Intentional Overstacking of Hexes

[esteban]

Hi, I wanted people's opinions on something that happened in my current game.

My opponent attacked one of my hexes and was repulsed, and his troops retreated into the Alps just across the German/Austrian border (which he had captured earlier). By fully stacking the hexes behind those border hexes, he has been able to maintain overstacked hexes in those mountain hexsides, then attack out of "7 stacking point" alpine hexes with 3 or more corps. And of course these overstacked Alpine hexes are impossible to retake with 2 attacking corps versus 3 defending corps in 3-4 point entrenchments. And because of the entrenchments and the natural mountain trench bonus they are pointless to bombard for the most part.

Have other people encountered this? It seems gamey to me and I don't like it myself.

[SMK-at-work]

Yes it happens.  the only sanction against it at the moment is that overstacked troops take much heavier casualties from bombardment.
 
He can't have 3 "good" corps in a mountain hex as you've described it - all the retreated corps would be in poor condition, and given hte mountain supply problems it will take them ages to recover unless they are moved out.
 
I'd bombard them even if they are entrenched - IIRC the mountain bonus only applies to assaults, not to artillery attacks, and his supply will ensure any readiness hits will last a long time.
 
Poor troops can't withstand good ones - even if you can only attack with 2 good readiness 9 corps you should find him easy to defeat unless he moves new troops in....and if he does that then he must've moved the old ones out & the problem has solved itself.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: esteban
Have other people encountered this? It seems gamey to me and I don't like it myself.

It can only be considered gamey if your opponent have done this intentional but i assume he carried out that attack to succeed and wanted reinforcements ready to exploit the opportunity. If this is the case then you can't call it gamey on the behalf of you opponent.

So the alternative is to leave a hex mountain hex in the frontline empty because you can't be sure whether an attack is going to succeed ? Would you really do that ?

But yes it is obviously a flaw in the current system and should be corrected by Frank.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I'd bombard them even if they are entrenched - IIRC the mountain bonus only applies to assaults, not to artillery attacks, and his supply will ensure any readiness hits will last a long time.

Yes well but I don't always have artillery nearby an enemy hex just for the chance that this should occur in any given impulse [;)]

[SMK-at-work]

You should always have some artillery nearby - never leave home without it!

It's not a matter of hoping for it to happen - what has been described is something that seems to last more than 1 phase, so it bcomes a target which should attract artillery IMO

[Troy6677]

It can only be considered gamey if your opponent have done this intentional but i assume he carried out that attack to succeed and wanted reinforcements ready to exploit the opportunity. If this is the case then you can't call it gamey on the behalf of you opponent.

Hi All:

I am the opponent in question here. The above assumption is correct, I moved troops up to exploit a possible breakthrough which I achieved. Mike also pointed out above that normally defeated and retreated troops would be very low in readiness and for that reason usually useless in the attack and that is normally the case.

This time it so happened that my retreated troops retained a high degree of readiness so I could use them to immediately attack and I did use them. A rare thing to happen for sure but that is the fortunes of war.

I think my friend is complaining because he was unpleasantly surprised but it is part of the game mechanics, not a bug and is allowed by the game rules.

I have had numerous previously over stacked hexes that I have attacked out of and fired artillery from throughout our game with no previous complaints.

Unless it is a bug I stand by my move as not gamey but a legitimate part of the game. The Romans thought nobody could bring an army with elephants over the Alps either but Hannibal did... [8D]

Mark

[hjaco]

Exactly. And the only viable alternatives would be to either let such retreated units be eliminated from over stacking or force them to continue retreating until they don't overstack anymore.

[Venator]

Continuing to retreat until no overstack would then seem the best. And perhaps have both the retreating units and those retreated through lose an additional point or two of readiness

[SMK-at-work]

Stacking is an artificial restraint int the first place - you CAN fit lots of "real" troops into an "real" area the size of a hex in GOA, so stacking is only a fairly simple method of limiting the number of troops that can attack.
 
The best way to replace it would be with a limt to the number of troops that can attack across a hexside or perhaps 2 adjacent hexsides.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
so stacking is only a fairly simple method of limiting the number of troops that can attack.

Or defend....

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: mvdh1


I think my friend is complaining because he was unpleasantly surprised but it is part of the game mechanics, not a bug and is allowed by the game rules.

I have had numerous previously over stacked hexes that I have attacked out of and fired artillery from throughout our game with no previous complaints.

Unless it is a bug I stand by my move as not gamey but a legitimate part of the game. The Romans thought nobody could bring an army with elephants over the Alps either but Hannibal did... [8D]

Mark

I still say its gamey to overstack hexes like that and to fully stack hexes behind the overstacked hexes so your overstacked hexes do not retreat

And you don't know what you are talking about if you say its because I was surprised. There were lots of more damaging naval moves in particular that were a surprise, but I didnt complain about those. And I didn't complain about the supply situation that made it impossible for me to defende fully stacked 3-4 entrenchment mountain hexes in the first place. So you are only speculating here, and you happen to be speculating incorrectly.

[Troy6677]

Well as I have already said to you privately, we disagree, the rules of the game support my position, Frank hasn't said there is a problem so let's move on to other opponents and games.

Oh and by the way I didn't "intentionally" over stack any hexes. Because of the restrictive nature of the terrain and low supply values around the mountains the only way to maintain an offensive in this part of Europe is to continually move fresh forces forward. That is a tactical necessity my friend not an "intentional" over stacking of hexes as you claim. [:-]

Mark

[wargamer123]

I know in Strategic Command we use to have a AntiAircraft Technology Bug. What would occur is that a Player would research it, and then place their Air units on Certain Resources and recieve a Plus1 Bonus that wasn't printed in any documentation and was pointed out by the designer as an obvious game bug. I recall all the times I didn't know what my opponent was doing and he'd exploit this.. It really discouraged me why I was losing so much aircraft strength points. This was not something minor. Not a 5% difference or 10%... Air Strength Points in that game were more like 30-45% importance in cost overall. As they were extremely expensive... When I realized the bug, I would purposely use it and then it was outlawed. Anyone purposely using it was mocked and banned...
 
This sounds like a minor Bug... We had those too, generally if I felt my opponent required using a bug to beat me, usually in a Grand Strategy game in the end I will always beat him. It made me more determined to exploit everything in order to get to him. So instead of being angered I'd crack open the little Knowledge Book and I'd learn his Doom. Since I have done that I rarely get beaten by the Bug Exploiter
 
but face it we all exploit bugs, it's human nature to. We love it, but sportsmanship is a greater thing, we should be honorable and apologize and attempt to make right our Dog Eat Dog Nature

[SMK-at-work]

It's not a bug - it has been discussed before and Frank is happy with the way stacking works including this facet of potential overstacking (yuo an never be quite sure you'll actually do it because your attacks may succeed!)- search the forum - we've been through all of this.

He's even willing to live with an actual ability to deliberately overstack - move a couple of units out of a full hex, move some more in, then cancel themove of hte ones you moved out - voila - instant overstack without having to wait for combat results

[Venator]

you CAN fit lots of "real" troops into an "real" area the size of a hex in GOA

Of course you can, that's not the issue at all. The issue is that were an army to do that by design or for such an occurrence to happen by accident there would be considerable disruption to the units' fighting qualities as supply lines become clogged and traffic management breaks down. That's why stacking limits apply and breaching them should carry readiness penalties.

Given that within the timespan of a GoA impulse staff officers would be able to rectify the situation somewhat I think a continued retreat with readiness lost from both retreating units and any 'overstacked' units they pass through is appropriate.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

He's even willing to live with an actual ability to deliberately overstack - move a couple of units out of a full hex, move some more in, then cancel themove of hte ones you moved out - voila - instant overstack without having to wait for combat results

Exactly ! In any case Esteban has not claimed this to be a bug but complained about the principality of exploiting game systems.

Be that as it may and I don't intend on stepping on toes here but it's not particularly ahem let's say smart to leave a gap in your frontline because you try and avoid a potential overstacking [8|]

Otherwise things like this should be setup in house rules from game to game.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: esteban

By fully stacking the hexes behind those border hexes, he has been able to maintain overstacked hexes in those mountain hexsides, then attack out of "7 stacking point" alpine hexes with 3 or more corps.

But I do think Frank should change that units in excess of stacking limits shouldn't count in either attack or defence.

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

ORIGINAL: esteban

By fully stacking the hexes behind those border hexes, he has been able to maintain overstacked hexes in those mountain hexsides, then attack out of "7 stacking point" alpine hexes with 3 or more corps.

But I do think Frank should change that units in excess of stacking limits shouldn't count in either attack or defence.

I not entirely sure of my opinion. But the above might be a good option.