I really don't want to argue with the designer, but really this remark is ludicrous.
Here is small list just for starters of guys/companies who have been stacking for years.
John Tiller Norm Koger Ron Dockal Gary Grigsby Frank Hunter Victor Reijkersz AGEOD
Even Avalon Hill, the old boardgame company had stacking in their very first PC games (WAW) back in the 90's
Not sure who made HOS, but it has stacking as well. I would think there are easily as many games with stacking as without, I think probably more with stacking actually.
But its a simple equation for me. If this game has stacking I will try it. If not I won't.
For me, stacking isn't a big deal, because the map scale is large enough to accomplish what I want to do during a game. It's all a matter of taste to some degree; I dislike stacks and find them cumbersome and somewhat counter-intuitive (no pun intended).
An additional thought. I would ask that everyone be patient. We're still in early beta, but I think everyone who is concerned about scale will be happy. Suggestions that a lack of stacking is lazy programming are a bit over the top. I've known Hubert for the best part of two decades--there is NOTHING lazy about him, his programming or his commitment to product improvement.
I prefer no stacks, there are other wargames that are great at stacking. I think Strategic Command belongs to a special kind of wargames, like Clash of Steel for example. IMHO at most I would like a max stack of one unit for each weapon (naval, air & ground).
Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000 From: Vermont, USA Status: offline
FWIW, having worked with Hubert and Bill on it and played it, I think SC3 is going to be a fantastic grand strategy release and will appeal to grogs who try it as well. There is a lot of good history packed into this release and plenty of strategy.
For me, stacking isn't a big deal, because the map scale is large enough to accomplish what I want to do during a game. It's all a matter of taste to some degree; I dislike stacks and find them cumbersome and somewhat counter-intuitive (no pun intended).
I can accept the rationale of map scale for ground units; however the question remains - what about air units? Can they stack in the same hex as another unit?
Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003 From: England Status: offline
Surely stacking depends on the hex size and unit scale? I don't mind stacking but prefer it if say there was a max amount of units\counters in one hex at around four or five..anymore can start to hinder ease of play I feel.
For me, stacking isn't a big deal, because the map scale is large enough to accomplish what I want to do during a game. It's all a matter of taste to some degree; I dislike stacks and find them cumbersome and somewhat counter-intuitive (no pun intended).
I can accept the rationale of map scale for ground units; however the question remains - what about air units? Can they stack in the same hex as another unit?
Due to non-disclosure rules, that is too specific for me to answer, sorry. What I can say at this juncture is that if you're familiar with SC2, then I think you will recall that air ranges in that game and its various add-ons was seldom an issue.
Where it does become an issue is on islands in the Pacific or, as someone here pointed out, Malta. I know that Hubert and Bill are aware of this and I'd be awfully surprised if it isn't addressed in SC3.
Surely stacking depends on the hex size and unit scale? I don't mind stacking but prefer it if say there was a max amount of units\counters in one hex at around four or five..anymore can start to hinder ease of play I feel.
I know what you mean. Wasn't it Operational Art of War where one could stack like about a dozen units if they were small enough in composition?
Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007 From: east coast, usa Status: offline
The Operational Art of War has a nine unit stacking limit [maximum of three air units allowed in a stack]. Nine units is too many in a lot of cases, but TOAW includes movement and combat penalties per hex based on scale and amount of equipment. Due to those penalties it is not wise to 'overstack'. As each scenario is different, there is a small indicator in each hex that appears and goes from yellow to orange to red as your stack moves up in the density scale.
As for my opinion concerning stacking for SC3, stacking one air unit with one ground unit would seem reasonable. I'd like to play it like that to see how it works out.
The Operational Art of War has a nine unit stacking limit [maximum of three air units allowed in a stack]. Nine units is too many in a lot of cases, but TOAW includes movement and combat penalties per hex based on scale and amount of equipment. Due to those penalties it is not wise to 'overstack'. As each scenario is different, there is a small indicator in each hex that appears and goes from yellow to orange to red as your stack moves up in the density scale.
For me, stacking isn't a big deal, because the map scale is large enough to accomplish what I want to do during a game. It's all a matter of taste to some degree; I dislike stacks and find them cumbersome and somewhat counter-intuitive (no pun intended).
I have asked this earlier in this thread but I did not get an answer. Is there something that was implemented like a switch command allowing to change a front line unit per another one behind the front without penalties on the entrenchment of the previous one? As such, we will have the possibility to disengage a tank unit per an infantry unit instead of keeping it stuck on the front line.
As I said earlier, I am not against a rule specifying no ground units could stack together if this type of command exist.
It does not change my view on ground and air units stacking together anyway. Malta is a beautiful island surely having a garrison, an airport and a harbor. I recommend anyone to visit it - great place for one week holiday.
Well, hopefully people will mod the hell out of the game and create all types of scenario sizes, if we're really lucky maybe different scenarios/sizes will already be in maingame from the start. The more options for modders the better imo. For example I'm creating Siege of Budapest scenario for AoC, for this size rockets and other support units are very nice to have:
Anyway I agree with Solipsim, stacking something like 1 army=2 corps or 1 army = 1 corps and support unit etc, sounds reasonable.
< Message edited by Mrslobodan -- 6/17/2016 7:16:01 AM >
For me, stacking isn't a big deal, because the map scale is large enough to accomplish what I want to do during a game. It's all a matter of taste to some degree; I dislike stacks and find them cumbersome and somewhat counter-intuitive (no pun intended).
I have asked this earlier in this thread but I did not get an answer. Is there something that was implemented like a switch command allowing to change a front line unit per another one behind the front without penalties on the entrenchment of the previous one? As such, we will have the possibility to disengage a tank unit per an infantry unit instead of keeping it stuck on the front line.
As I said earlier, I am not against a rule specifying no ground units could stack together if this type of command exist.
It does not change my view on ground and air units stacking together anyway. Malta is a beautiful island surely having a garrison, an airport and a harbor. I recommend anyone to visit it - great place for one week holiday.
Yes, that ability was introduced in SC2 at some point (I think it was when the AOD add-on was introduced, but not sure of that.) IIRC the units "swapping" positions used no movement points but might have lost a level of entrenchment. However, the point is that it was implemented. It would be a huge surprise to me if it didn't continue for SC3.
Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007 From: east coast, usa Status: offline
quote:
Perhaps you have not played the earlier SC games? I'm talking about strategic rocket units (e.g., V1 / V2).
I got SC2 a couple months ago and tried it out, that is the meager extent of my experience with SC. I didn't know that you were referring to Strategic Rockets, I thought you meant Werfers and Katyushkas. So, nevermind !
I have played SC2, in fact I am playing right now a game against the AI (one WW1 scenario) and I am surprised how competent and competitive the AI is.
I think the scale of the map in the WW1 breaktrhough scenario is very good for Corps size units and I don find big issues with stacking there. Air units are Air Armies scale more or less (OOBs are not very historical) but again as they are place a good distance from the frontline there are no big issues with it. To me the main problem is with naval units, the naval part of the game feels very unrealistic, with units spread over the sea, or unable to enter port beacuse it is another unit already in.
I have played SC2, in fact I am playing right now a game against the AI (one WW1 scenario) and I am surprised how competent and competitive the AI is.
I think the scale of the map in the WW1 breaktrhough scenario is very good for Corps size units and I don find big issues with stacking there. Air units are Air Armies scale more or less (OOBs are not very historical) but again as they are place a good distance from the frontline there are no big issues with it. To me the main problem is with naval units, the naval part of the game feels very unrealistic, with units spread over the sea, or unable to enter port beacuse it is another unit already in.
Good, because that map was largely inspirational for the size of the new one.
I say inspirational because the scale is ever so slightly out, I think that was 1 tile to about 18 miles whereas this one is about 1 hex to 20 miles.
I have played SC2, in fact I am playing right now a game against the AI (one WW1 scenario) and I am surprised how competent and competitive the AI is.
I think the scale of the map in the WW1 [breakthrough] scenario is very good for Corps size units and I don find big issues with stacking there. Air units are Air Armies scale more or less (OOBs are not very historical) but again as they are place a good distance from the frontline there are no big issues with it. To me the main problem is with naval units, the naval part of the game feels very unrealistic, with units spread over the sea, or unable to enter port [because] it is another unit already in.
I can see how the air won't be a problem, really. But never having played this series before I don't know how air attacks; does the unit physically move to attack a target unit? If so there'd be a need to show the a/c icon over the land unit.
The naval non-stacking does bother me as you suggest. A port should be able to host a fleet, I'd think. Maybe a special rule or something? For visual stacking, you could show only the icon of the top unit, but stack the bases [only] of extra units below. Have a routine to shuffle through the stack and order any unit to the top position. My .02.
And don't forget the Hearts of Iron series. HOI4 at division level is completely insane and also throw history out the window. But with limited use of console (cheats) I am having an amazingly good time. About 53 hours in five days. That hasn't happened since WitE.
Yes, that ability was introduced in SC2 at some point (I think it was when the AOD add-on was introduced, but not sure of that.) IIRC the units "swapping" positions used no movement points but might have lost a level of entrenchment. However, the point is that it was implemented. It would be a huge surprise to me if it didn't continue for SC3.
Thanks for your answer. I am completely discovering SC thus forgive my lack of knowledge on this system.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Stacking 
RE: Stacking - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread