Unlimited stacking

[JeffroK]

Continental hexes, and many larger islands, allow unlimited stacking.

Is this reasonable without any penalties.

Given the need for space to set up an Infantry Division, the cramming of "100's" of LCU into 1 hex should be inefficient without extra resources being committed.

Equally the number of LCU that should be able to attack (remember this is daily turns, not weekly or monthly)

Just some thoughts to chew over.

[vettim89]

Excellant point. You could certainly say at the very least there should be a maximum number of units designated to any combat task whether it be on attack or defense. The rest would need to be in reserve mode. Would take a wholesale code change to make it happen

[Shark7]

Particularly in China. I think that all the hexes should have some time of penalty for over-stacking. Even if the penalty is nothing more than increased vulnerability to air and artillery attack.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Continental hexes, and many larger islands, allow unlimited stacking.

Is this reasonable without any penalties.

Given the need for space to set up an Infantry Division, the cramming of "100's" of LCU into 1 hex should be inefficient without extra resources being committed.

Equally the number of LCU that should be able to attack (remember this is daily turns, not weekly or monthly)

Just some thoughts to chew over.

A month ago this issue was being discussed in this thread:

tm.asp?m=2869940

Some promising ideas there but no recent commentary so I don't know whether Andrew Brown has filed it in the waste paper bin.[:)]

Alfred

[JeffroK]

Thanks for the link, I dont read every thread.

IMVHO, there should be a "developed hex" a la San Fransisco/Los Angeles which due to its already developed infrastructure can support a larger number of troops, but also a lower level (outback OZ, jungles of Burma) which while it can hold an unlimited number has a higher supply cost, inhibits training and any other similar penalties for cramming 100,000 men and their equipment into the hex.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
A month ago this issue was being discussed in this thread:

tm.asp?m=2869940

Some promising ideas there but no recent commentary so I don't know whether Andrew Brown has filed it in the waste paper bin.[:)]

No that subject hasn't been forgotten. Still chewing some things over.

Also, I have virtually no time for AE stuff at the moment. Needing to spend even more time spent on my studies and other things (like trying to get in some training time for some bike rides coming up, plus other "unimportant" things like family...) AE is taking a bit of a back seat at the moment, unfortunately.

Andrew

[witpqs]

The attached image is a screen capture of Google Maps, showing the Normandy area. Notice the scale at lower left shows 20mi size. I copied the scale and superimposed it over a portion of the Normandy area. Please note that this is square (not even a hex) is 40 miles, not 46 miles as in AE. I wonder how many Allied troops were in this area, quite effectively engaged in combat?

I followed the other thread to a point, I'm just posting this hoping that stacking limits for non-island spaces don't go unrealistically low. The current model of "unlimited", while obviously incorrect, is a pretty reasonable approximation for the vast majority of AE activity.

[Big B]

Just a few comments -
I think on the whole some 'stacking' limitations would be realistic and desirable also (+1).

The idea of developed hexes (urban hexes) having the highest capacity is a good start, with other terrain having more limitations in descending order. 
I think examples of what may be appropriate can be drawn from a look at known examples from the ETO & Italian Front.

For a few quick examples; Normandy would be about two hexes at this scale. I think the assault beaches on D-Day stretched about 80 miles in frontage - and not urban terrain either.
Also, the Ardennes front (Battle of the Bulge) was also about 80 miles of frontage (non-urban, heavily wooded and very hilly as well) - so another example of a two hex front in this game scale.
In both cases above,  something in the order of 500,000 to 1,000,000 men were able to concentrate and engage (per side).

A further example could be drawn from the Italian Front - the Gustav Line & Cassino Line.  The battle line across Italy held by the US 5th Army & British 8th Army in the winter of 43-44 is again - exactly two hexes (80 miles) across the Italian peninsula (measured in a straight line) - all very mountainous and constricted terrain. And yet the Germans and Allies deployed numerous divisions in combat in that limited area (I don't remember the exact count off the top of my head - but more than 20 divisions).

The biggest limiting factor in all of the cases above (to my mind) isn't really terrain type per say - but supplying the troops ...the road net available to deploy from and run supply through. This is where the ETO would seem to be much more suited to large deployment compared to most examples one could draw from just about anywhere on our map.

So in summary, I think deploy-able frontage in most cases of 'all land' hexes it would turn out to be quite large - with the biggest limitation being the assumed road network in any given hex.

Just my 2c.

B

[witpqs]

I largely agree with Big B. I do want to add that in some terrain a 'road' is wherever you point your vehicle, so going by official roads would be unrealistic.

[JeffroK]

Dont use Europe as your model for South East Asia or the Pacific.

Probably half of the hexes have jungle as their terrain type, many have rough/mountains as well which severely limit the ability to distribute troops. In many cases these areas hadnt seen motor vehicles let alone a modern army. Have a look at the US Army maps available at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/index.html to gain some idea of what is proposed.

In those developed locations such as West Coast USA & South East Australia you may be able to support an unlimited force, but I am sure that the vast majority of New Guinea (for example) would struggle to base 100,000 men and their equipment without a major input of infrastructure (which we cant replicate)

Most combat forces set up in "defended localities" rather than a strict frontline

[Big B]

witpqs & Jeffk, I agree.
And to clarify what I was trying to say - your example of New Guinea supporting maybe no more than 100,000 men per hex, to me, would seem valid - not because it is so mountainous and forested (terrain type) - so much as the fact that it's so largely unpopulated/undeveloped and therefore largely devoid of small roads (at least in WWII).

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Dont use Europe as your model for South East Asia or the Pacific.

Probably half of the hexes have jungle as their terrain type, many have rough/mountains as well which severely limit the ability to distribute troops. In many cases these areas hadnt seen motor vehicles let alone a modern army. Have a look at the US Army maps available at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/index.html to gain some idea of what is proposed.

In those developed locations such as West Coast USA & South East Australia you may be able to support an unlimited force, but I am sure that the vast majority of New Guinea (for example) would struggle to base 100,000 men and their equipment without a major input of infrastructure (which we cant replicate)

Most combat forces set up in "defended localities" rather than a strict frontline

[witpqs]

Jeff - my point being that terrain is at least as important as state of development. In the jungle, mountains, or rough terrain (and maybe I leave out some types?) development will have a major influence on stacking/supply movement. More open country, hardly at all. "Sand" desert (or whatever it's called in AE), while open, still very difficult. Regular (AE) desert quite amenable to high stacking.

[JWE]

I think this is a valid discussion in many ways. Certainly agree that jungles, and the outback, and such, ain't Europe (or even Eastern Europe).

Also, even though the game attempts to model the "support" elements, those are woefully short in manpower count. Support squads are at around 70-80% of combat devices. Realistically, the total manpower count should be anywhere from 2x to 5x the combat count. So 200,000 troops, in a hex, is really about 400,000 to 1,000,000, in real terms (unfortunately, not expressed as such in game terms).

I, for one, would support limitations on troop count in many of the various hex types.

[Cap Mandrake]

Try putting 100K troops down down an aboriginal trail in the Outback and see how long they remain effective. [;)]

There is, in a sense, already a de facto limit but it would make sense to have all jungle, all desert and Himalaya hexes (no roads) have some hard-coded limit like atolls.

[vettim89]

I think we need to be careful of breaking the system on this issue. One of the biggest weakness of WitP and AE has always been continental warfare. While I understand some concerns about how the game treats "telephone pole" stacks of units in places like China, India, and Australia, the game will likely not be won in those locales (barring a Japanese autovictory). No matter which large front you look at logistics was more important than raw combat power in many cases (North Africa coming to mind immediately). To me it should not be the question of whther it should be possible to march four or five division over the Owen Stanley Mountains but rather can a player supply those four or five divisions. I think some of the work in the Beta is addressing this issue.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
Try putting 100K troops down down an aboriginal trail in the Outback and see how long they remain effective. [;)]

There is, in a sense, already a de facto limit but it would make sense to have all jungle, all desert and Himalaya hexes (no roads) have some hard-coded limit like atolls.

Even with roads, Cap. You're from SoCal, ever been to Anza Borego or Ocatillo? Serviced by good roads and with some good infrastructure, but maybe can handle two or three thousand visitors daily. Imagine Ocatillo Wells with 100,000 troops hanging around. It would take 300,000 more just to get them enough water, food and tp.

Asked the range officer at Ft Irwin if he thought the base area could support a 5 division deployment. All he did was point and laugh. Felt like an idiot,. And Irwin has a gosh darn freeway equivalent, and a railroad, and an airfield, and they just looked at me kindly like I'm some kind of family moron.

Think a hex is a hex is a hex, and screw the road or anything else crap. Just my humble opinion.

[Big B]

Good point John, but on the other hand...I've been to Ft Irwin many times too, and I'd bet that area has more infrastructure than
the British had available at El Alamein - yet the British fielded more than 5 divisions there...

Just saying [:)]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
Try putting 100K troops down down an aboriginal trail in the Outback and see how long they remain effective. [;)]

There is, in a sense, already a de facto limit but it would make sense to have all jungle, all desert and Himalaya hexes (no roads) have some hard-coded limit like atolls.

Even with roads, Cap. You're from SoCal, ever been to Anza Borego or Ocatillo? Serviced by good roads and with some good infrastructure, but maybe can handle two or three thousand visitors daily. Imagine Ocatillo Wells with 100,000 troops hanging around. It would take 300,000 more just to get them enough water, food and tp.

Asked the range officer at Ft Irwin if he thought the base area could support a 5 division deployment. All he did was point and laugh. Felt like an idiot,. And Irwin has a gosh darn freeway equivalent, and a railroad, and an airfield, and they just looked at me kindly like I'm some kind of family moron.

Think a hex is a hex is a hex, and screw the road or anything else crap. Just my humble opinion.

[bigred]

Asked the range officer at Ft Irwin if he thought the base area could support a 5 division deployment. All he did was point and laugh. Felt like an idiot,. And Irwin has a gosh darn freeway equivalent, and a railroad, and an airfield, and they just looked at me kindly like I'm some kind of family moron.

Ft. Irwin..I remember when the whole 82nd visited in sept 85.  We in Ops group took vacation!!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Thanks for the link, I dont read every thread.

IMVHO, there should be a "developed hex" a la San Fransisco/Los Angeles which due to its already developed infrastructure can support a larger number of troops, but also a lower level (outback OZ, jungles of Burma) which while it can hold an unlimited number has a higher supply cost, inhibits training and any other similar penalties for cramming 100,000 men and their equipment into the hex.

The tool is in the editor to address this matter - if you (or someone) wants to do so. Simply do not use the "unlimited" troops option. Pick a value less than that for every hex. It will take a while to do the whole map, however...

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Dont use Europe as your model for South East Asia or the Pacific.

Probably half of the hexes have jungle as their terrain type, many have rough/mountains as well which severely limit the ability to distribute troops. In many cases these areas hadnt seen motor vehicles let alone a modern army. Have a look at the US Army maps available at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/index.html to gain some idea of what is proposed.

In those developed locations such as West Coast USA & South East Australia you may be able to support an unlimited force, but I am sure that the vast majority of New Guinea (for example) would struggle to base 100,000 men and their equipment without a major input of infrastructure (which we cant replicate)

Most combat forces set up in "defended localities" rather than a strict frontline

This is a good point. Most of the Pacific campaign was fought in 1 of 3 types of terrain: Coral Atols, Heavy Jungle, or volcanic islands. We already have stacking limits for the islands, but continental hexes with heavy jungle don't. If the hex was all plains or farm fields, then you can certainly stack a lot of troops in it. Even cities can house a lot of troops, but jungle hexes are usually over-grown, have few roads if any (mostly foot or ox-cart paths) and are full of malaria carrying mosquitos.

Perhaps it would be some type of penalty for large stacks of troops by terrain type?