NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's different types of warfare.....



Tactical Type:

Tactical Planning
Tactical Bombing on Military Targets
Coastal Bombardments on Tactical Targets
Special Operations behind enemy Lines.

----------------------------------------------
Strategic Type:

Huge Invasions
Millions of Men
Huge amount of Strategic Bombers
Trying to scare to enemy to submission

----------------------------------------------
"Third Reich" Type:

Blitzing
Huge Invasions
Thousands of tanks, airplanes and men
Terror bombing on civilians
Often Dictatorships

------------------------------------------------
Diplomatic Type:

Small Armies
Endless Negotiations
Small Offensives
Huge Defensives

------------------------------------------------
War to Teach a Lesson:

High tempo
Officially declared objectives from the beginning
Rapid, shallow invasion over long stretch of territory
Withdrawal of troops once objective is complete
Enemy government, infrastructure, civilians, military largely intact

------------------------------------------------
Terror Style:

Spread Around the world
Civilians
Guerilla Armies
Terrorist attacks
Often fighting a useless war against major powers(e.g Credonia ect)
-------------------------------------------

If you got more types of doctrines, please post em'

"Third Reich", defintatly. Although Skeelzanian forces aren't as mobile as theirs (perfering slow, powerful units), we do employ similar tactics. We consider civilians viable military targets and our "Sub-Human" doctrine concerning alien species does give us a xenocidal slant.

Diplomatic Type:

Small Armies
Endless Negotiations
Small Offensives
Huge Defensives

If that fails, I use this:

Tactical Type:

Tactical Planning
Tactical Bombing on Military Targets
Coastal Bombardments on Tactical Targets.

That's followed by this:

Strategic Type:

Huge Invasions
Millions of Men
Huge amount of Strategic Bombers
Trying to scare to enemy to submission

[OOC: I usually try negotiation first, then if that fails, I slap on a blockade. I then amass a large army and every fighter and bomber I can and prepare to launch an invasion. I bombard the coast and I send out a tactical bombing force to soften up the defenses of my enemy so I can launch the land forces. That's kind of a hodgepodge of strategies that you mentioned.]

tag

sephrioth use two
Tactical Type:

Tactical Planning
Tactical Bombing on Military Targets
Coastal Bombardments on Tactical Targets
Special Operations behind enemy Lines.

Strategic Type:

Huge Invasions
Millions of Men
Huge amount of Strategic Bombers

Trying to scare to enemy to submission we are better at the Strategic Type:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The AESF usually uses tactical type and diplomatic type when we get involved in conflicts.

bump

I use:

First; Strategic Type if that fails "Third Reich" Type

Diplomatic Type:

Small Armies
Endless Negotiations
Small Offensives
Huge Defensives

If that fails, I use this:

Tactical Type:

Tactical Planning
Tactical Bombing on Military Targets
Coastal Bombardments on Tactical Targets.

That's followed by this:

Strategic Type:

Huge Invasions
Millions of Men
Huge amount of Strategic Bombers
Trying to scare to enemy to submission

[OOC: I usually try negotiation first, then if that fails, I slap on a blockade. I then amass a large army and every fighter and bomber I can and prepare to launch an invasion. I bombard the coast and I send out a tactical bombing force to soften up the defenses of my enemy so I can launch the land forces. That's kind of a hodgepodge of strategies that you mentioned.]

Ditto here. Although I have never been in a international war, this is the guidelines I would follow.

Strategic Type:

Huge Invasions
Millions of Men
Huge amount of Strategic Bombers
Trying to scare to enemy to submission

"Third Reich" Type:

Blitzing
Huge Invasions
Thousands of tanks, airplanes and men
Terror bombing on civilians
Often Dictatorships

Its a combo of the two, thought Strategic more so than Reich.

Tactical Strategic Diplomacy

You secretly send in Special forces while you negotiate, rigging their major communication lines and supply lines for destruction. So that when the negotiations fail, you can cut their hearts out and bomb the crap outa them. Thus subduing the enemy and being in their capitol within weeks.

Don't forget "War to Teach a Lesson." ie, the Sino-Vietnam war.

War to Teach a Lesson

High tempo
Officially declared objectives from the beginning
Rapid, shallow invasion over long stretch of territory
Withdrawal of troops once objective is complete
Enemy government, infrastructure, civilians, military largely intact

Massive aerial campaigns by strategic bombers and cruise missiles, supported if need be by naval bombardment. Perhaps strategic type.

Tactical, first and last.

"Third Reich".

Third reich.

With the new base I'm building (I'm actually a yr+ old, but was ressurected), I'll be able to launch all of my forces within 30 minutes from that single base. Wicked awsome.

diplomatic mostly I'd say but if we ever attacked a nation after they first attacked us which we certainly would do it would be a strategic brand of war between us. For now unless attacked its all about diplomacy and defense

Strategic, Third Reich, and High Tempo.

Third Reich and PROUD!

Swedish Dominions,

The Commonwealth of Tarqys has no doctrine of warfare. You have a nearly comprehensive list of different types - a list that looks wonderfully professional. Perhaps you could include a 'None of the Above' option for the pacifists/isolationists? However, since this is a Swedish Dominions listing, a Tarqysian suggestion does not need to be heeded.


Carry on,

Admiral Leonard Sissala
Commander Tarqysian Guard
Commonwealth of Tarqys

OOC:

Generally a mixture of tactical, strategic, and war to teach a lesson.

With a smaller military than most 2003 nations, i focus on extremely well trained well equipped and well supported troops.


<Hypothetical War Plan (AKA "How to take a country in 30 days")>

Stage 1 (Days 1-7):

Massive aerial campaign to strike at coastal defences, airfields, and inland military bases. Along the lines of Operation Sea Lion, but with a higher success rate thanks to the wonders of technology.

Stage 2 (Days 8-14):

Continued aerial campaign against targets further and further inland, almost like a WW1 creeping barrage style attack. First naval advance elements arrive to deal with enemy naval forces, aiming to decimate threats to the invasion force.

Stage 3 (Day 15):

Under cover of aerial bombardment, mechanised forces land, rolling inland quickly, aiming to advance 50-100 miles a day whilst fighting. Focus on breaking enemy morale through speed and ferocity of attack. Small numbers of troops arrive to hold key strategic points after the mechanised troops have rolled through.

Stage 4 (Day 16):

Occupation forces of infantry arrive, taking over from mechanised forces and relieving the small numbers of holding troops. Mechanised forces continue advance, and more infantry become available to occupy. Air campaign still continues. Aid workers and propaganda experts try to win over the local population to prevent uprisings.

Stage 5 (Day 22):

Enemy offered chance to submit to (generally) fair peace treaty, normally involving decommision of WMDs, downsizing of military, and low-key occupation by McLeodian reservists.

Stage 6 (Days 23-29):

All troops bar small occupation / peace-keeping force withdraw to McLeod03.

The Cyberutopia Combined Armed Forces Doctrine is almost wholly the "Tactical" type. We have a very extensive history of our use of SpecOps missions (we use Agents and Psi Stalkers much more often than the regular military; they are much more flexible) and heavy bombardments (as was seen in the first war against Tordor). Rarely do we send in any standard "grunt" forces until the enemy's defenses have been bombed into dust.

OOC:
I generally employ a mix of War to Teach a Lesson and Tactical. Why? Because Diplomatic doesn't work, and I'm too small to employ Strategic or Theird Reich "Blitzkrieg". Besides, I'm not a dictatorship, and I hate to bomb the civilian population. I do, however, employ Blitzkrieg tactics in warfare because the doctrine of a mobile war accomplishes objectives quickly and efficiently with minimal logistical difficulties. Once I am large enough, I'll employ the same Blitzkrieg tactics to a Strategic approach. BWAHAHA!!! :twisted: (please excuse the n00b smiley)

We're a cross between blitzkreig and strategic. When we go to war, we go whole hog, usually with multiple army groups, thousands of aircraft and tanks, etc.

I would usually discuss it peacfully and trying to solve it out. If it doesn't work, I simply send a referendum, doesn't work, I put force and pressure on the enemy, if it doesn't work, i immediatly declare war and send in my ground forces. Then come airforce, and usually send off a naval blockade if the enmy is near the ocean. If the enemy practices napalm, mass genocide, I simply start to state out new goals and begin to insult the opponents (ICly). If the enemy is a pain in my butt, start terroizing their civilians or scaring them or lowering their moral until they give up.

OOC: Tactical friend. Very tactical. Sure I havn't been in a real war yet, but I'd use that strategy. I'd send in Special Forces, which I call the Rosktai, oh that's a sexy name. Anyway, if my tactical bombing don't work then I go to terrorism. Let's face it, I really have no qualms when it goes to war. Scary eh? So really. I'd say Tactical Terrorism. But when I grow up, I'm goin strategic. Man I'd like to go to a war. Only "war" I had was a godmoddin war. Ah if there were only instructions on how to go to war. For now, I just chuckle from my compy at your wars 8) Eh sorry if I sounded noobish.

Tactical Type:

Tactical Planning
Tactical Bombing on Military Targets
Coastal Bombardments on Tactical Targets
Special Operations behind enemy Lines.

Strategic Type:

Huge Invasions
Millions of Men
Huge amount of Strategic Bombers
Trying to scare to enemy to submission


I would certainly say I am a little bit of both....a little more tactical that strategic though.

I'm definately tactical.

Here's different types of warfare.....




Tactical Planning
Tactical Bombing on Military Targets
Coastal Bombardments on Tactical Targets
Special Operations behind enemy Lines.
Blitzing
Huge Invasions
Thousands of tanks, airplanes and men
Small Armies
A lot of Negotiations
Officially declared objectives from the beginning
Withdrawal of troops once objective is complete most of the time
Enemy government, infrastructure, civilians, military largely intact
Guerilla Armies

I call that the "Mut" War Doctrine.

I try to negotiate, then if that doesn't work I will send in special forces to try to organize some sort of organized resistance within their borders, then if that doesn't work I will send in tactical strikes to soften the defenses, then send in a somewhat large invasion force, and use the same strategy the allies did during the push toward Berlin after D-Day, which is to keep moving and take out the brunt of the enemy forces and leave the lighter resistance for the "clean up crews." Then if all that works, I will leave, leaving as much as I see fit intact.

However this is just if everything happens perfectly my way, and of course different conflict means different strategies. So really the perfect wartime strategy would be to be "Flexible."

The Reich all the way!

Kind of a hodge-podge of different doctrines, really. The effort and duration of diplomacy, as well as the conduct of the war, depends upon who the would-be opponant is. For this I'll assume the worst-case scenario. I'd say it's a combo between "teach a lesson," "tactical," and "terror," Civilians will be directly targeted, as they make the enemy war effort possible. Operations will only continue for as long as necessary to achieve a goal, however, that goal usually being to get the enemy nation to back down. Troops will often simply destory/massecre cities instead of trying to hold them.

BUMP Doctrines is appriciated

Third Reich sounds the best

Here's different types of warfare.....



Tactical Type:

Tactical Planning
Tactical Bombing on Military Targets
Coastal Bombardments on Tactical Targets
Special Operations behind enemy Lines.

----------------------------------------------
Strategic Type:

Huge Invasions
Millions of Men
Huge amount of Strategic Bombers
Trying to scare to enemy to submission

----------------------------------------------
"Third Reich" Type:

Blitzing
Huge Invasions
Thousands of tanks, airplanes and men
Terror bombing on civilians
Often Dictatorships

------------------------------------------------
Diplomatic Type:

Small Armies
Endless Negotiations
Small Offensives
Huge Defensives

------------------------------------------------
War to Teach a Lesson:

High tempo
Officially declared objectives from the beginning
Rapid, shallow invasion over long stretch of territory
Withdrawal of troops once objective is complete
Enemy government, infrastructure, civilians, military largely intact

------------------------------------------------
Terror Style:

Spread Around the world
Civilians
Guerilla Armies
Terrorist attacks
Often fighting a useless war against major powers(e.g Credonia ect)
-------------------------------------------

If you got more types of doctrines, please post em'

The ARSCF (Armed Republic of Sino Combined Forces) have doctrines based on those of the U.S. and the Chinese PLA. But when it comes to war, Tactical, Strategic and "Third Reich" types are mainly employed. Diplomatic, Guerilla/Spec-ops or "War to teach a lesson" may be employed against enemies of the same race as Sino.

Hmmm...I haven't been in any normal wars...(Masses of soldiers spread out throughout territory captured by the enemy and trying to get out is the only ground war I can remember. (I was helping defend someone, but he forgot about my forces, so we decided they went into hiding for some reason instead of defending.))...But here's what I think, based not on what my military theoretically would do, but what I actually do do/talk about.
Coastal Bombardments on Tactical Targets
Trying to scare to enemy to submission
Small Armies
Huge Defensives
High tempo
Officially declared objectives from the beginning
Withdrawal of troops once objective is complete
Enemy infrastructure, civilians largely intact
Civilians (in defense)
Guerilla Armies

I preffer mediavel tactic. Frontal battle on the ground. A few aircrafts and tanks to give support. Fight to honour is achieved and then....

Never gone so far actually since all the wars just end when everybody stop posting. Only been in two wars who has ended. One I lost and one I just gave support.

Tadjikistan has no typical war doctrine but it must be said that officers of the Tadjik army received training in the "School of offensive operations" which means they will choose for offense rather than defense and manuevre rather than atrittion (so you can rule out Strategic).

Each commanding officer gets an amount of troops to his disposal and can use them as he wishes, as long as he is succesful.

So i can only tell you what type of officers i have:
1. Tank leader; prefers the combined use of aircraft and tanks, force concentration doctrine(Schwerpunkt) and Armoured breakthrough(Blitzkrieg), by taking all strategic points, the enemy will lose the will(or reason) to continue their war.

2. Offensive leader: these are more conservative officers who will try to defeat the opponents army rather than trying to take the enemies strategic points, they prefer the combined use of infantry and armor, supported by aircraft.

3. Engineer/Commando; these are never given the command of large forces as they are not trained for it, they use small specialized armies, and will try to defeat their opponent with a minimum of support. These officers have to be creative and detailist.

There are still some conservative officers around, but they rarely get the opportunity to lead an army, as their idea's are not supported by supreme command.

I've only been in one war and it was mostly won by a tankleading officer (General Mirzoyev), and i won it. The use of different types of officers allows me to change my straegy whenever i like.

The GAoS (Grand Army of Soltekistaan) Are a tactical first, then strategic second. The Elite "Spetsnaz" Unit are a highly advanced ( Using latest NanoImplants to be harder, stronger and better than any other elite units around the globe) If they cant get the job done, though they more often than not decimate, Then we switch to Strategy, involving conscription of men 18-40 but only if physically fit. The "Spetsnaz" Unit has a small FST (First Strike Team) called Alpha. They are the Elite of the Elite. They go on the most dangerous missions, but can be kept alive mentally until a Dispatch Unit can download their brain.

Aequatian Armed Forces Air-Land Battle Doctrine

The Air-Land Battle Doctrine was founded and its success or failure depends on four key principles: Depth, Agility, Initiative and Synchronization.

Depth - Achieved via accurate and timely intelligence collection and dissemination to combat forces which, in turn, could interdict enemy reserves and second and third echelon troops before they could reach the front. In a perfect world, these interdiction operations would also strip first-echelon enemy formation of the logistics and combat service support they need to maintain the tempo of offensive operations.

Agility - Individual unit commanders must not only be able to react more quickly than their counterparts on the other side, but also do so in a coherent fashion that fits the tactical situation. All of the contingency plans, (Battle Drills, Formation Drills and Action on Contact), evolved from the principle of agility. Further, the fact that the Aequatian Armed Forces have developed and trained with these tactical drills and systems to the point that they have become almost reflexive supports the third principle of the ALBD.

Initiative - At the lowest possible level of command, this has remained the greatest difference between the Aequatian personnel and his/her counterparts abroad. Since many enemy state's soldiers take almost no intiative without guidance from fairly high up the chain of command, it was believed that designing the ALBD to exploit this weakness would provide a major advantage to Aequatian forces in combat.

In its context, intiative also meant "offensive spirit, boldness, audacity and the prospensity to take risks in the heat of battle." There weren't many risk takers on the other side, so why not foster a little "he who does not risk will not win" mentality among Aequatian troops? The tactical philosophy of intiative was to gain contact with the enemy and relentlessly maintain that contact.

The idea was to never allow him the opportunity to regroup and regain a clear picture of the battlefield. This not only allows small, determined forces to appear stronger than they really are, but it also has tremendously negative psychological affect on the enemy who is pounded day and night.

Synchronization - Evolution of the combined-arms concept. When most people think of combined arms, they don't go beyond the common and very basic understanding of it. Artillery and air bombardment softens up the battlefield prior to a ground assault with armour and infantry. Synchronization is a muh more sophisticated concept than that, involving all of the combat and non-combat force multipliers at a commander's disposal.

Non-combat force multipliers unclude electronic warfare, psychological operations, combat engineering, operational deception and the element of surprise, among others. Each of these multipliers has its proper place in the sequence of engagement, from the planning phase through movement, combat and consolidation after the mission is over. All of the combat arms and support services have their individual roles to fill in the sequence of engagement, and these differ from one type of unit to the next.

Synchronization is the commander's ability to blend all these diverse elements into a cohesive whole, such that they support the battle plan in the proper time and sequence to achieve a decisive affect. Perhaps the best analogy is to think of the battlefield commander as an orchesta leader, building woodwinds, brass, string and percussion sections to a rousing crescendo that the audience cannot resist. All of these individual assets are used to maximum effect when synchronization is achieved, and therefore, friendly casualties are minimized and economy of force is achieved.

Today's Air-Land Battle Doctrine

The Aequatian Armed Forces Air-Land Battle Doctrine stresses units in becoming "proactive," (rather than reactive), as soon as the opportunity permits. Do not allow the enemy to dictate the tempo of operatons. Uses concepts of depth, agility, intiative and synchronization to break up the first waves of an enemy attack, then move from a defensive to an offensive posture. Use of air strikes, artillery, special operations units, cruise missiles and other non-combat force multipliers to confuse, delay and even break up succeeding waves of enemy troops moving into the theatre of operations. While this state of disorganization exists, exploit it with the synchronized application of joint firepower assets. These include rotary and fixed-wing attack aircraft, MLRS, naval gunfire and artillery (indirect fire) and optimal employment of fast, mechanized forces to achieve decisive effect on the ground to seize and hold territory which supports the objective of the operation.


http://home.graffiti.net/bomfy:graffiti.net/General-in-Chief.jpg
Chief General Jason Taylor
Federal Republic of Aequatio

Third Reich all the way!!! :twisted:

Dyelli Beybi is definantely Third Reich style.

Of course we have our own variation, it tends to include blatantly pretending there isn't a war, despite all evidence to the contrary, and heaps and heaps of somewhat dubious evidence that the enemy we are attacking are serial child molesters with a taste for human flesh.

We try to avoid war with diplomacy, but if it comes, it is war to teach a lesson, with the spec ops aspects of tactical.

OOC:

Generally a mixture of tactical, strategic, and war to teach a lesson.

With a smaller military than most 2003 nations, i focus on extremely well trained well equipped and well supported troops.


<Hypothetical War Plan (AKA "How to take a country in 30 days")>

Stage 1 (Days 1-7):

Massive aerial campaign to strike at coastal defences, airfields, and inland military bases. Along the lines of Operation Sea Lion, but with a higher success rate thanks to the wonders of technology.

Stage 2 (Days 8-14):

Continued aerial campaign against targets further and further inland, almost like a WW1 creeping barrage style attack. First naval advance elements arrive to deal with enemy naval forces, aiming to decimate threats to the invasion force.

Stage 3 (Day 15):

Under cover of aerial bombardment, mechanised forces land, rolling inland quickly, aiming to advance 50-100 miles a day whilst fighting. Focus on breaking enemy morale through speed and ferocity of attack. Small numbers of troops arrive to hold key strategic points after the mechanised troops have rolled through.

Stage 4 (Day 16):

Occupation forces of infantry arrive, taking over from mechanised forces and relieving the small numbers of holding troops. Mechanised forces continue advance, and more infantry become available to occupy. Air campaign still continues. Aid workers and propaganda experts try to win over the local population to prevent uprisings.

Stage 5 (Day 22):

Enemy offered chance to submit to (generally) fair peace treaty, normally involving decommision of WMDs, downsizing of military, and low-key occupation by McLeodian reservists.

Stage 6 (Days 23-29):

All troops bar small occupation / peace-keeping force withdraw to McLeod03.

Only works well in theory if the enemy is much weaker. But tin that case, if they are Sino's enemies then they will be dealt with by the "Third Reich" method.

100% third reich, if someone makes me mad they isnt gonna like it!

Here's different types of warfare.....



Tactical Type:

Tactical Planning
Tactical Bombing on Military Targets
Coastal Bombardments on Tactical Targets
Special Operations behind enemy Lines.

----------------------------------------------
Will come back to this type later
Strategic Type:

Huge Invasions
Millions of Men
Huge amount of Strategic Bombers
Trying to scare to enemy to submission

----------------------------------------------
This is often called the "war of atrittion" or in other world "the strongest survives. An example would be World war I, the "player" with the biggest industry and manpower will eventually win.

"Third Reich" Type:

Blitzing
Huge Invasions
Thousands of tanks, airplanes and men
Terror bombing on civilians
Often Dictatorships

------------------------------------------------

"The Third Reich" type is simply called "blitzkrieg", it does not mean you use thousands of tanks and men, the most famous user today of the Blitzkrieg is Israel and its army has never exceeded the total of 600.000.
In Blitzkrieg you use Tactical bombers to deny you opponent the initiative, by taking out his planes and tanks, next your armored force breaks through the enemies lines* followed by motorized/mecanized troops, the tanks keep moving untill they have taken all strategicly important points, the enemies armie is not only encircled, but has no moire reason to fight as their country is already occupied.

*= Offcourse these tanks seek "the line of least resistance" (Schwerpunkt) you will sometimes have to move away from that spot and seek a new one(principle of unlimited objectives), they clear as they work along(protecting their flanks), and disrupt enemies comm lines in the rear areas (Aufrollern), these two together are called the "tactics of space and gap". Unlike the World war I style tactics these tactics were employed by small units over wide area's (no huge invasions) and therefore it is important to have units that are capable of fighting idependently, make tactical dicisions on their own(Auftragstaktik), It means doing without question or doubt what the situation requires. Mission tactics are the responsability of every officer, soldier and NCO. Blitzkrieg style attacks require air superiority(or supremacy), without that superiority the whole concept becomes impossible. Tactical and Blitzkrieg style offensive are the same

Diplomatic Type:

Small Armies
Endless Negotiations
Small Offensives
Huge Defensives

------------------------------------------------
In Vietnam the US learned that the deployment of large numbers of troops (war of attrition) did not always result in succes. therefore they came up with the Limited war theory, an improvement on the AirLand battle. although the US army tried to make the Gulf war a Limit"ed war, it ended up as a war of atrittion in the air and a manuevre war on the ground.
The best exampe of the Limited war is probably given in the Yom Kippur war, the Isreali's were completely outnumbered by syrians and Egyptians(more then 2000 tanks in the sinai alone) and won with their limited forces who had to fight on two fronts. I must say that the limited war theory does not guarantee succes, as Israel lost 830 tanks. It only works if you are superior in tactics or technology.


War to Teach a Lesson:

High tempo
Officially declared objectives from the beginning
Rapid, shallow invasion over long stretch of territory
Withdrawal of troops once objective is complete
Enemy government, infrastructure, civilians, military largely intact

------------------------------------------------

This is probably a combination of the Limited war theory and the Blitzkrieg, give me an example of it if you can (maybe Grenada? Dont know that one too well)

Terror Style:

Spread Around the world
Civilians
Guerilla Armies
Terrorist attacks
Often fighting a useless war against major powers(e.g Credonia ect)
-------------------------------------------
[/b]
There is nothing to say about the way to fight as a guerilla, Its quite safe but in NS has little effect as the targeted nation decides about the reaction of its population and gov't. There are tactics to take out a gueralla army, i would only resort to guarilla if i had no other option.


If you got more types of doctrines, please post em'

Vollmerian officers are trained in Blitzkrieg style warfare.

Credonia has always maintained a strategic doctrine, even since the nations infancy

Here's different types of warfare.....



Tactical Type:

Tactical Planning
Tactical Bombing on Military Targets
Coastal Bombardments on Tactical Targets
Special Operations behind enemy Lines.

----------------------------------------------
Strategic Type:

Huge Invasions
Millions of Men
Huge amount of Strategic Bombers
Trying to scare to enemy to submission

----------------------------------------------
"Third Reich" Type:

Blitzing
Huge Invasions
Thousands of tanks, airplanes and men
Terror bombing on civilians
Often Dictatorships

------------------------------------------------
Diplomatic Type:

Small Armies
Endless Negotiations
Small Offensives
Huge Defensives

------------------------------------------------
War to Teach a Lesson:

High tempo
Officially declared objectives from the beginning
Rapid, shallow invasion over long stretch of territory
Withdrawal of troops once objective is complete
Enemy government, infrastructure, civilians, military largely intact

------------------------------------------------
Terror Style:

Spread Around the world
Civilians
Guerilla Armies
Terrorist attacks
Often fighting a useless war against major powers(e.g Credonia ect)
-------------------------------------------

If you got more types of doctrines, please post em'

Quiet type

Works best in Alliances
Kinda small armies(deep reserves)
Diplomacy
Intelligence Gathering
Secretive Communication
Minimum Blood (Precise attacks against specific enemy assets)
Mind Games/secretive moves.

Bump

Tactical Type

depends on the fight, i mainly use Tactics, and Powerful weapons oh and Civys there Targets no matter the problem

Phyrric war college, a brief synopsis:

Tactical Planning
Limited Negotiations
Alliance Planning
Limited Negotiations
Huge Invasion
Multiple Battles and Engagements
Naval/Air Superiority
Tactical Planning
Flanking
Second Penetration/Utilization of Reinforcements
Submission of Enemy
Peace Negotiations/Terms of Surrender

If it gets to "Terms of Surrender" with Phyrric, Phyrric owns you.