at his disposal a hypothesis which has already been tested (that is, the "next war" has already been fought). In a sense, the question of doctrine is usually settled for the player by the designer's decisions, in everything from unit ratings to game-system functions. That being said, in some games (France 40 comes immediately to mind) I will usually consciously avoid adopting the historical doctrine - if I'm playing the Allied side, that is.

I might add to that by suggesting that doctrine can also be a reflection of (sometimes unfortunate) military or political realities that a nation faced. Commonwealth doctrine in Northwest Europe was largely shaped by Britain's manpower crisis. The slow tempo of operations, preference for concentration on a narrow front, and reliance on firepower served to minimize casualties and could be carried out by an army filled with replacements whose training was sometimes doubtful. While it might not have been the best approach in theory, it was the only approach that would enable Britain to win battles, keep up morale, and maintain a relevant land force on the European continent. Another note - I think it is fascinating how strikingly similar the British way of war in 1944-45 was to the early war French doctrine of "methodical battle." The essential are the same, thought British in '44 had a stronger appreciation for tactical air support and a broader accepted view on the role of tanks.  Both were derived from a manpower crisis and the need to maintain fighting strength and morale.

As for whether doctrine plays a role in PzC - I think it depends on the individual title. Unit morale, command range, supply levels, etc. all play a role into whether a player is encouraged to recreate historic doctrine, and, as Sir John Cope says above, there may be some instances where it would be in a player's interest not to emulate historic doctrine. I tend to think that if an OOB overemphasizes Quality A & B troops doctrine can become particularly irrelevant - you can kind of do whatever you want at that point.

-Mike P

Good points, Mike, thanks.  The only late-war game I own is Scheldt, but from what I've seen so far the game mechanics, unit ratings and so forth do restrain the British/Commonwealth forces from pursuing an all-out offensive, so to that extent the game is pretty faithfully enforcing the historical doctrinal reality.  I wonder if people with more experience of the late-war titles would agree?