[Those muzzle covers were common when advancing in desert/dusty terrain.]
Stacking
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: Stacking
I just now within the last 15 minutes found some actual Kursk photos. 4 of them. Here they are.
[Those muzzle covers were common when advancing in desert/dusty terrain.]
[Those muzzle covers were common when advancing in desert/dusty terrain.]
- Attachments
-
- kursk_66.jpg (181.4 KiB) Viewed 328 times
RE: Stacking
Kursk #2
[Those look like ammo canisters behind the Hummels.]
[Those look like ammo canisters behind the Hummels.]
- Attachments
-
- kursk_92.jpg (179.2 KiB) Viewed 328 times
RE: Stacking
Kursk #4
[Those Katyushas are actually firing. You can tell they are firing because the area behind them is totally smoked out and you can't see anything.]
[Those Katyushas are actually firing. You can tell they are firing because the area behind them is totally smoked out and you can't see anything.]
- Attachments
-
- kursk_301.jpg (32.86 KiB) Viewed 328 times
RE: Stacking
I suppose one could just test the limits of unit crowding until the game crashes.
Honestly, though, I've seen reduced AI units huddle up to each other until they're packed like sardines. All the more easy for me to blow them to bits with some well-placed HE. Is it war, or is it murder?
Honestly, though, I've seen reduced AI units huddle up to each other until they're packed like sardines. All the more easy for me to blow them to bits with some well-placed HE. Is it war, or is it murder?
RE: Stacking
I think that stacking only really matters when a player is attacking. When a player is defending, his forces are usually so spread out that stacking is not an issue.
I also think that stacking rules were not seriously considered for SPWAW because it was felt that such rules would be more trouble than they would be worth. Just another layer of complexity to an already complex game that would not add much (if anything) to the enjoyment of the game.
I also think that stacking rules only have a place (if any place at all) in single-player vs. computer games. Human vs. human games don't need stacking rules because anybody who consistently "abuses" by piling masses of units into single hexes will inevitably pay a price for that.
All that said, though, here is the only idea I currently have regarding stacking in single-player vs. computer games:
Idea #1. The player has some sort of rear-area and some sort of combat-zone. In the rear area, players can stack pretty much as they see fit (this is mainly to keep things as simple as possible). In the combat zone, however, some sort of tactical stacking (yet to be determined) would apply. I'm thinking that the dividing line between rear-area and combat-zone be based on enemy proximity.
Here is a quick and dirty: Any hex beyond your "blue line" deployment line, or any hex that is within 10 hexes of a known enemy, is in the combat zone and would use tactical stacking. I don't know what tactical stacking is yet, but defining a combat zone seems pretty easy and simple to follow.
Does this sound reasonable?
I also think that stacking rules were not seriously considered for SPWAW because it was felt that such rules would be more trouble than they would be worth. Just another layer of complexity to an already complex game that would not add much (if anything) to the enjoyment of the game.
I also think that stacking rules only have a place (if any place at all) in single-player vs. computer games. Human vs. human games don't need stacking rules because anybody who consistently "abuses" by piling masses of units into single hexes will inevitably pay a price for that.
All that said, though, here is the only idea I currently have regarding stacking in single-player vs. computer games:
Idea #1. The player has some sort of rear-area and some sort of combat-zone. In the rear area, players can stack pretty much as they see fit (this is mainly to keep things as simple as possible). In the combat zone, however, some sort of tactical stacking (yet to be determined) would apply. I'm thinking that the dividing line between rear-area and combat-zone be based on enemy proximity.
Here is a quick and dirty: Any hex beyond your "blue line" deployment line, or any hex that is within 10 hexes of a known enemy, is in the combat zone and would use tactical stacking. I don't know what tactical stacking is yet, but defining a combat zone seems pretty easy and simple to follow.
Does this sound reasonable?
RE: Stacking
ORIGINAL: vahauser
I think that stacking only really matters when a player is attacking. When a player is defending, his forces are usually so spread out that stacking is not an issue.
I also think that stacking rules were not seriously considered for SPWAW because it was felt that such rules would be more trouble than they would be worth. Just another layer of complexity to an already complex game that would not add much (if anything) to the enjoyment of the game.
I also think that stacking rules only have a place (if any place at all) in single-player vs. computer games. Human vs. human games don't need stacking rules because anybody who consistently "abuses" by piling masses of units into single hexes will inevitably pay a price for that.
All that said, though, here is the only idea I currently have regarding stacking in single-player vs. computer games:
Idea #1. The player has some sort of rear-area and some sort of combat-zone. In the rear area, players can stack pretty much as they see fit (this is mainly to keep things as simple as possible). In the combat zone, however, some sort of tactical stacking (yet to be determined) would apply. I'm thinking that the dividing line between rear-area and combat-zone be based on enemy proximity.
Here is a quick and dirty: Any hex beyond your "blue line" deployment line, or any hex that is within 10 hexes of a known enemy, is in the combat zone and would use tactical stacking. I don't know what tactical stacking is yet, but defining a combat zone seems pretty easy and simple to follow.
Does this sound reasonable?
I think the conclusion you have reached is just the way most people play naturally because it makes common sense. In the rear areas i will stack units together, mindful of the possibility of enemy arty or air strikes, i.e i wont put a whole company of infantry in soft topped trucks in one hex cos that just seems dumb to me. Nearer the combat area i will spread the troops out to avoid taking to much damage from enemy fire. I dont really see the need for a hard proven rule for this type of play.
"If you are going through hell, keep going" - Winston Churchill
The Rose and Crown, a forum for British Gentlemen
The Rose and Crown, a forum for British GentlemenRE: Stacking
Victor, with all due respect, I really don't believe that a hard and fast set of stacking rules is really necessary. There are a myriad of situations that affect tactical deployments. I don't religiously set "rules" to win a battle. Every situation is different.
Now, yeah, I have a set of general guidelines that I try to follow, and these are general precepts in the principles of war.
At the risk of "pigeon-holing" you, and I don't wanna come off as critical, you seem to be obsessed with the Clausewitzian principle of concentrating forces at the decisive point. At the same time, you are ignoring the concept of flank protection. A clever human opponent could lure you into a classic Cannae , drawing your mass into a trap, brushing aside your thin flanking screen, and cutting you off.
Something doesn't add up here. You do your in-depth research, but still insist on compact masses. No feints, no manuevering, no alternative schwerpunkten. What am I missing?
Now, yeah, I have a set of general guidelines that I try to follow, and these are general precepts in the principles of war.
At the risk of "pigeon-holing" you, and I don't wanna come off as critical, you seem to be obsessed with the Clausewitzian principle of concentrating forces at the decisive point. At the same time, you are ignoring the concept of flank protection. A clever human opponent could lure you into a classic Cannae , drawing your mass into a trap, brushing aside your thin flanking screen, and cutting you off.
Something doesn't add up here. You do your in-depth research, but still insist on compact masses. No feints, no manuevering, no alternative schwerpunkten. What am I missing?
RE: Stacking
Glenn,
Those are excellent questions.
I actually don't play PBEM anything like I play single-player vs. computer. What you see me doing in my DARs is not what I do in PBEM.
Anyway, my insistence on historical 400-500 yard attack frontages in my single-player DAR games is due to several factors:
Factor1) The FlashFyre/Cataclysm format is extremely challenging and difficult. The computer in the FlashFyre/Cataclysm format is going to be nearly impossible to defeat unless historical attack frontages and tactics ("armored fist") are carefully applied. Thus, only by using historical tactics and doctrines are a player's chances against the computer decent.
Factor2) I play using C&C ON (which is actually required by FlashFyre/Cataclysm). I cannot stress enough how big a difference in game play this makes. Once again, applying historical attack frontages and tactics gives the player his best chance against the computer under these conditions.
Factor3) The map sizes are not historical given the force densities involved in FlashFyre/Cataclysm campaign battles. The island of Peleliu (about a Medium SPWAW map in size) historically had the equivalent of about 3500-4000 SPWAW units engaged on a map that size. The island of Iwo Jima (about a Large SPWAW map in size) historically had the equivalent of about 7000-8000 SPWAW units engaged on a map that size. I refuse to disperse my puny battalion-sized attack force and attack all over a map that should historically be attacked by 1, 2, or even 3 divisions (depending on map size). Not only is that un-historical, it is suicide given the conditions of FlashFyre/Cataclysm.
So I have made a rationalization. And the rationalization I have made is that I pretend that my battalion-sized battlegroup is actually only a part of a much larger invisible force (say 1 or more divisions, consisting of thousands of invisible units, depending on map size). And my battlegroup is the spearhead attack group ordered to pierce the enemy line. The large invisible force (and all of those thousands of invisible units) is holding all that empty ground where my battlegroup is not attacking (and thus "guarding" my flanks), and is waiting for the success or failure of my battlegroup. If my battlegroup succeeds, then the large invisible force that was waiting and holding their positions will exploit my success. If my battlegroup fails, then the invisible force either continues to hold or is forced to withdraw (depending on my DAR storyline). Either way, I will not adopt un-historical attack tactics just because the maps are too large for the forces that an SPWAW campaign battle generates.
Bottom Line: Flashfyre/Cataclysm is simply too difficult to use anything except historical attack frontages and tactics, especially with C&C ON.
So there you have it.
--V
P.S. I am only talking about attack. I am not talking about defense. Defense is completely different and it is indeed historical to require my puny battalion to defend wide frontages. But all of the above only applies to attack, not defense.
Those are excellent questions.
I actually don't play PBEM anything like I play single-player vs. computer. What you see me doing in my DARs is not what I do in PBEM.
Anyway, my insistence on historical 400-500 yard attack frontages in my single-player DAR games is due to several factors:
Factor1) The FlashFyre/Cataclysm format is extremely challenging and difficult. The computer in the FlashFyre/Cataclysm format is going to be nearly impossible to defeat unless historical attack frontages and tactics ("armored fist") are carefully applied. Thus, only by using historical tactics and doctrines are a player's chances against the computer decent.
Factor2) I play using C&C ON (which is actually required by FlashFyre/Cataclysm). I cannot stress enough how big a difference in game play this makes. Once again, applying historical attack frontages and tactics gives the player his best chance against the computer under these conditions.
Factor3) The map sizes are not historical given the force densities involved in FlashFyre/Cataclysm campaign battles. The island of Peleliu (about a Medium SPWAW map in size) historically had the equivalent of about 3500-4000 SPWAW units engaged on a map that size. The island of Iwo Jima (about a Large SPWAW map in size) historically had the equivalent of about 7000-8000 SPWAW units engaged on a map that size. I refuse to disperse my puny battalion-sized attack force and attack all over a map that should historically be attacked by 1, 2, or even 3 divisions (depending on map size). Not only is that un-historical, it is suicide given the conditions of FlashFyre/Cataclysm.
So I have made a rationalization. And the rationalization I have made is that I pretend that my battalion-sized battlegroup is actually only a part of a much larger invisible force (say 1 or more divisions, consisting of thousands of invisible units, depending on map size). And my battlegroup is the spearhead attack group ordered to pierce the enemy line. The large invisible force (and all of those thousands of invisible units) is holding all that empty ground where my battlegroup is not attacking (and thus "guarding" my flanks), and is waiting for the success or failure of my battlegroup. If my battlegroup succeeds, then the large invisible force that was waiting and holding their positions will exploit my success. If my battlegroup fails, then the invisible force either continues to hold or is forced to withdraw (depending on my DAR storyline). Either way, I will not adopt un-historical attack tactics just because the maps are too large for the forces that an SPWAW campaign battle generates.
Bottom Line: Flashfyre/Cataclysm is simply too difficult to use anything except historical attack frontages and tactics, especially with C&C ON.
So there you have it.
--V
P.S. I am only talking about attack. I am not talking about defense. Defense is completely different and it is indeed historical to require my puny battalion to defend wide frontages. But all of the above only applies to attack, not defense.
RE: Stacking
Why would u give two crapps and a Fuggen gawd dang about how hard it is to use "anything but historical frontage distances" with an attack that u've tied the wrists of before it even gets going??? you refuse to use incursion,para, or partisan troops,and u have played every example so far with RARITY OFF,thereby giving yourself the maximum punch for the dollar value regardless of whether or not the said units in question were actually available in the concentrations you stack them too!!??
What kind of clown goes and sets his personal game rules like,,,I'm not using any airstrikes,mines,obsticles wire,,,and then over uses things like smoke screening,,, unloading transport crews so their vehicle won't get shot out from under them, and his own agenda for battle conditions like a massed charge in a delay/defend where he should be pulling back and withdrawing units for exit points??
BOTTOM LINE actually is that VA can't give a complete egsample of anymore than a couple of battles where he's been lucky enough to utilize various exploites rather than real combined arms tactics to overwhelm inferior enemies. NOW really VA I'm almost finished my campaign with flashes settings and your still haggaling on the what if's and HOW your gonna show us,,, and yet haven't even gone threw the first year of battles.
STOP jawing about this and get playing already!!
What kind of clown goes and sets his personal game rules like,,,I'm not using any airstrikes,mines,obsticles wire,,,and then over uses things like smoke screening,,, unloading transport crews so their vehicle won't get shot out from under them, and his own agenda for battle conditions like a massed charge in a delay/defend where he should be pulling back and withdrawing units for exit points??
BOTTOM LINE actually is that VA can't give a complete egsample of anymore than a couple of battles where he's been lucky enough to utilize various exploites rather than real combined arms tactics to overwhelm inferior enemies. NOW really VA I'm almost finished my campaign with flashes settings and your still haggaling on the what if's and HOW your gonna show us,,, and yet haven't even gone threw the first year of battles.
STOP jawing about this and get playing already!!
RE: Stacking
And yes ALBY you can flair your eyebrows to me cause you've even got more posted campaign action than VA {I still get a chuckle from long road to victory} you and your 17lder achilles!!
RE: Stacking
hehehehe, sorry I could not finish that one as Enhanced DV work superceded, someoday I will start all over.
(PS the 17Lbers were in "NORMANDY GOLD")
I am checking out the new "3rd Reich Campaign".
Looks interesting as hell!!!
(PS the 17Lbers were in "NORMANDY GOLD")
I am checking out the new "3rd Reich Campaign".
Looks interesting as hell!!!
RE: Stacking
and how interesting IS hell!!??
RE: Stacking
Riun T,
I consider it unfair against the computer for me to use on-board artillery except mortars.
I consider it unfair against the computer for me to use airstrikes and air units.
I consider it unfair against the computer for me to use airborne drops.
I consider it unfair against the computer for me to use special operations infiltration.
I consider it unfair against the computer for me to use barbed-wire, mines, and dragons teeth.
A player can still follow historical tactics and doctrines without using any of those things, so I don't use any of those things.
I don't use Rarity ON, because I play with a condition that I cannot upgrade any unit in a formation unless ALL units in the formation upgrade to the same thing at the same time. Rarity ON would mean that I couldn't follow my own upgrade condition.
I talk more than play on this forum for two reasons:
1) Playing is stressful for me these days. I can only play for an hour or two at a time (one turn or so) and then I get mentally and physically drained. Playing is more like hard work than enjoyment for me these days.
2) This forum is a place for learning and exchanging ideas. Most people couldn't care less about my DARs in the DAR forum, but they do read the general forum posts in this forum. It is also less stressful and draining for me to type than it is for me to play.
Perhaps when my liver is healed (well, as healed as it is going to get) and I am in better health, then I will be able to play more intensely and more regularly and more enjoyably. But for now, and for the foreseeable future (probably the next two years at least), I can share what I know by typing in this forum less stressfully than playing demonstration games.
--V
I consider it unfair against the computer for me to use on-board artillery except mortars.
I consider it unfair against the computer for me to use airstrikes and air units.
I consider it unfair against the computer for me to use airborne drops.
I consider it unfair against the computer for me to use special operations infiltration.
I consider it unfair against the computer for me to use barbed-wire, mines, and dragons teeth.
A player can still follow historical tactics and doctrines without using any of those things, so I don't use any of those things.
I don't use Rarity ON, because I play with a condition that I cannot upgrade any unit in a formation unless ALL units in the formation upgrade to the same thing at the same time. Rarity ON would mean that I couldn't follow my own upgrade condition.
I talk more than play on this forum for two reasons:
1) Playing is stressful for me these days. I can only play for an hour or two at a time (one turn or so) and then I get mentally and physically drained. Playing is more like hard work than enjoyment for me these days.
2) This forum is a place for learning and exchanging ideas. Most people couldn't care less about my DARs in the DAR forum, but they do read the general forum posts in this forum. It is also less stressful and draining for me to type than it is for me to play.
Perhaps when my liver is healed (well, as healed as it is going to get) and I am in better health, then I will be able to play more intensely and more regularly and more enjoyably. But for now, and for the foreseeable future (probably the next two years at least), I can share what I know by typing in this forum less stressfully than playing demonstration games.
--V
RE: Stacking
depends on your point of view I reckon.....[:D]ORIGINAL: Riun T
and how interesting IS hell!!??
RE: Stacking
I just can't figure out why It would be less work to post all those pictures than It would be to PLAY threw the time period of turns in anyone of your started campaigns!!??? and I'm sorry about your liver,I have colitus/illyitous and still find time between my boul attacks and stepping out to the garage for a special smoke{cannibus}to put up a good effort to squeeze a couple of turns in per week,, I think u're just are a little squeemish about showing us that you can't possibly produce consistant victories,over the WHOLE duration of camp.and figure we'd be overcritical of your tactics once it was shown that for as much as u wonk your methods are as "fly by the seat of your pants" as the rest of us play. I have had loads of fun doing this,, even thou I've won a bunch,, got a few DRAWS,,,and even a couple of defeats,, my tactics and deploy have changed every battle and my core has tried to use every application to get throu each fight,,, yes I do incursion,, yes I drop PARAS,, yes I use mines and obstucals/wire,, and I still can't get consistant DV's so how do u think limiting yourself to an "ARMOURED FIST" with no covert or combined ARMS tactic is going to let u get a better campaign final score than anyone elses??
what are u tryin to prove with this?? all I see is u comin up with yet another excuse to not have to FINISH A WHOLE CAMPAIGN. PUT UP OR SHUT UP MAN,,and give us something to look at for an actual comparison rather than starting up 6 more threads on why task force andrews is gone,or the cataclism/extreme challenge campaign has sat dormant.
what are u tryin to prove with this?? all I see is u comin up with yet another excuse to not have to FINISH A WHOLE CAMPAIGN. PUT UP OR SHUT UP MAN,,and give us something to look at for an actual comparison rather than starting up 6 more threads on why task force andrews is gone,or the cataclism/extreme challenge campaign has sat dormant.
RE: Stacking
Riun T,
I don't just "wing it" when I play. Sometimes it takes me several minutes just to move a few units. I don't just point and click. I move one unit one hex, then I look around, then I move another unit one hex, look around some more, maybe take a shot. Then move one unit another hex, look around, maybe take another shot. Etc. Very time consuming and very careful and very hard on the brain.
But just for you I will try to post some more reports of KG Hauser in the desert, and the way of the Armored Fist.
--V
P.S. I will also be employing some sort of "Combat Zone" stacking from now on in my single-player DAR games. Something like one platoon/battery + one section per combat-zone hex maximum allowed (the one section is to allow leaders and/or a support unit or two to assist the platoon).
I don't just "wing it" when I play. Sometimes it takes me several minutes just to move a few units. I don't just point and click. I move one unit one hex, then I look around, then I move another unit one hex, look around some more, maybe take a shot. Then move one unit another hex, look around, maybe take another shot. Etc. Very time consuming and very careful and very hard on the brain.
But just for you I will try to post some more reports of KG Hauser in the desert, and the way of the Armored Fist.
--V
P.S. I will also be employing some sort of "Combat Zone" stacking from now on in my single-player DAR games. Something like one platoon/battery + one section per combat-zone hex maximum allowed (the one section is to allow leaders and/or a support unit or two to assist the platoon).