RE: Stacking

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Stacking

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> RE: Stacking

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Stacking - 2/25/2007 3:16:16 PM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

I give up. I recommend everyone else do so also.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 31

RE: Stacking - 2/25/2007 4:01:39 PM

Veroporo

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/20/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

No, my friend, I never suggested that anyone MUST play with stacking rules. I do this just in MY solo games. Let there be no misconceptions here. This is strictly a personal rule, OK?

Ok, my bad.

_____________________________

Ei kannattais.

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 32

RE: Stacking - 2/25/2007 4:29:49 PM

robot

Posts: 1438
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Covington Ky USA
Status: offline

I think what gunny is saying, this is a rule he has set up for his own personal pleasure in playing his game. Not something he advocates for any one else just him. Same way I have a personal rule for my own pleasure in playing this game. I never use more then three batteries of off board in an assault and this is primarially in blasting a hole thru the enemys minefield. And in a defend I never use more then two batteries of off board. Plus i never allow myself more then 70 mines in a defend no matter the size of the map. Now these are my rules no matter if its historical or not I dont expect anyone else to use these rules. Of course im not an historical player so that fact is mute. But too me it just makes sense not to overstack a 50 yard wide space with too many men or tanks. But then my hex is only 50 feet not yards as I dont use yards as a measurement. We all play different anyways and still enjoy playing in our own ways right. Litttle things that we do in the game makes it more enjoyable to us and thats what really our little rules to our selves are about right gunny.

By the ways guys wasnt there a way to change the yards to feet in the game. Isnt there a key press that does this. If any one knows could you tell me.

< Message edited by robot -- 2/25/2007 4:50:00 PM >

_____________________________

Robots wear armor for skin.Grunts wear skin for armor.

(in reply to Veroporo)

Post #: 33

RE: Stacking - 2/25/2007 4:57:30 PM

Alby

Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline

Has no one ever heard the phrase...."Don't bunch up"

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 34

RE: Stacking - 2/25/2007 6:48:19 PM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Robot: to change from yards to meters to hexes use the @ key.

(in reply to Alby)

Post #: 35

RE: Stacking - 2/25/2007 8:59:25 PM

robot

Posts: 1438
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Covington Ky USA
Status: offline

Thanx Gunny

_____________________________

Robots wear armor for skin.Grunts wear skin for armor.

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 36

RE: Stacking - 2/25/2007 9:03:57 PM

Oldguard1970

Posts: 578
Joined: 7/19/2006
From: Hiawassee, GA
Status: offline

Hello Vahauser,

One fun part of this game is that we are able to enjoy trying multiple methods to deal with various circumstances. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't have the skill to learn or to react particularly well. For instance, if I am playing against the poor old AI, I can purchase one ammo unit and surround it with all sorts of arty units. Then I can blaze away with huge amounts of indirect fire. Of course, if I try that trick against my live opponent, he targets my concentration, and I get clobbered. So, as a self-imposed rule, when I play against the AI, I pretend that it could be clever enough to hit back. Therefore, I remain dispersed.

KG says that he also restrains himself when playing solo. Heavy stacking against a live opponent is permitted in the game, but risky, so he avoids it. The risk shrinks in solo play, so he uses his personal "house rule" against heavy stacking rather than take advantage of AI limitations.

That's my attempt to answer your question about the reasoning behind the rule. Hope it helps.

What a great game!

_____________________________

"Rangers Lead the Way!"

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 37

RE: Stacking - 2/25/2007 9:56:05 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

robot & OldGuard1970,

Yes. I know precisely WHY KG Erwin uses some sort of stacking rules (even though he himself just "wings it" using seat-of-the-pants gaming, since he has never written his stacking rules down for consistent application from game to game). But I know WHY he does it. That isn't the issue.

I have stated on this and on other threads (see my DARs) that my battlegroups (based on a "large-battalion" sized core) advance and attack using historical WW2 frontages of between 8 and 10 hexes (400 and 500 yards).

Over the past day or two I have spent hours going over detailed actual combat maps in Russia in Europe in the Pacific, etc. (using Google). Those detailed combat maps (of which I have provided two in this thread), confirm that historical combat battalions did indeed attack on frontages of 500 yards and often less.

Goblin has stated that stacking rules "make sense" (for single player vs. the computer). What I am trying to do is determine what KIND of stacking rules would make "historical sense".

For example, I play with C&C ON and KG Erwin plays with C&C OFF. If I try to emply some kind of stacking rule based on the limited information that KG Erwin has supplied (since he has no written rules), my bet is that many of my units will go out of command.

Based on historical reports and historical combat maps, and playing with C&C ON (as I do), I am willing to try to merge history with game and come up with some sort of stacking rule that is compatible with C&C ON and still has some history backing it up.

The historical part is important. It is important because there are a lot of people on this forum who claim to be "historical" gamers. And if a player is going to claim to be "historical", then he better be historical across the board because "breaking the historical chain" at any point along the line weakens (or invalidates) claims to being an "historical" gamer.

FlashFyre has stated that the game limits the maximum formation size to 10 units (typically motorized/mechanized infantry platoons). My current belief is that allowing one platoon to occupy one hex is both fully compatible with C&C ON and is also historical in that such a basic "stacking rule" would not violate historical attack frontages.

That was easy enough. The hard part comes when trying to figure out all the special cases like: what about mixed stacks that contain units from multiple formations? what about when units retreat/rout into a hex and "overstack" it? what about when enemy units enter a friendly hex? and others I haven't thought of yet.

I don't know yet if it is possible to make a stacking rule for SPWAW (single player vs. computer) that is both historical and is compatible with C&C ON, but I'm giving it some thought.

--V

_____________________________

(in reply to Oldguard1970)

Post #: 38

RE: Stacking - 2/25/2007 10:21:30 PM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

vahauser,

I find it hard to believe anyone who would stack twenty four 203mm howitzers into a hex 150 ft across cares anything about stacking in the game.

Taking a shot at Glenn because of not writing down his house rules wasn't called for either. Who writes down every rule they impose on themselves in a game? I try and drop my infiltrators at least 5 hexes from a victory hex and no closer in games. Written down? Nope. Followed? Yep. The point of house rules is playing your own way. You want to figure out your own rules, do it. Don't sit here and take shots at others about how they like to play, or because they don't write down something that can easily be remembered.

Do your research (like how large a 203mm howitzer is, how much room it needs with crew and ammo, and how many you could possibly jam into a single hex with an ammo supply and still have anyone be able to move without crawling over guns to do it), decide on a rule for yourself, and post it if you like.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 39

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 3:24:13 PM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

Ok, unlocking this one. Let's please not take shots at other members, vahauser included, ok?

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 40

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 8:13:17 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

The following is a series of 11 actual WW2 photographs. I believe that they provide fairly conclusive evidence of what can historically be justifiable from an SPWAW stacking perspective.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 2/26/2007 8:35:10 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 41

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 8:16:58 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo #1

This photo is an actual combat photo of heavy artillery in action. There are three Soviet 152mm howitzers firing in this photo. However, given their close proximity to each other and the small viewing area of the camera, it is reasonable to speculate that at least 4 and possibly 6 howitzers could be in action within a 50-yard hex.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 42

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 8:20:31 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo #2

Here is an actual combat photo of Soviet Katyushas in action. I count 3 Katyushas actually firing, but there seems to be a 4th that is not firing. Here again, due to the narrow camera angle, it is reasonable to speculate that 6 Katyushas could be operating within a 50-yard hex.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by vahauser -- 2/26/2007 8:34:49 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 43

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 8:27:35 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo #3

Here is an actual combat photo of German Pz-38s attacking a forest (they seem to be firing in order to breach the stone wall at the edge of the forest). There are five Pz-38s in the field of the camera, but there could easily be more operating within a 50-yard hex outside the camera angle (indeed, there have to be at least 6 since somebody is taking the photograph). These Pz-38s are tactically deployed and are actually attacking, which means that it is definitely historical to have at least 6 AFVs stacked tactically in a hex and fighting combat.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by vahauser -- 2/26/2007 9:55:36 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 44

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 8:32:06 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo #4

Here is an actual combat photo of Soviet T-34/85s attacking. At least 5 or 6 are in the camera angle, and at least 2 of them are unloading tank-desant infantry. This photo provides direct evidence that at least 6 AFV plus supporting infantry can operate tactically in a 50-yard hex.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 45

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 8:36:33 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo #5

Here is an actual combat photo of Americans assaulting at Tarawa. I count at least a full platoon within the camera angle. This photo provides direct evidence that at least a full platoon of infantry can operate tactically within a 50-yard hex.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 46

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 8:41:37 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

The next 6 photos do not show troops in actual combat, but DO show actual military units within a small area. The following 6 photos are more to show how many units can "fit" into a 50-yard hex within an SPWAW framework.

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 47

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 8:45:10 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo #6

Here is a German march column advancing into what looks like Poland in 1939. As far as I can tell there is at least an entire company marching within the frame of the camera. The implication is clear that at least a company of SPWAW units can operate (even if not in combat) within a 50-yard hex.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 48

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 8:59:49 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo #7

This is a photo of Canadian armor assembling for an attack in Normandy 1944. This is another example that at least a company of units can operate within an SPWAW hex (by "operate" I don't mean fight combat tactically, but I do mean at least move and/or assemble somewhere on an SPWAW game map). Note the 'Whiz-Bangs' and the 'Scorpion' support AFVs.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 49

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 9:03:51 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo *8

This is a photo of a Panther company advancing. Yet more evidence that at least a company of units can operate within an SPWAW hex.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 50

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 9:07:28 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo #9

A company of Pz-38Ts plus support units (looks like motorcycles and supply trucks) on the move. Yet more evidence of a company operating within an SPWAW hex.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 51

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 9:14:27 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo #10

This is an important photo. It shows a combined-arms force (I count at least 12 vehicles plus supporting infantry (I speculate that most of the infantry are occupying the buildings)) within a small area. Clearly this is a tactical combat formation (a kampfgruppe) although it is difficult to say how far from the combat line it is. My guess is that it is fairly close to the combat line.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 52

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 9:25:35 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Photo #11

This last photo might be one of the most important. There is a battle being fought (you can see the smoke at the upper left) not far from where this densely-packed column is moving. My guess is maybe 500-1000 yards down the road from the moving column. Thus the reason for the importance of this photo. At some point, units marching/assembling for combat have to deploy tactically. The question is: how close to the combat line can units get before they have to deploy tactically? This photo helps answer that question.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by vahauser -- 2/26/2007 9:41:11 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 53

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 9:29:30 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

I have formed my own tentative conclusions regarding SPWAW stacking based on the above photos (and others that I didn't post here). But before I present my own conclusions, I'll wait for feedback from others first.

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 54

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 10:53:27 PM

robot

Posts: 1438
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Covington Ky USA
Status: offline

I dont know how others view these photos. But from my obsevations there is a lot more then 150 feet between a lot of the units. Some look as far as 4 hundred feet apry so to me trhe photos prov that maybe 3 or four units are stacked in a fifty yard space. This is my own conclusion only. Hell the one colum has at least 400 yards from start to finish if my judgement of space still is any good.

Ill grant you the fact about the artty tho does look like an awful lot are gathered together in a close space. Seems to me if you were the center gun there would be more noise then you could stand when they all were firing.

_____________________________

Robots wear armor for skin.Grunts wear skin for armor.

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 55

RE: Stacking - 2/26/2007 11:25:26 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

robot,

I agree with you about the overall area/depth of some of those photos. But if you imagine yourself in the center of the photo looking around you instead of from the edge of the photo looking through it, then it is evident to me that a lot of units will be encompassed within that frame of reference. Only in photo #11 (which looks like it was taken from an aircraft) is the depth of area on a large scale (compared with SPWAW). In all the other photos, if you plop a 50-yard circle down in the "center" of the photo, then the number of units captured by that circle is what I was talking about in my comments. For example, take Photo #7. Now imagine that the center of a 50-yard circle is placed where one of those 'Whiz-Bangs' are. I estimate at least 25 AFVs within a 50-yard circle of those 'Whiz-Bangs'.

Further, photos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (the actual combat photos) are definitely small-scale photos, and my interpretation of them is that a 50-yard circle placed in the middle of any of those photos will easily capture all of the units in the photo (with room to spare in some of them). And those are the photos that really matter when you are talking about tactical "stacking" in SPWAW. For example, take Photo #3. If you place the center of a 50-yard circle on the "middle" Pz-38 in that 5-tank formation, then that 50-yard circle will easily capture all 5 tanks with room to spare.

But before we get caught up in visual "intrepretations" and start wasting time by quibbling and haggling over things like, "Gee that looks like 55 yards and not 50 yards." Here is the bottom line. The actual combat photos indicate that it is not ridiculous or idiotic to imagine that 6 AFVs or one platoon of infantry or 6 guns can be tactically deployed in combat formation in a 50-yard hex.

_____________________________

(in reply to robot)

Post #: 56

RE: Stacking - 2/27/2007 12:26:33 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

robot,

I just re-read my last post and I want to clear something up. I used the words "ridiculous" and "idiotic". Those words were NOT directed at you. They were directed more at ME. As in: Is Victor being ridiculous and idiotic when he thinks that it is historically reasonable, based on the actual combat photos, that 6 AFVs or 6 guns or one platoon of infantry can be employed in a tactical combat role in an SPWAW hex?

That is the question.

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 57

RE: Stacking - 2/27/2007 12:38:34 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Here is another photo of some StuG-IIIs advancing.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 58

RE: Stacking - 2/27/2007 12:40:40 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

To put this in a different perspective, I'm thinking that a basic problem is the size of the maps vis a vis the number of units allowed.

In the USA/USMC, a basic tactical principle is the concept of "two forward/one back", i.e., two platoons/companies/battalions in the forward line, with one in reserve.

Considering that the long campaigns' maps are either 2000, 3000 or 4000 yards wide, the problem becomes apparent. The force to space ratio gets all buggered up.

This is why my in-game deployments tend to lean towards a broad-front approach or basically an "outpost" defense. I'm not that crazy about it, but especially in a jungle environment, three rifle companies spread over 3000 yards of front doesn't allow for maintaining any significant reserve.

As a matter of fact, this was often the situation the 1st MarDiv found itself in during the first few months of the Guadalcanal campaign. Vandegrift resorted to the expedient of keeping his tanks and SP 75s as mobile reserves, and deploying the Engineers/Pioneers in the front line as part of the "outpost" defense.

So, when it comes down to it, my stacking rules were basically forced upon me due to the tactical situation.

I've come down hard on Victor for his methods, which might work in the more open terrain of the Western/Eastern Fronts or the Desert.

The early battles in the Pacific are something else entirely. Sweeping manuevers are damn-near impossible. The best I've managed to do is a ponderous shifting of rifle units towards a promising opening, with the few mobile units I have concentrated closeby for support. That's another thing. The Japanese seldom have tanks, so I figured I would allow myself no more than three platoons of light tanks (15 total) and a couple of SPs. That's it. I might convert a couple of transports (my command jeep, the two LVTs I use for my 81mm mortars) to heavier vehicles later. These help once the scene shifts to the island assaults.

In these assaults, doctrine called for battalions to land on beachheads that could be anywhere from 400-1000 yards wide (keeeping the two-foward, one back dictum in mind).

I've actually tried translating this into SPWaW, but still using companies in place of battalions. A quick lesson, though -- infantry stacked up on a beachhead under fire will suffer tremendous losses to enemy artillery/mortars/MGs.

So -- for me, at least, translating historical doctrine into useful SPWaW tactics can be problematic due to the game's physical constraints ( I hate to resort to that old bromide, but it is true).

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 2/27/2007 12:54:52 AM >

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 59

RE: Stacking - 2/27/2007 12:57:03 AM

Riun T

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline

I think that pic # 10 gives about the best dispersement for a couple hundred yards of ground between buildings,that I could easily see double of that many units bivo'ed or concentrating into in pre-attack assemblies,so yes I agree that stacking to a reasonable degree can be considered "historical" as long as its not being as silly as say 8 hamilcar gliders and all their loadables in one hex for the duration of the full battle or 16 MAUS super heavy tanks all on one hex!!??

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 60