Matrix Games Forums

Schwerpunkt's latest does NOT have mountainous stacks of überunits.

John Tiller
Norm Koger
Ron Dockal
Gary Grigsby
Frank Hunter
Victor Reijkersz
AGEOD

[&o]

ORIGINAL: andrea23

John Tiller
Norm Koger
Ron Dockal
Gary Grigsby
Frank Hunter
Victor Reijkersz
AGEOD

[&o]

+1000
Just add some reasonable stacking rules, so that bridgeheads and beachheads can be modeled in the game. Lack of realistic force concentrations would be a strong limitation of the game engine. Normandy anyone?

Dang it Happycat, I totally missed your greeting, my apologies! Other than getting a little absentminded,[&:] I'm doing fine. Just hoping Hubert and company will get this baby out here so we can sharpen our SC skills and get into some of those email competitions that SC so excels at.

Noticed your a moderator, and hopefully along with our other veterans, a beta tester too. And like you, I would love to see enhanced readiness in those isolated areas, perhaps needing some engineering help to accomplish.[8D]

Probably a little to late, but customizing our deployment options with a variety of aircraft/ground types including mission versatile options would make stacking obsolete. Maybe leader/HQs with player directed asset attachments could fill the bill. It will definetly be interesting to see what the SC gang has cooked up for us.

Waiting patiently[;)]

If the map is very big it could be a hinderance..if it's smaller it may pack up units ...

I am not even sure what stacking would do. In various games when you can pack a few valuable hexes(regions) with a massive amount of units it does change things. Of course the smart thing would be to do like in HOI(go around the stack and cut off it's supply if possible and wait it out) my favorite method of destroying massive stacks there against the AI. Not so easily done with a human. In AGEOD games they place traffic penalties and slowed movement but the way turns are played at the same time changes the meaning of it all. Not sure how that turned out precisely and causes lots of issues.

I remember in Guns of August the front was so small(perfect example of stacking and over stacking) the game still ran okay as the frontage was so limited you needed stacking.


Penalizing stacking is a way of making things run more smooth. In the latest Hex game I'm playing Barbarossa it seems that it does okay... Though at first there were roadblocks from overdoing it

Strategic War in Europe's scale is 150km per hex. It works very well. There are a number of other problems that plagued the game including lack of stacking for air units.

The scale, however, was very good.

They also had a rule that let you swap out front line units with any unit directly to it's 3 hex rear. This worked out very well.

150km is way too much, max 50 km but even that is too much, with 150km you would fit like 1 or 2 units in entire crimea and you wouldn't even see normandy...
I think the size they show in the screenshots seems good, wouldn't mind a bit smaller though, we all love strategic wargames, we can handle more than 10 units, rather have more than less.

Time of Fury is 30 miles across.



Time of Fury

Strategic War in Europe

Time of Fury Crimea

Yeah, Time of Fury has pretty good size imo.

Time Of Fury was so close to being great and then they gave up on it. []{}#%^!!!!!!!

I sure wish some modders would gain access to Time of Fury and fulfill it's potential.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

That's why you don't see many stacking games.

I really don't want to argue with the designer, but really this remark is ludicrous.

Here is small list just for starters of guys/companies who have been stacking for years.

John Tiller
Norm Koger
Ron Dockal
Gary Grigsby
Frank Hunter
Victor Reijkersz
AGEOD

Even Avalon Hill, the old boardgame company had stacking in their very first PC games (WAW) back in the 90's

Not sure who made HOS, but it has stacking as well. I would think there are easily as many games with stacking as without, I think probably more with stacking actually.

But its a simple equation for me. If this game has stacking I will try it. If not I won't.

For me, stacking isn't a big deal, because the map scale is large enough to accomplish what I want to do during a game. It's all a matter of taste to some degree; I dislike stacks and find them cumbersome and somewhat counter-intuitive (no pun intended).

An additional thought. I would ask that everyone be patient. We're still in early beta, but I think everyone who is concerned about scale will be happy. Suggestions that a lack of stacking is lazy programming are a bit over the top. I've known Hubert for the best part of two decades--there is NOTHING lazy about him, his programming or his commitment to product improvement.

I prefer no stacks, there are other wargames that are great at stacking. I think Strategic Command belongs to a special kind of wargames, like Clash of Steel for example. IMHO at most I would like a max stack of one unit for each weapon (naval, air & ground).

No problem HappyCat, I have consigned these games to what *I* consider the 'beer and pretzels' category. Not my cup of tea.

I wish you well with the project.

FWIW, having worked with Hubert and Bill on it and played it, I think SC3 is going to be a fantastic grand strategy release and will appeal to grogs who try it as well. There is a lot of good history packed into this release and plenty of strategy.

ORIGINAL: Happycat

For me, stacking isn't a big deal, because the map scale is large enough to accomplish what I want to do during a game. It's all a matter of taste to some degree; I dislike stacks and find them cumbersome and somewhat counter-intuitive (no pun intended).

I can accept the rationale of map scale for ground units; however the question remains - what about air units? Can they stack in the same hex as another unit?

Surely stacking depends on the hex size and unit scale? I don't mind stacking but prefer it if say there was a max amount of units\counters in one hex at around four or five..anymore can start to hinder ease of play I feel.

ORIGINAL: Ron

ORIGINAL: Happycat

For me, stacking isn't a big deal, because the map scale is large enough to accomplish what I want to do during a game. It's all a matter of taste to some degree; I dislike stacks and find them cumbersome and somewhat counter-intuitive (no pun intended).

I can accept the rationale of map scale for ground units; however the question remains - what about air units? Can they stack in the same hex as another unit?

Due to non-disclosure rules, that is too specific for me to answer, sorry. What I can say at this juncture is that if you're familiar with SC2, then I think you will recall that air ranges in that game and its various add-ons was seldom an issue.

Where it does become an issue is on islands in the Pacific or, as someone here pointed out, Malta. I know that Hubert and Bill are aware of this and I'd be awfully surprised if it isn't addressed in SC3.

ORIGINAL: wodin

Surely stacking depends on the hex size and unit scale? I don't mind stacking but prefer it if say there was a max amount of units\counters in one hex at around four or five..anymore can start to hinder ease of play I feel.

I know what you mean. Wasn't it Operational Art of War where one could stack like about a dozen units if they were small enough in composition?