Why no stacking

[MasterChief81]

What was the thought process behind not allowing stacking? I could almost understand not being able to stack army's, but why not corps and smaller. This is especially frustrating on this size map. As it is now, a single brigade or regiment sized garrison blocks a hex that should be able to accommodate a whole army or even army group. Critical units such as air units hog up hexes that I would normally also want to put land units. And don't even get me started on sea units. Does anyone have any insight into the reasoning?

[gwgardner]

Check past forum entries on this topic, in previous games in the Strategic Command series.

[MasterChief81]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Check past forum entries on this topic, in previous games in the Strategic Command series.

Thank you for your response, but I have done several searches, using different combos of key words, with no results. Perhaps I'm missing something. If anyone could point me in the right direction I would truley appreciate it. This is really the only major issue I have with this great game, but it's preventing me from really getting into it.

[Simulacra53]

Yeah, it is a feature in this series, but is a great handicap once fights end up being shuffle puzzles instead well planned battles.

[MasterChief81]

I'm just trying to understand the thought process behind it right now... I might learn to appreciate it more once I know the purpose.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi MasterChief81,

The original Strategic Command goes back now almost 20 years and none of the games have used stacking. If you are familiar with an old game called Clash of Steel, this was a large inspiration to the series and this too did not use stacking, although the naval component was implemented differently there.

Part of it is due to this and it makes it approachable and more easily accessible for those that prefer no stacking as well, i.e. easy to quickly scan the map and understand the dispositions etc. Granted stacking allows for a different type of combat system and in the end it is just two different systems/styles and with pros and cons for each with of course fans for each system as well.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[Simulacra53]

Sure it is not wrong, it is a genre, but it does introduce its own challenges once you have multiple layers of units especially in difficult terrain, that’s when it really becomes shuffle puzzle. Now if it had the option to switch unit position it would alleviate the problem, but it does not. Reality check - the game will not change, it is a fundamental part of its simplified game design and resolution.

As much as I like the series and games without stacking, I greatly prefer games that do allow stacking, so you can create a true Schwerpunkt to punch through the enemy defense and exploit the gap in depth.

Don’t let this stop you from buying this otherwise great game, these are just some minuses that come with the territory of low resolution and no stacking.

[steevodeevo]

I'm sure this is known, but something said above made me wonder if all appreciate this feature.. If you have units 'stacked' in depth, so for example have two units adjacent to an enemy unit and 2 more units in support behind the units facing the enemy and all have action points, you can attack with the facing unit, then hold Shift and 'swap' with the rear unit and attack with that. Do this with both facing units and you get to attack one unit with 4 units.

You can of course, as with many games, soften up first with arty and/or bombers and if the defending unit retreats then you can move other units with available move points to attack again and penetrate the gap.

I mention this as folks seem to be considering a lack of stacking as a weakness or flaw to SC. I don't see it that way at all. I too play other games that have stacking (GGs War in the East and West, TOAoW etc), but I definately do not feel that SC suffers or is dumber as a result of no stacks. Using adjacent reserves well works in a similar way and requires some planning and seems realistic to me.

People say stacking is realistic. Im not always so sure. Units didn't sit on top of each other, they say adjacent or in reserve and were poured in. Combined forces were also key.

I've played stacking wargames and gotten lazy surrounding enemies with red flagged (over stacked) units and just pummeled away without much care or thought. This actually seems less realistic and ballanced than the SC approach.

[Simulacra53]

Stacking represents unit density, overstacking without limits or penalties is just another type of design weakness.

With no stacking all units have the same footprint - for instance Army vs Corps vs “specialist” unit vs CV vs Sub vs MTB etc
It is not necessarily more dumb, but then again it is more a puzzle - rock scissors paper style - than the traditional stacking type of game.

You can only swap if you have room to move, no in position swap - so no room, no exchange. WaW’s China is an exercise in shuffling units between themselves and the terrain. If I am fully honest I am finding that more of an irritation than an interesting gaming challenge. I knew this effect from older Fury games, but War in Europe’s higher resolution and more open terrain are less restrictive, so in that sense World at War feels like a retrogressive step.

The game design is a model and as such it has its strengths and weakesses,

In the end I prefer Fury’s earlier War in Europe.
...still, imo World at War is an overal fun and interesting gaming experience, worth buying.

[Simulacra53]

...and I’ll stop beating a dead horse [8|]

Looking forward to continuing my 1939 campaign - autumn 1942

The war in Europe is probably lost, I occupy Europe and Libiya, but the Soviets ataacked first and I have not enough troops to effectively stop the growing juggernaut. I should have ignored Yugoslavia. Also my German and Italian surface navies were completely defeated early on - now I got a useless Bismark, Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin.

However Japan is doing well in China, as I have not declared war on America. Most of the war effort going into China, but trying to spare the fleet, also created an invasion force (too weak for a broad front, but enough for the Philippines and Malaya. We’ll see, if the Soviets attack they’ll role up China as fast as they can travel.

[Hubert Cater]

You can only swap if you have room to move, no in position swap - so no room, no exchange

I just wanted to reply to this just in case it has been missed, as units can swap from one hex to another without needing extra space.

If you click on a unit and then hold down the shift key it will change the mouse cursor to a swap cursor and you'll then be able to hover over an adjacent unit to swap with.

I hope this helps unless of course I've misunderstood the concern.

[ivanov]

I'm ok with lack of stacking in SC, but I would like to see a limited stacking introduced. That is stacking of air and support units with the regular combat units. This would be really welcomed in case of less spacious theatres like North Africa or Italy.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

You can only swap if you have room to move, no in position swap - so no room, no exchange

I just wanted to reply to this just in case it has been missed, as units can swap from one hex to another without needing extra space.

If you click on a unit and then hold down the shift key it will change the mouse cursor to a swap cursor and you'll then be able to hover over an adjacent unit to swap with.

I hope this helps unless of course I've misunderstood the concern.

I missed that in manual. I didnt know it until I was reading this thread. Thanks
Rick

[budd]

If I remember right, isn't there penalties for swapping then attacking.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

You can only swap if you have room to move, no in position swap - so no room, no exchange

I just wanted to reply to this just in case it has been missed, as units can swap from one hex to another without needing extra space.

If you click on a unit and then hold down the shift key it will change the mouse cursor to a swap cursor and you'll then be able to hover over an adjacent unit to swap with.

I hope this helps unless of course I've misunderstood the concern.

I did not know that - or I have simply forgotten if it is also part of the previous games.
If this is the case, and coming from you thre should be no doubt, I owe you an apology and will have to correct some posts / comments I made.

[Simulacra53]

World at War
Finally, we are going to swap two units so that you can launch another attack on the Chinese. To do this, left click on the Japanese 34th Army that you launched your first attack with. Then press and hold Shift on your keyboard and hover your mouse over the Japanese Army to its south-east in Nanchang.

P57

War in Europe
Swap – Select one unit, press Shift and select an adjacent unit you wish to swap it with. There is a Morale penalty for doing so, and both units will have a maximum of 1 Action Point after swapping. Unless the swapped units have already done so, they will still be free to attack or reinforce. Providing they aren’t adjacent to any enemy units they can be upgraded.

P40

So both new titles have this, not sure if I used it, either memory loss or I was playing with an unnecessary handicap!


Is it true that the old titles do not have this feature, I could only find one reference in the manual.


WW1 BREAKTHROUGH

Unit Swapping
AI will now swap units under the right combat and reorganizational conditions and swap moves will now cost the unit that has yet to attack a 20% morale loss.

[Simulacra53]

...I have to eat humble pie, it is in most - if not all of the old titles as well, just tried a number of them.

[Hubert Cater]

No worries at all Simulacra53 and hopefully it helps to create a more enjoyable game play experience [:)]

[cdcool]

It seems to me it's just an older game that didn't have stacking then and can't have it now

[mroyer]

Yeah... as great as this game system is (and I really enjoy it), the no stacking issue is the biggest turn off for me - I have to really keep focused on other positives to get past it. No stacking is the main feature that turns what could be a pretty darn good grand-strategy simulation into just a chess-like game of ahistorical unit-shuffling for effect.

Alas, I'm sure Hubert and the other developers are painfully aware of this and would "fix" it if it weren't a prohibitively difficult and risky effort.

-Mark R.