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

Stacking?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Stacking?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Stacking? - 7/24/2013 11:13:57 PM

benpark

Posts: 3884
Joined: 8/12/2002
Status: offline

Will SC3 allow stacking of units? The inability of the previous games to allow attacks from a single point has been an issue for me.

_____________________________

"Fear is a darkroom where the devil develops his negatives" Gary Busey

Post #: 1

RE: Stacking? - 7/24/2013 11:17:28 PM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

No need for stacking with a DoD feature!

(in reply to benpark)

Post #: 2

RE: Stacking? - 7/25/2013 2:30:15 AM

Posts: 97
Joined: 7/22/2009
Status: offline

Uhmmm, what's the DoD feature again?

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 3

RE: Stacking? - 7/25/2013 2:33:45 AM

Posts: 97
Joined: 7/22/2009
Status: offline

Okay. Just read about it. Density of Deployment. I look forward to reading about this more.

(in reply to TR)

Post #: 4

RE: Stacking? - 7/25/2013 2:44:04 AM

benpark

Posts: 3884
Joined: 8/12/2002
Status: offline

Anyone have a link to the planned feature?

_____________________________

"Fear is a darkroom where the devil develops his negatives" Gary Busey

(in reply to TR)

Post #: 5

RE: Stacking? - 7/25/2013 4:17:59 AM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

The "link" is moi! Not necessarily a "planned" feature, just one I had outlined for SC3 in the BF forum when SC3 was imaginary. Believe me, Hubert, Bill, and Al have many ideas from over a decade of forum member idea exchange. What will be implimented will be the subject of additional commentary and testing, rest assured that the development team will be listening.

Good ideas that can be accomodated for the AI have an excellent chance of inclusion. This is how the evolution of the series came about, so now is the time to make a case for your favorite mechanics.

Remember though there is an SC "prime directive"; KISS!

(in reply to benpark)

Post #: 6

RE: Stacking? - 7/25/2013 4:43:56 AM

benpark

Posts: 3884
Joined: 8/12/2002
Status: offline

I'm interested in hearing about the DoD idea.

Stacking has been around for a very long time- with good reason. It's not just an old wargamers habit! Allowing two or three units to inhabit one space (hexes, thankfully in this case) is pretty time honored and simple for good reason- it works in simulation terms (given operational and strategic games), and it simulates military operations starting with a concentration of force in order to weigh the odds in favor of the attack quite well. Stacking also would allow interesting groupings of the types of units SC has on offer (which are arguably operational unit types on a strategic level map). There's no reason an AA or AT unit should take up an entire hex of the area of the SC map, for instance. Stack it with an infantry division or corps, and things get interesting.

If there's a new and better way to do the above, I'm game.

< Message edited by benpark -- 7/25/2013 4:48:42 AM >

_____________________________

"Fear is a darkroom where the devil develops his negatives" Gary Busey

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 7

RE: Stacking? - 7/25/2013 5:18:51 AM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

It's actually pretty simple, imagine that a hex is a bag or basket that can contain different tools, like if you're going to do a task, you fill the bag with the tools you'll need. If you're familiar with Norm Koger's TOAW unit build feature, you add certain pre-designed combat formations into the mix until you've created the customized "task force".

In this manner, a hex can be filled with whatever weapons platforms/formations you want for the job, just remember that there are terrain limitations. For instance, you invade a jungle island hex with an amphibious unit and to create greater DoD, you bring in an engineer and supplies, the DoD increases and then can accomodate an air unit, later artillery, fortifications, armor, you get my drift. Slowly but surely depending upon the player's committment the hex can attain its maximum DoD and some hexes will already have a developed infrastructure(road/railroad, city, etc) and can handle a large deployment of combat formations without improvement, all at the campaign designer's whim.

So now you attach an image, a NATO symbol, whatever, with the appropriate formation size designation, division, brigade, corps, + assets, you're the owner, decide, and your combat pull down menu reflects all the attributes of your tool box(hex). You can bombard with artillery, infiltrate with special forces, bomb with air units, blitz with armor, etc and your CTV(combat target values) reflect all the combat strengths you need to perform the designated mission. Hope that you chose wisely, because your opponent can do the same!

(in reply to benpark)

Post #: 8

RE: Stacking? - 7/25/2013 8:35:53 PM

benpark

Posts: 3884
Joined: 8/12/2002
Status: offline

Thanks for the outline. It certainly sounds inventive and interesting (and makes real world sense).

_____________________________

"Fear is a darkroom where the devil develops his negatives" Gary Busey

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 9

RE: Stacking? - 7/25/2013 8:48:49 PM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

Personally I've never been a fan of stacking, however thats just me. Though I like the idea above..or maybe you can shift say five attack points worth of troops from the division behind into your attack division..i.e your bolstering the division with troops from another division..maybe have amax size in a hex and maybe you can take troops from any near division to join your attacking unit?

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to benpark)

Post #: 10

RE: Stacking? - 7/25/2013 8:59:14 PM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

That's kind of what you do with the HQ emphasis feature SC has. I would like to see the HQ as the focal point for assets and supplies to be disbursed into the theater combat units. Imagine the theater HQ sits at the end of an auto convoy lane set up on the LoC from the home country. The un-intercepted supply & assets accumulate there for the player to attach to units within the HQ combat radius which is just an extension of the LoC but now you have the HQ combat emphasis, those "attack points" you refer to wodin.

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 11

RE: Stacking? - 7/25/2013 9:37:13 PM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

Sounds cool...some things like stacking are due to the restrictions of boardgames..now we have a PC doing all the complex maths and mechanics surely we can overcome stacking and make it more realistic..

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 12

RE: Stacking? - 7/26/2013 4:08:35 AM

GJK

Posts: 554
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline

The DoD feature sounds like it's similar to what the boardgame "Hitler's War" does with the Army "containers" that can be filled with certain levels of infantry, armor, air support, etc so that you shape it to be the army group that you need for the mission (within limitations of allowable builds). I am correct in comparing the two games in this manner?

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 13

RE: Stacking? - 7/26/2013 4:17:40 AM

DSWargamer

Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010
Status: offline

I need my stacking.

Civilization V was quite the shock to the senses as it is. Love the game, but going from IV and kill stacks was quite the trauma for many.

(in reply to GJK)

Post #: 14

RE: Stacking? - 7/26/2013 9:40:37 PM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

You know that if you create an ability for units to have various attachments, upgrades and strike capabilities, and enough APs to use, then any hex deployment can take on multi-tasking each turn. No need for stacking.

(in reply to DSWargamer)

Post #: 15

RE: Stacking? - 7/26/2013 10:16:48 PM

DSWargamer

Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

You know that if you create an ability for units to have various attachments, upgrades and strike capabilities, and enough APs to use, then any hex deployment can take on multi-tasking each turn. No need for stacking.

You have a future in politics :). Now what exactly did you say :)

_____________________________

I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 16

RE: Stacking? - 7/26/2013 11:56:44 PM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

Sorry, DSW, my diabolical tendencies are not that honed for politics. It's a variation of the DoD and since you're familiar with SC just imagine those research upgrades as optional capabilities. For example with a "ground attack" upgrade you could turn a fighter into a fighter-bomber, give it LR and three or four strikes and then you could conduct recon, intercept and escort, all in the same turn.

Further if we could get ground units that could be broken down into divisions of various armaments and reformed say two to three for a corps, then a couple of corps to make an army, you could design some decent combined arms teams that have the flexibility to concentrate for attack or spread out for other types of missions.

The key here is, can the AI utilize these features efficiently.

(in reply to DSWargamer)

Post #: 17

RE: Stacking? - 7/27/2013 12:43:10 AM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

You know that if you create an ability for units to have various attachments, upgrades and strike capabilities, and enough APs to use, then any hex deployment can take on multi-tasking each turn. No need for stacking.

I agree..

DS read SeaMonkeys and my thoughts further up for away around Stacking which is probably more realistic and not restricted to boardgame conventions.

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 18

RE: Stacking? - 7/27/2013 3:33:17 AM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

DSW if you'll take the time to read my post #8, contemplate it, think it through, you'll realize that through this one feature you've created an infinitude of replayability. And this is just the beginning.

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 19

RE: Stacking? - 7/27/2013 1:48:49 PM

DSWargamer

Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010
Status: offline

DoD? It took me so long to figure out those three damned letters, took a while to find the original reference, and then it started to make my head hurt.

I hope I am not just getting too old for this stuff.

So is it like everything has a unit size and a hex can only hold so much in total like the stacking in ASL? I hope so, or I will need the idiot explanation.

_____________________________

I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 20

RE: Stacking? - 7/28/2013 2:15:19 PM

gravyface_

Posts: 148
Joined: 4/21/2007
Status: offline

So basically this is a terrain/"zone of control" type limiter on top of unit transfers, or more like in-field upgrades? i.e. do the uber-basket goodies require adjacent units or are we just "buying" what we need?

(in reply to DSWargamer)

Post #: 21

RE: Stacking? - 7/30/2013 12:16:49 AM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

OK guys, let me reiterate, this DoD feature is not an official mechanism, it's just what I was hoping for SC3, actually I doubt the concept will be included. Probably be just your run of the meal wargaming movement and combat system with a little chrome here are there, not that that's bad, it's just not cutting edge stuff.

Just to detail the concept a little more, don't think about it too much, but one of the disparaging things about a global representation of WW2 is the difference of unit sizes in comparing the Pacific to the European campaign and the DoD addresses that. Imagine that the greatest amount of combat power a player could deploy into a hex with the best infrastructure of the WW2 era would be something the size of an army and of course that depends on the area a hex actually represents.

So for the sake of this example, the army takes up 100 percent of the DoD value, so let's say that could also be a 10 division strength army, each division assumes 10% of the DoD. The campaign designer sets the DoD for each individual hex in the editor, so now a hex that is a major city is set at 100, but a hex on the New Guinea coast might only be 5, hardly any infrastructure to support a large organization, not even a division, but maybe a "Special Forces" unit that has a DoD of 5 could land and maintain itself. All these DoD values can be set in the editor, for the individual hex and each specific unit, so that you can fill the hex with combat organizations until they add up to hex DoD value.

Now instead of armies, corps, and other large combat organizations running around the map and occupying areas they could not be sustained in(like the current SC), those hexes with a limiting infrastructure can only accommodate smaller unit sizes, until?????

(in reply to gravyface_)

Post #: 22

RE: Stacking? - 7/30/2013 3:30:31 AM

gravyface_

Posts: 148
Joined: 4/21/2007
Status: offline

No DoD? So SC3 = same ol' same ol'?

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 23

RE: Stacking? - 7/30/2013 3:47:19 AM

DSWargamer

Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010
Status: offline

A better explanation Seamonkey, I like it now.

A lot of work going hex by hex, but it would be ruthlessly accurate.

"Stacking" would be a reflection of 'how much can the hex contain" and have all units given a size rating, and you could only put in a hex a sum of points and no more.

_____________________________

I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.

(in reply to gravyface_)

Post #: 24

RE: Stacking? - 7/30/2013 5:07:15 AM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

You guys have the vision!

Remember DSW, the editor can have a generic value set to the type of hex, so not all the hexes will have be examined and customized.

Are we ready for the next concept? How about every hex has an intrinsic MPP value? Not all, some hexes would be wasteland = 0 MPPs, but all those hexes not containing the usual resources do have value, farmland, timber, minerals, and a player wouldn't be so quick to abandon them and flee inland, now would he?

Besides, he's going to need those MPPs to pay the maintenance cost for keeping those armies in the field. Nothing the player has to keep up with, all computing power.

(in reply to DSWargamer)

Post #: 25

RE: Stacking? - 7/30/2013 12:58:17 PM

DSWargamer

Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010
Status: offline

I like that idea as well.

_____________________________

I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 26

RE: Stacking? - 7/30/2013 11:30:03 PM

gravyface_

Posts: 148
Joined: 4/21/2007
Status: offline

How about we talk about actual features that'll be in SC3? Any teasers? Gotta be some information... need a mole

I played SC2 and a few add-ons for a couple of years but the lack of realism (and lack of manpower and oil, which will be addressed thankfully), lack of maneuvers lost me.

(in reply to DSWargamer)

Post #: 27

RE: Stacking? - 7/31/2013 11:26:47 PM

KuniworthII

Posts: 70
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

OK guys, let me reiterate, this DoD feature is not an official mechanism, it's just what I was hoping for SC3, actually I doubt the concept will be included. Probably be just your run of the meal wargaming movement and combat system with a little chrome here are there, not that that's bad, it's just not cutting edge stuff.

Just to detail the concept a little more, don't think about it too much, but one of the disparaging things about a global representation of WW2 is the difference of unit sizes in comparing the Pacific to the European campaign and the DoD addresses that. Imagine that the greatest amount of combat power a player could deploy into a hex with the best infrastructure of the WW2 era would be something the size of an army and of course that depends on the area a hex actually represents.

So for the sake of this example, the army takes up 100 percent of the DoD value, so let's say that could also be a 10 division strength army, each division assumes 10% of the DoD. The campaign designer sets the DoD for each individual hex in the editor, so now a hex that is a major city is set at 100, but a hex on the New Guinea coast might only be 5, hardly any infrastructure to support a large organization, not even a division, but maybe a "Special Forces" unit that has a DoD of 5 could land and maintain itself. All these DoD values can be set in the editor, for the individual hex and each specific unit, so that you can fill the hex with combat organizations until they add up to hex DoD value.

Now instead of armies, corps, and other large combat organizations running around the map and occupying areas they could not be sustained in(like the current SC), those hexes with a limiting infrastructure can only accommodate smaller unit sizes, until?????

Seamonkey interesting idea and thanks for explaining it so even I could understand. However I'm a little bit scared of the micromanaging and presumed extra clicking to see what every hex contains.

One thing I agree with you on is to make the game groundbreaking and innovative. With the experience of sc2-series I'm not really convinced that more complexity is the right way to go. The challenge is to find a system that "feels" like world war 2, and would be easy to learn and difficult to master. Right now I'm playing an excellent game from matrix games, unity of command, that's got a simple engine but present a real challenge. Although that game is a more of a panzer general/tactical game it could be translated into a strategic game with great results. And the ZOC rules of unity of command is something I HIGLY recommend for sc3, so it's possible with simple means to create an easy to learn but difficult to master strategy game.

Sc1 was in my opinion in many ways a superb strategy game. Sure naval warfare sucked but if you want a game that many can play and represent ww2 in a good way, that game with seasons, retreat rules, shining graphis etc for one that is a good way to go.

If we are going all out innovative the best way would be to put everything on the table and rework wargaming as we know it. It would be I guess to build a sort of simulator of the reality of the supreme leaders and go from there, iron out unrealistic things and present the challenges as they were IRL.

< Message edited by Kuniworth II -- 7/31/2013 11:34:39 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 28

RE: Stacking? - 8/1/2013 4:19:41 AM

Robert24

Posts: 176
Joined: 7/26/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

You guys have the vision! Remember DSW, the editor can have a generic value set to the type of hex, so not all the hexes will have be examined and customized.

Are we ready for the next concept? How about every hex has an intrinsic MPP value? Not all, some hexes would be wasteland = 0 MPPs, but all those hexes not containing the usual resources do have value, farmland, timber, minerals, and a player wouldn't be so quick to abandon them and flee inland, now would he?

Besides, he's going to need those MPPs to pay the maintenance cost for keeping those armies in the field. Nothing the player has to keep up with, all computing power.

"every hex has an intrinsic MPP value..." nice proposal.

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 29

RE: Stacking? - 8/2/2013 5:00:42 PM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

I here ya Kuni! Complication is unnecessary if we can reason out the mechanics and present them as an easy exercise for the players and have the processors deal with the realism of the simulation. For instance, when you mouse over the hex, you could immediately see what the present DoD is compared to the total DoD the hex can support, like a fraction, 75 / 100. Also a visual presentation could be activated by a "hot" key(like supply, partisans, grid, etc) that shows the present DoD in shades/intensities of color(s). You know, green = very little DoD, yellow or lighter green, more DoD, yellow = 50% of total DoD, red = no more deployment allowed without infrastructure modifications.

(in reply to Robert24)

Post #: 30