Realistic stacking

[Zovs]

I have been playing the War in the East series since I was on the beta team for the first edition. Prior to computer games (circa 1995), I exclusively played board war games. SPIs 1974 War in the East (from which this game derived its name from) had a stacking limit of 4 for the Axis player and 3 for the Soviet player. At the same time GDW introduced Drag Nacht Osten and the Europa series was born. The stacking limits for this game was based on stacking points, the Axis could stack 10 stacking points in a hex up to June 1943 and 11 SP till the end after, the Soviets could stack 6, 7, 8, or 9 based on certain years. Each on map unit unit had a stacking value (2 for German motorized and Panzer divisions and 3 for other divisions, essentially 1 per regiment), the Soviets Tank corps were 3, Mech corps were 4, artillery divisions 3, and rifle divisions 2.

So it would be nice if it were possible to introduce a more realistic stacking system so that you could stack more than3 broken down regiments in hex.

[Parkkicks]

I feel that breaking down regiments shouldn't contribute to the stacking limit if their intention is to break up and move out. Only in a game of inches is backing ten miles out and breaking up when you could do it where you stand important. It seems to be to prevent players from breaking their own game, however it's perceived by me to be like disabling... um... 5 counters from existing in a 3 stack limit. If they were there the whole time and then realistically speaking "can't break up for some reason" I get that players would have to stick to a code of honor to get these results, but isn't it worth it when the worst case scenario is... far less likely than players not sticking to the code... players sticking to the code?

[Zovs]

I guess my point is this in general you can stack three divisions in a hex, so theoretically you can stack 9 regiments, so why not add that capacity and capability?

So 2 divisions and up to 3 regiments
1 division and 6 regiments etc

For even more realistic stacking using a system of stacking points on a hex like 11, 3 divisions, 1 HQ and 1 rail repair unit or any combo of that number.

[Parkkicks]

I think about the space limitations of a 10 mile hex and every time it really depends on the doing of the pieces operating in that 10 miles. Stances should affect how many units can be there, and so should combats. If combat occurs, more space is needed, and less as inches are gained, and more as reinforcements arrive. Within the week long turn base dynamic, adding more forces to combats is key to thinking.

Did the programmers accomplish this? This is new thinking to me, and the limitation seems to be that planning and firing one division at a time is the only way to simulate adding forces to combats over 7 days.

The "need" within this structure is for the two concepts plus reinforcement to work together seamlessly through the combination of user input and the tools put in place, WHILE respecting the natural need for space, which, again in context depends on the actions within the parameters, estimated to be square in line with 3000 men or pieces of equipment per mile, at a somewhat disadvantaged maximum ceiling. The utilization of forces resulting in for example, "combat" opens more spaces, for reinforcing the nature of "combats" [] A sort of double entendre where using the same space for the same thing supports that ceiling juuuust a bit. Then we still do not know how far different companies advance into that hex and whether or not reinforcements justify making a limit if there is a trade off or gain in/of space.

To estimate; is to know that there is a limit, practical, or otherwise, and to simulate over time, is to, even in certain conditions, not know enough to do any better than estimate. I tried to ask, is 50,000 the most practical maximum for 10 miles of space where 8 miles is front facing? And that came out. I was trying to say that while 100,000, or even 200,000 could exist in that space but only the utilized parts are "important" the number of available actions as a unit, aren't being determined in this games, and that by adding stances, or simulating each and every movement of each and every part, that then, the allocating, planning, time mechanism can be synchronized to work to be supported by the player inputs determining reinforcement allocation over time. Implementation thereof is to apply the mechanism to any of it's other parts... This requires more than the current gateway of 3 counters. That's the game we're trying to play. It requires the "option, to "cram" a million guys into one space, call it two spaces, and then deal with the results." We're not getting the results we want when something as simple as breaking down a unit, when there is space behind you, and to the side of you, having 6,7,or 8 counters in a hex shouldn't be an issue. Some of them will be regiments, not all of them will stay.

[MechFO]

3 friendly Divisions fighting 3 enemy divisions in a 10 mile hex is way too much for most types of combat unless it is imagined that various parts of the Divisions are spilling over into multiple hexes. But since you can pack 3 Divisions in there too you can stack units way to densely compared to what would be practical.

TOAW was the way to go with a sliding scale of density penalties for combat, fire and casualties based on the number of elements per hex. But WITE went a different way and the 3 stack rule is so foundational, probably especially for the AI, that any adjustment would lead to a host of unintended consequences.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: Parkkicks

I think about the space limitations of a 10 mile hex and every time it really depends on the doing of the pieces operating in that 10 miles. Stances should affect how many units can be there, and so should combats. If combat occurs, more space is needed, and less as inches are gained, and more as reinforcements arrive. Within the week long turn base dynamic, adding more forces to combats is key to thinking.

Did the programmers accomplish this? This is new thinking to me, and the limitation seems to be that planning and firing one division at a time is the only way to simulate adding forces to combats over 7 days.

The "need" within this structure is for the two concepts plus reinforcement to work together seamlessly through the combination of user input and the tools put in place, WHILE respecting the natural need for space, which, again in context depends on the actions within the parameters, estimated to be square in line with 3000 men or pieces of equipment per mile, at a somewhat disadvantaged maximum ceiling. The utilization of forces resulting in for example, "combat" opens more spaces, for reinforcing the nature of "combats" [] A sort of double entendre where using the same space for the same thing supports that ceiling juuuust a bit. Then we still do not know how far different companies advance into that hex and whether or not reinforcements justify making a limit if there is a trade off or gain in/of space.

To estimate; is to know that there is a limit, practical, or otherwise, and to simulate over time, is to, even in certain conditions, not know enough to do any better than estimate. I tried to ask, is 50,000 the most practical maximum for 10 miles of space where 8 miles is front facing? And that came out. I was trying to say that while 100,000, or even 200,000 could exist in that space but only the utilized parts are "important" the number of available actions as a unit, aren't being determined in this games, and that by adding stances, or simulating each and every movement of each and every part, that then, the allocating, planning, time mechanism can be synchronized to work to be supported by the player inputs determining reinforcement allocation over time. Implementation thereof is to apply the mechanism to any of it's other parts... This requires more than the current gateway of 3 counters. That's the game we're trying to play. It requires the "option, to "cram" a million guys into one space, call it two spaces, and then deal with the results." We're not getting the results we want when something as simple as breaking down a unit, when there is space behind you, and to the side of you, having 6,7,or 8 counters in a hex shouldn't be an issue. Some of them will be regiments, not all of them will stay.

German Inf Div in attack posture, covers 3/4 miles frontage.
German Pzr Div in attack posture, covers 1.2 to 1.9 miles frontage.

SU Inf Div in attack posture, covers 1.8 to 3 miles frontage.
SU Tank Corps in attack posture, covers 1.9 to 3.1 miles frontage.

Defensive posture doubles the frontage, circumstances however made what FM dictated unworkable and a German Div found they had to defend 20 miles as often as not.#

Not unhappy enough with stacking to want to see a change.