ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
ORIGINAL: NemRod
Why 1bde for defense and 2div for attack? Are the attackers smaller than the defenders[:)]? Or is it just to make sure the attacker will always win?
IMHO a logical stacking rule should apply equaly to attaker and defender but this would create an other problem: the attaker will never succeed.
That's the problem with stacking limits: this one will make attack impossible while this other one will make defense impossible because of the simplistic land combat system.
WITP makes divisions far too easy to move, use ,supply and stack.Stacking is just a part of the problem.If you want to keep historical flavor just rename bataillons what they call divisions in the game[;)].
Grab any army field manual (from
any army I might add). Look at division frontages in defense. The look at division frontages in attack. Defenders always occupy more space than the same size attacking unit. Back in my day the army's goal was to put 3 attackers against every defender. It was that way in WWII as well, and I suspect the same today.
I realize my post sounds ironical and I hope there was no offense.
Usually the defender is limited in what he can put on front A because he must also put troops on front B, front C etc..While the the attacker can chose where and when to attack, creating a local superiority.
But if the defender knows where the attack will occur and have the troops and supplies to negate that local superiority he will of course use them.It's the key of a succesfull defense.
At Koursk in 43 the red army had some knowledge from were the attack would logically come .They had troops and supplies and they simply used them where they were needed.The Germans, with no surprise effect, had a very hard time trying to create a local superiority ( obviously those two armies weren't following the same manual...)
Creating a local superiority is all the interest of WITP and wargames in general.With your house rule local superiority isn't the reward of a good strategy it's just a gift.It kills the interest of the game.The attackers will win land combat if the landing is a success that's wroten in the stone.
A logical stacking limit on atolls shouldn't be based on operational limits but on logistic and I don't see why logistic should be easier for attackers. One brigade or division for each side would be more logical but would kill the game in an other way: no local superiority possible.
I'm not saying there is no problem with the game as it is .I just say stacking limit is a solution worse than the problem, it kills the game.
In my opinion the problem is overabundance of troops,supplies, ships etc and the simplistic land combat system...But at least with the game as it is you can counter unrealistic attacks with unrealistic defenses and vice versa.The scale of the battle won't be realistic but the result can be realistic or at least fair.
I haven't gone very far into the game (mid 42) so I can't say it for sure but my guess is that given the large number of divisions and transport the allies have the US come back in the Pacific will happen at a very accelerated pace with this house rule.
