Stacking
Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software
-
Mountaineer
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:06 am
RE: Stacking
It was OPART, great game though but too many counters.
RE: Stacking
The Operational Art of War has a nine unit stacking limit [maximum of three air units allowed in a stack]. Nine units is too many in a lot of cases, but TOAW includes movement and combat penalties per hex based on scale and amount of equipment. Due to those penalties it is not wise to 'overstack'. As each scenario is different, there is a small indicator in each hex that appears and goes from yellow to orange to red as your stack moves up in the density scale.
As for my opinion concerning stacking for SC3, stacking one air unit with one ground unit would seem reasonable. I'd like to play it like that to see how it works out. [:)]
As for my opinion concerning stacking for SC3, stacking one air unit with one ground unit would seem reasonable. I'd like to play it like that to see how it works out. [:)]
-
solipsismMatrix
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:34 pm
RE: Stacking
Yes, or two corps vs. a single army. Or an army and a rocket unit, etc.
RE: Stacking
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
The Operational Art of War has a nine unit stacking limit [maximum of three air units allowed in a stack]. Nine units is too many in a lot of cases, but TOAW includes movement and combat penalties per hex based on scale and amount of equipment. Due to those penalties it is not wise to 'overstack'. As each scenario is different, there is a small indicator in each hex that appears and goes from yellow to orange to red as your stack moves up in the density scale.
I love this game. How is it called? Just joking [;)]
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
RE: Stacking
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 have asked this earlier in this thread but I did not get an answer. Is there something that was implemented like a switch command allowing to change a front line unit per another one behind the front without penalties on the entrenchment of the previous one? As such, we will have the possibility to disengage a tank unit per an infantry unit instead of keeping it stuck on the front line.
As I said earlier, I am not against a rule specifying no ground units could stack together if this type of command exist.
It does not change my view on ground and air units stacking together anyway. Malta is a beautiful island surely having a garrison, an airport and a harbor. I recommend anyone to visit it - great place for one week holiday. [:)]
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
RE: Stacking
ORIGINAL: solipsismMatrix
Yes, or two corps vs. a single army. Or an army and a rocket unit, etc.
Rocket Units ? These would hardly be appropriate for this scale. Rockets should be included in the shock value of corps level units. I think, maybe.
RE: Stacking
Well, hopefully people will mod the hell out of the game and create all types of scenario sizes, if we're really lucky maybe different scenarios/sizes will already be in maingame from the start. The more options for modders the better imo.
For example I'm creating Siege of Budapest scenario for AoC, for this size rockets and other support units are very nice to have:

Anyway I agree with Solipsim, stacking something like 1 army=2 corps or 1 army = 1 corps and support unit etc, sounds reasonable.
For example I'm creating Siege of Budapest scenario for AoC, for this size rockets and other support units are very nice to have:

Anyway I agree with Solipsim, stacking something like 1 army=2 corps or 1 army = 1 corps and support unit etc, sounds reasonable.
RE: Stacking
ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
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 have asked this earlier in this thread but I did not get an answer. Is there something that was implemented like a switch command allowing to change a front line unit per another one behind the front without penalties on the entrenchment of the previous one? As such, we will have the possibility to disengage a tank unit per an infantry unit instead of keeping it stuck on the front line.
As I said earlier, I am not against a rule specifying no ground units could stack together if this type of command exist.
It does not change my view on ground and air units stacking together anyway. Malta is a beautiful island surely having a garrison, an airport and a harbor. I recommend anyone to visit it - great place for one week holiday. [:)]
Yes, that ability was introduced in SC2 at some point (I think it was when the AOD add-on was introduced, but not sure of that.) IIRC the units "swapping" positions used no movement points but might have lost a level of entrenchment. However, the point is that it was implemented. It would be a huge surprise to me if it didn't continue for SC3.
Chance favours the prepared mind
-
solipsismMatrix
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:34 pm
RE: Stacking
Perhaps you have not played the earlier SC games? I'm talking about strategic rocket units (e.g., V1 / V2).ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
ORIGINAL: solipsismMatrix
Yes, or two corps vs. a single army. Or an army and a rocket unit, etc.
Rocket Units ? These would hardly be appropriate for this scale. Rockets should be included in the shock value of corps level units. I think, maybe.
RE: Stacking
Perhaps you have not played the earlier SC games? I'm talking about strategic rocket units (e.g., V1 / V2).
I got SC2 a couple months ago and tried it out, that is the meager extent of my experience with SC. I didn't know that you were referring to Strategic Rockets, I thought you meant Werfers and Katyushkas. So, nevermind ![:)]
RE: Stacking
So, this is 150 km per hex? Units are corps as basis? Artillery as separate units? Back 1 hex? Incorporated into corps?
Agree completely that air and ground need to co-habitate a hex?
There are times you might want to listen to your (prospective) players.
Agree completely that air and ground need to co-habitate a hex?
There are times you might want to listen to your (prospective) players.
RE: Stacking
ORIGINAL: Dale H
So, this is 150 km per hex? Units are corps as basis? Artillery as separate units? Back 1 hex? Incorporated into corps?
Agree completely that air and ground need to co-habitate a hex?
There are times you might want to listen to your (prospective) players.
The devs ARE listening. There are hordes of SC and SC2 fans who can attest to that fact
Chance favours the prepared mind
- Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm
RE: Stacking
I have played SC2, in fact I am playing right now a game against the AI (one WW1 scenario) and I am surprised how competent and competitive the AI is.
I think the scale of the map in the WW1 breaktrhough scenario is very good for Corps size units and I don find big issues with stacking there. Air units are Air Armies scale more or less (OOBs are not very historical) but again as they are place a good distance from the frontline there are no big issues with it. To me the main problem is with naval units, the naval part of the game feels very unrealistic, with units spread over the sea, or unable to enter port beacuse it is another unit already in.
I think the scale of the map in the WW1 breaktrhough scenario is very good for Corps size units and I don find big issues with stacking there. Air units are Air Armies scale more or less (OOBs are not very historical) but again as they are place a good distance from the frontline there are no big issues with it. To me the main problem is with naval units, the naval part of the game feels very unrealistic, with units spread over the sea, or unable to enter port beacuse it is another unit already in.
-
solipsismMatrix
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:34 pm
RE: Stacking
Like I listen to my wife?ORIGINAL: Happycat
ORIGINAL: Dale H
So, this is 150 km per hex? Units are corps as basis? Artillery as separate units? Back 1 hex? Incorporated into corps?
Agree completely that air and ground need to co-habitate a hex?
There are times you might want to listen to your (prospective) players.
The devs ARE listening. [...]
- BillRunacre
- Posts: 6739
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
- Contact:
RE: Stacking
ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
I have played SC2, in fact I am playing right now a game against the AI (one WW1 scenario) and I am surprised how competent and competitive the AI is.
I think the scale of the map in the WW1 breaktrhough scenario is very good for Corps size units and I don find big issues with stacking there. Air units are Air Armies scale more or less (OOBs are not very historical) but again as they are place a good distance from the frontline there are no big issues with it. To me the main problem is with naval units, the naval part of the game feels very unrealistic, with units spread over the sea, or unable to enter port beacuse it is another unit already in.
Good, because that map was largely inspirational for the size of the new one. [:)]
I say inspirational because the scale is ever so slightly out, I think that was 1 tile to about 18 miles whereas this one is about 1 hex to 20 miles.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
- BillRunacre
- Posts: 6739
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
- Contact:
RE: Stacking
ORIGINAL: solipsismMatrix
The devs ARE listening. [...]
Like I listen to my wife?
But I do listen to my wife too! [:D]
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
RE: Stacking
ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
I have played SC2, in fact I am playing right now a game against the AI (one WW1 scenario) and I am surprised how competent and competitive the AI is.
I think the scale of the map in the WW1 [breakthrough] scenario is very good for Corps size units and I don find big issues with stacking there. Air units are Air Armies scale more or less (OOBs are not very historical) but again as they are place a good distance from the frontline there are no big issues with it. To me the main problem is with naval units, the naval part of the game feels very unrealistic, with units spread over the sea, or unable to enter port [because] it is another unit already in.
I can see how the air won't be a problem, really. But never having played this series before I don't know how air attacks; does the unit physically move to attack a target unit? If so there'd be a need to show the a/c icon over the land unit.
The naval non-stacking does bother me as you suggest. A port should be able to host a fleet, I'd think. Maybe a special rule or something? For visual stacking, you could show only the icon of the top unit, but stack the bases [only] of extra units below. Have a routine to shuffle through the stack and order any unit to the top position. My .02.
RE: Stacking
And don't forget the Hearts of Iron series. HOI4 at division level is completely insane and also throw history out the window. But with limited use of console (cheats) I am having an amazingly good time. About 53 hours in five days. That hasn't happened since WitE.
When I want real history there is always SC3.
When I want real history there is always SC3.
RE: Stacking
ORIGINAL: Happycat
Yes, that ability was introduced in SC2 at some point (I think it was when the AOD add-on was introduced, but not sure of that.) IIRC the units "swapping" positions used no movement points but might have lost a level of entrenchment. However, the point is that it was implemented. It would be a huge surprise to me if it didn't continue for SC3.
Thanks for your answer. I am completely discovering SC thus forgive my lack of knowledge on this system.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
- Steely Glint
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm
RE: Stacking
If the devs are listening, then: make sure there is stacking.
“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“
Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.




