Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Like what?

Are 100,000 troops overstacked if assaulting Chengsha? It would be against Midway.....but what about Okinawa?

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Like what?

Are 100,000 troops overstacked if assaulting Chengsha? It would be against Midway.....but what about Okinawa?

Base it on terrain. Atolls have severest limit, open plain the least limit. That might serve well enough as it is simple and abstract enough. I'm just hashing about some thoughts here in the forum, maybe an idea or solution to a problem or two will come about. Not trying to be overly critical or anything.

Nik, don't bother, we've been down this road many times ...

Stacking rules would have to be handled on a per hex basis and the only real cure is to go to a 5 mile hex scale so areas can be represented in sufficent levels of detail to actually make a stacking limit practical and units is ajoining hexes would also help out in combat just like any small scale *tactical* hex game. At a 60 mile scale, stacking rules are pointless.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Base it on terrain. Atolls have severest limit, open plain the least limit.

That was suggested. Problem there is not all Atolls are the same size either. In the end, thats alot of what nixed the idea. Too many variables and everyone had a different idea of what the "limit" should be and "where".

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Nik, don't bother, we've been down this road many times ...

I know..... I'd rather the conversation returned to the subject of retreats.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Nik, don't bother, we've been down this road many times ...

Stacking rules would have to be handled on a per hex basis and the only real cure is to go to a 5 mile hex scale so areas can be represented in sufficent levels of detail to actually make a stacking limit practical and units is ajoining hexes would also help out in combat just like any small scale *tactical* hex game. At a 60 mile scale, stacking rules are pointless.

I don't see the big problem Frag. If a stacking penalty were utilized, it would not affect ability to stack (movement purposes, rebuilding units mainly). And yes, it could be hex based through terrain type. Some terrains are obviously more conducive to fielding large armies than others.

Trying to find a simpler solution to some of the problems here.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Nik, don't bother, we've been down this road many times ...

I know..... I'd rather the conversation returned to the subject of retreats.

I'm all for allowing retreats into contested hexes. One must assume at this scale and with present model that the friendly units in adjacent hexes are in contact and a retreat/withdrawl path is available.

I was also thinking about the various stances an LCU can be given. The very fact that we only have a few to choose from may be causing some of the problems. What if we had a stance which fell between "defensive" stance and "move to" stance. Maybe "fighting withdrawl" stance would be useful here. If chosen, the units could retreat without sufferring the massive damage sustained by maintaining a static defense. The fact that the defenders get to move an entire hex but enemy can't could be rationalised by the fact that it would have taken the enemy the time needed to move into the next hex by having to deal with a fighting withdrawl defence.

Anyone?

Ron,

Something to worry about in regards to having stacking limits.

Atols!! The defender puts exactly enough troops on the atol so that the attacker can never get enough assault points to win. If one division is the most you can use on an atol, then the attacker won't be able to use two divisions to beat him off.

Of course, if the defender has an entire division on one atol, then some other place is undefended.

Anyway, something to consider about stacking limits (I think Nik was the one who pointed this out long ago, though)

bc

Ron, we've been through this one for months. Stacking limits imposed without some logical system to govern them are worse the nothing. You always go in circles ... change this ... oops, that means this is broke, lets suggest new rule for that, oops that broke this, lets suggest a new rule for that ...

It's like saying ports should have ship limits without looking at the real port and providing real data that make the rule make sense.

It's the same reason there is no surface interception with TF's ... no credible agreement on what the rules should be.

Round and round we go ... next stop back where we started ... chasing your tail is really rather pointless, unless you are really flexible, the tail is going to always be one step ahead of you. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Base it on terrain. Atolls have severest limit, open plain the least limit.

That was suggested. Problem there is not all Atolls are the same size either. In the end, thats alot of what nixed the idea. Too many variables and everyone had a different idea of what the "limit" should be and "where".

That's a big part of the problem. Instead of having a system like terrain based stacking penalties, and living with the resultant gripes about the little things like "this atoll was bigger than that atoll" etc, it was decided to do nothing because of these specific little variables leaving us with the bigger problems associated with no stacking limit. The lobbyists whin over the greater good again.[:(]

Ron, how many troops in Iwo Jima counting both sides? How many support troops on the ships? (we model them as part of the unit so they can't really be split off)

chasing your tail is really rather pointless, unless you are really flexible, the tail is going to always be one step ahead of you.

and should you ever actually catch it, you'll likely find all you've really done is bitten yourself in the a**.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Ron,

Something to worry about in regards to having stacking limits.

Atols!! The defender puts exactly enough troops on the atol so that the attacker can never get enough assault points to win. If one division is the most you can use on an atol, then the attacker won't be able to use two divisions to beat him off.

Of course, if the defender has an entire division on one atol, then some other place is undefended.

Anyway, something to consider about stacking limits (I think Nik was the one who pointed this out long ago, though)

bc

I'm not talking about hard limits. I was suggesting that if units are stacked beyond a theoretical stacking limit (number of combat troops let's say), the performance of said units goes down due to various elements such as congestion, command and control, what have you. Sure it's abstract, but it has to be better than assumming a million men can be deployed in the defence of Midway Atoll or something. This penalty, when coupled with prep points, can really sway a player into avoiding stacking penalties and adopting a front approach to combat rather than the land based death star which cruises the highways at the moment.

That's a big part of the problem. Instead of having a system like terrain based stacking penalties, and living with the resultant gripes about the little things like "this atoll was bigger than that atoll" etc, it was decided to do nothing because of these specific little variables leaving us with the bigger problems associated with no stacking limit. The lobbyists whin over the greater good again.[:(]

As mentioned, there situations where the same terrain type would support different levels of troop concentrations, therefore this idea wont work

So what you are saying Ron is that I as the defender who maxes at the stacking limit can never loose because the attacker needs double the forces to fight me ... you start to see how silly it becomes?

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ron, how many troops in Iwo Jima counting both sides? How many support troops on the ships? (we model them as part of the unit so they can't really be split off)

At what point do we get away from these minute details and embrace abstraction. I've had to bite my tongue over naval combat flaws because of the abstraction arguement (and man, some of the arguements are a stretch!)...but now specific details like how many troops on a specific atoll type were present and how many troops are on board APs in a support role are being used as reasons behind the nixing of a terrain stacking penalty.

Seems to me that I'm not the only one seemingly chasing my tail.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

So what you are saying Ron is that I as the defender who maxes at the stacking limit can never loose because the attacker needs double the forces to fight me ... you start to see how silly it becomes?

I don't see this at all. How can he (defender) not lose? With proper preperation of the target, the defenders will be in very poor shape. Fresh troops pouring ashore, despite being overstacked and sufferring a penalty, can't take out out of supply, disrupted, fatigued, and disabled troops? Gimme a break.

Do what was done historically, prepare for invasions, don't just fly about as we can now.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Do what was done historically, prepare for invasions, don't just fly about as we can now.

Whole different issue and one not solved by stacking arguments.

I agree, the amphibious routine remains the weakest component in the game as it was in PacWar. In either game, you string together a couple AK's sail to your target and unload. Real life wasn't like that..(at least if the target was defended)
PP's help but dont really stop players from landing 'on the fly'. Part of the problem too is that landing craft outside of late war LSI/T/D craft are abstracted into the load/unload routines for AP/AK

We have some ideas regarding addressing this.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


I know..... I'd rather the conversation returned to the subject of retreats.

Sorry, I'm at work and sometimes they expect me to do stuff.[8|]

ORIGINAL: moses

Sorry, I'm at work and sometimes they expect me to do stuff.[8|]

I have that same challenge.....[;)]