stacking limit ?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

What Colin said.

Even in dense assaulting environments, the most densely-packed divisions take up at least 10-15 square kilometers each. And since the area of a 10km hex is 86.60 square kilometers, then trying to cram 9 divisions within that area is historically ridiculous.

For example, the II SS Panzerkorps at Kursk (3 large divisions plus supporting troops) attacked along a frontage of approximately 3-4km per division. This was considered to be a very dense assault frontage. In TOAW III terms, this means that the II SS Panzerkorps probably couldn't be squeezed into a 10km hex (at least not realistically), but it could fit into a 15km hex. And a 15km hex has an area of 194.86 square kilometers.

EDIT: We're talking WW2 densities here. A Napoleonic army could fit into a 10km hex because the unit densities were so much greater in 1805 than in 1943.

Based on Seelowe, OPART will allow about one regiment plus bits in a 5 km hex before it starts applying density penalties. That seems a bit too stiff to me -- not too lenient. Also, armor is really bad. You move a brigade with circa a hundred tanks into that 5 km area, you can't add much else without getting at least a yellow light.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Strictly speaking, the stacking limit should be in terms of density penalty.

Unlimited stacking . . .

So we wind up with hopelessly cluttered, unplayable monsters. This would not be an improvement.

Nine's about right.

Much prefer a density penalty that displays some relationship of mass (i.e. total number of people/vehicles) to area over the current stacking limit of nine units. As it is, the mass of nine divisions is equal to nine regiments which are equal to nine ant units. I can think of plenty of scenarios that are negatively impacted by the limitation of nine units per hex. (Wonder what the limitation is for a hex that contains both a port and an airfield?)

Also, the stacking in a density/penalty scheme does not necessarily have to be unlimited. There can be a mass/area density penalty that still has an upper limit to prevent the absurd.

As for designers making scenarios with ever finer detail, well, that is their prerogative and no one should be discouraged from their efforts. If the scenario doesn’t work, no one will force you.

Regards, RhinoBones

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Strictly speaking, the stacking limit should be in terms of density penalty.

Unlimited stacking . . .

So we wind up with hopelessly cluttered, unplayable monsters. This would not be an improvement.

Nine's about right.

Much prefer a density penalty that displays some relationship of mass (i.e. total number of people/vehicles) to area over the current stacking limit of nine units. As it is, the mass of nine divisions is equal to nine regiments which are equal to nine ant units. I can think of plenty of scenarios that are negatively impacted by the limitation of nine units per hex. (Wonder what the limitation is for a hex that contains both a port and an airfield?)

Also, the stacking in a density/penalty scheme does not necessarily have to be unlimited. There can be a mass/area density penalty that still has an upper limit to prevent the absurd.

There is the argument that nine units is that limit. I suppose some might argue for sixteen, or even twenty five -- but nine really is okay. Good design can keep it from becoming a problem. Bad design will run into any limit assigned.

After all, and basically, what's the most convenient for play is when one has one-three units per hex as a norm. Now, one thing and another punches that number up, but if you're starting to find nine units an uncomfortable limit as a matter of course, your scenarios are flawed from a certain point of view.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
There is the argument that nine units is that limit. I suppose some might argue for sixteen, or even twenty five -- but nine really is okay. Good design can keep it from becoming a problem. Bad design will run into any limit assigned.

After all, and basically, what's the most convenient for play is when one has one-three units per hex as a norm. Now, one thing and another punches that number up, but if you're starting to find nine units an uncomfortable limit as a matter of course, your scenarios are flawed from a certain point of view.

I've got at least one scenario where I depend on that limit (France 1944). There really were situations where there was no more space for anything else in the line. To depict those congested battles as if they were as wide open as the eastern front would just be wrong.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I've got at least one scenario where I depend on that limit (France 1944). There really were situations where there was no more space for anything else in the line. To depict those congested battles as if they were as wide open as the eastern front would just be wrong.

Having played this scenario, the quantities of active defender equipment in a typical nine unit stack is so absolutely huge that it would be virtually suicidal for the player to place such a stack in the frontline. I found that the Allied player typically wanted only two or three units in each frontline hex- maybe a few more if he had odd bits like recon battalions and chemical artillery, which is about right given the scale of the scenario. The German player for his part wants the bare minimum that will hold the hex, because the attrition divider is so lethal that a regiment of infantry will be pretty much annihilated in a couple of combat rounds by the potent Allied artillery.

On the other hand, rear areas do become severely clogged in this scenario (I ended up parking all my AA around Cherbourg because there was just no room for it within four hexes of the front). What's the scale here- 10km/hex? Do nine artillery regiments require that much space?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Having played this scenario, the quantities of active defender equipment in a typical nine unit stack is so absolutely huge that it would be virtually suicidal for the player to place such a stack in the frontline. I found that the Allied player typically wanted only two or three units in each frontline hex- maybe a few more if he had odd bits like recon battalions and chemical artillery, which is about right given the scale of the scenario. The German player for his part wants the bare minimum that will hold the hex, because the attrition divider is so lethal that a regiment of infantry will be pretty much annihilated in a couple of combat rounds by the potent Allied artillery.

He may want only two or three in the frontline hexes, but he is under such a tight timetable requirement, that he can't afford to be so cautious. I've got plans to post the AAR of the continuation of the game where I posted the detailed first turn earlier. I'll go into detail about how to do it then. I'm only about halfway currently.

Regardless, I depend on the stacking limit. I don't have confidence that density penalties would negate the unrealistic firepower of overstacking.

On the other hand, rear areas do become severely clogged in this scenario (I ended up parking all my AA around Cherbourg because there was just no room for it within four hexes of the front). What's the scale here- 10km/hex? Do nine artillery regiments require that much space?

Sounds about right to me. That's equivalent to three divisions.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


He may want only two or three in the frontline hexes, but he is under such a tight timetable requirement, that he can't afford to be so cautious.

I'm not convinced. One thing this scenario catpures well is the battle of annihilation which made up the first part of the Normandy campaign. The Allies didn't breakout, but in the end it didn't matter, because they were able to do so much damage to the German force that they were no longer able to hold the entire line by the time of Cobra. The artillery and airpower is what does most of this killing. The rest are just along for the ride.

Sounds about right to me. That's equivalent to three divisions.

Presuming that all of those guns deploy within 500m of the main road running through the hex, it's less than a regiment per square kilometre. 25,000 square metres per gun.

Of course there's scads of personnel and transport in the hex, so losses and traffic will be severe. But this is covered by other factors in the game.

You're saying that with 8 units in the hex, units can push through in a couple of hours. With 9, they just can't move down the road.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I'm not convinced. One thing this scenario catpures well is the battle of annihilation which made up the first part of the Normandy campaign. The Allies didn't breakout, but in the end it didn't matter, because they were able to do so much damage to the German force that they were no longer able to hold the entire line by the time of Cobra. The artillery and airpower is what does most of this killing. The rest are just along for the ride.

Not sure who you were playing, but if the German player deploys properly - ringing the Allies with Panzers, the artillery can't get it done. That requires ground forces. And, I don't use ant-unit attacks.

Stay tuned for my AAR.

Presuming that all of those guns deploy within 500m of the main road running through the hex, it's less than a regiment per square kilometre. 25,000 square metres per gun.

Of course there's scads of personnel and transport in the hex, so losses and traffic will be severe. But this is covered by other factors in the game.

An artillery regiment has got about as much equipment as any other regiment. So, like I said, it's about equivalent to three divisions.

You're saying that with 8 units in the hex, units can push through in a couple of hours. With 9, they just can't move down the road.

They just have to move one unit out of the hex to allow through traffic.

[vahauser]

golden delicious,
 
I agree with you.  Stacking should not prohibit movement.  Stacking might severely hamper movement, but it shouldn't prohibit it. 
 
The problem in TOAW is that the game-code doesn't know the intentions of the player or any given unit.  TOAW doesn't know that you just want to pass through a maximum-stacked hex.  So TOAW adopts a logically simple solution of simply prohibiting movement into a maximum-stacked hex. 
 
There is a way to let TOAW know your intentions, however.  And that way is to modify the TOAW pathfinding algorithm.  If TOAW is given your starting location and your intended ending location, then the TOAW pathfinding algorithm could be modified to accept movement through a maximum-stacked hex.  I'm not advocating putting this on the wishlist just yet because I haven't spent a lot of thought on this issue.  But the basic concept of being able to move through a maximum-stacked hex is not unrealistic or unreasonable.
 
After all, the stacking limit is an arbitrary limit that has nothing to do with realism.  So, theoretically I have no problem with your idea that maximum stacks should not prohibit movement.  Indeed, many (most?) wargames I've played allow movement through "maximum stacked" hexes. 

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

golden delicious,

I agree with you.  Stacking should not prohibit movement.  Stacking might severely hamper movement, but it shouldn't prohibit it. 

The problem in TOAW is that the game-code doesn't know the intentions of the player or any given unit.  TOAW doesn't know that you just want to pass through a maximum-stacked hex.  So TOAW adopts a logically simple solution of simply prohibiting movement into a maximum-stacked hex. 

There is a way to let TOAW know your intentions, however.  And that way is to modify the TOAW pathfinding algorithm.  If TOAW is given your starting location and your intended ending location, then the TOAW pathfinding algorithm could be modified to accept movement through a maximum-stacked hex.  I'm not advocating putting this on the wishlist just yet because I haven't spent a lot of thought on this issue.  But the basic concept of being able to move through a maximum-stacked hex is not unrealistic or unreasonable.

After all, the stacking limit is an arbitrary limit that has nothing to do with realism.  So, theoretically I have no problem with your idea that maximum stacks should not prohibit movement.  Indeed, many (most?) wargames I've played allow movement through "maximum stacked" hexes. 

There are issues with that, though. The attempt to exit the overstacked hex could fail, due to enemy ZOCs. Also, the unit could trigger an interdiction air attack while in the overstacked hex.

[vahauser]

Curtis,
 
That is correct.  TOAW chose the simple solution of not allowing entry into a maximum-stacked hex.  The interdiction issue seems not too big a deal (not much difference between entering an 8-stacked or a 9-stacked hex).  The ZOC issue is more problematic.
 
Is this something worth putting on the wishlist?  I'm not sure.  When the PO is involved, the possilities of passing through 9-stacked hexes is likely to be too problematic to allow.  But in a face-to-face game (PBEM or hotseat), where the human players can both choose to take risks or not, the ability to pass through a 9-stacked hex might be a nice option.  But it might be more programming trouble than it's worth.
 
Overall, to me the ability to pass through a 9-stacked hex seems to be more of a "luxury desire" instead of a necessity.  I'd rather see more important necessities addressed first instead of "luxury desires".
 
I still agree with golden delicious, though:  in a perfect gaming world, units should have the ability to pass through maximum-stacked hexes.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Not sure who you were playing, but if the German player deploys properly - ringing the Allies with Panzers,

So the German infantry hangs back out of reach? Are you sure this is working as intended?

An artillery regiment has got about as much equipment as any other regiment. So, like I said, it's about equivalent to three divisions.

http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/40_ ... gular.html

I realise this is a 1940 TO&E, but the artillery regiment is less than a fifth of the total personnel, with the same number of guns as in 1944 and including 32 AT guns.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
So the German infantry hangs back out of reach?

I didn't say that. Just that the infantry must be interlaced with armor.

An artillery regiment has got about as much equipment as any other regiment. So, like I said, it's about equivalent to three divisions.

http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/40_ ... gular.html

I realise this is a 1940 TO&E, but the artillery regiment is less than a fifth of the total personnel, with the same number of guns as in 1944 and including 32 AT guns.

Alright, it's equivalent to the frontline elements of three divisions.

[cymloveselva]

Perhaps stacking limits varies according to terrain type, up to 9 per hex, for the sake of programming?[>:]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Perhaps stacking limits varies according to terrain type, up to 9 per hex, for the sake of programming?[>:]

I see the primary limitation as being convenience of play -- and it's up to scenario designers to ensure that the limit doesn't become a major factor in play.

As to the 'terrain' argument -- could cut either way. Anyway, since there's no necessary correlation between the number of troops and the number of counters, kind of irrelevant.