Stacking (Full Version)

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



Message

vahauser -> Stacking (2/24/2007 4:44:18 PM)

A week or two ago KG Erwin mentioned that he employs his own "house rules" regarding stacking units in a hex.

I'd never heard of anybody using "house rules" for stacking before (and I've been playing this game for many years).

Does anybody else have "house rules" for stacking?

If so, then please explain the reasoning behind such "house rules" because I'm interested in learning more about the reasoning behind stacking "house rules".

--V



Alby -> RE: Stacking (2/24/2007 4:50:04 PM)

I have never had anyone mention this as a rule before,
and have been playing PBEM and Online games going back to SP3
IMO if you stack your units, you risk losing a bunch of them at once with some well placed Arty hits or Bombs.
so go ahead and stack them....hehehehheh
[:)]



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/24/2007 5:23:58 PM)

Yeah, a self-imposed "stacking rule" is something to help in solo play. Of course, as Alby mentioned, closely-packed infantry IS a tempting target for arty/mortars.

If I want to establish a concentration for offensive purposes, I'll place units in adjacent hexes, but not more than two or three units in a single hex. This allows for Guderian's dictum of attacking with a clenched fist rather than an open palm.

Of course, dispersal is also good when operating in areas of limited visibility, to prevent enemy infiltration. However, I do try to keep units in communication range of their superior HQs.






vahauser -> RE: Stacking (2/24/2007 10:46:55 PM)

Erwin,

Question #1.   How do your "house stacking rules" help in solo play? 

Question #2.  Is there some historical justification for your "house stacking rules"?

Question #3.  Do you have these "house stacking rules" written down somewhere so that I can print them out?

--V



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/24/2007 11:32:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Erwin,

Question #1.   How do your "house stacking rules" help in solo play? 

Question #2.  Is there some historical justification for your "house stacking rules"?

Question #3.  Do you have these "house stacking rules" written down somewhere so that I can print them out?

--V


1. This prevents solo players from taking advantage of the AI. That should be self-apparent.

2. Look at the game scale. Envision half of a football field, and cramming in half a dozen tanks and 100 soldiers. The comparison is a half-time college band occupying that space, along with floats. Would any commander in his right mind crowd that number of potential targets in that amount of space? In the 19th century, with Napoleonic blocks of infantry, maybe.

3. I don't need to write it down, Victor. Just use a little common sense. [8|]



vahauser -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 12:27:37 AM)

I appreciate your reply, but I was hoping you might be able to provide a persuasive case.  But from what I've read from your reply, there is no historical justification.  And evidently you just kind of "wing it" during your own games and have no written rules. 

Seat of the pants stacking limits (with nothing written down for consistency from game to game) and with no historical justification is not what I was hoping for.  Oh well.

--V




KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 1:01:18 AM)

LOL - It doesn't matter what I say, Victor. You're locked into your methods, irrespective of what ANYONE else says. Why bother to ask? Just go with it.

I don't have to give you links to combat manuals. You're perfectly capable of doing this on your own.

You don't have to try to validate yourself, man.



vahauser -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 1:07:31 AM)

???  I don't have any idea what you just said.



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 1:24:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

???  I don't have any idea what you just said.


I was as clear as the English language allows. What part did you not understand?

Was the "band analogy" lost on you? If you can't see what this looks like, and imagine tanks lined up in that space, in parade-ground formation, you'd understand how crazy that would be to do on the battlefield.

You are incapable of seeing this? If so, I'm wasting my time.

Did you ever play any board-games? They had stacking rules, even at the tactical levels. That's the basis for MY stacking rules.




Veroporo -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 1:33:38 AM)

A hundred men can fit a single hex.
A hundred men in a single hex is an easy target.
No sane commander will deploy his company in a single hex.
How does it follow that stacking a company in a single hex should not be done?



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 1:42:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veroporo

A hundred men can fit a single hex.
A hundred men in a single hex is an easy target.
No sane commander will deploy his company in a single hex.
How does it follow that stacking a company in a single hex should not be done?



Exactly. It CAN be done, but no sane commander should ever do it. Same goes with stacking a platoon of tanks in one hex. I've seen the AI do it, even though its completely insane to do so.



Mac67 -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 1:48:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I appreciate your reply, but I was hoping you might be able to provide a persuasive case.  But from what I've read from your reply, there is no historical justification.  And evidently you just kind of "wing it" during your own games and have no written rules. 

Seat of the pants stacking limits (with nothing written down for consistency from game to game) and with no historical justification is not what I was hoping for.  Oh well.

--V




I dont really understand why this is such a big deal for you. When i play, common sense dictates that i dont put too many units into one hex because a artillery or air strike is going to do a lot of damage. Im pretty sure real life WW2 commanders thought the same way. Why would KG need to write this down as a rule? Its the way he plays, end of. Reading your posts, i think you take this game way to seriously! Its just a Game! Have fun with it [;)]



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 1:55:08 AM)

Thanks, Mac67. My thoughts , too.



Veroporo -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 2:07:08 AM)

Now if I got everything correctly stacking is a poor tactic in real world and in the game also and you want a house rule which basically denies using poor tactics? Why being stupid should be forbidden? Even if it should, stacking isn't an instant-win strategy so there's nothing wrong people using it.

Even if the unrealism is seen as a bad thing the phenomenon should fix itself as generally people learn from their mistakes and get rid of their worst tactics.



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 2:19:59 AM)

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?



vahauser -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 3:25:47 AM)

Mac67,

Okay...  Here is the issue.

Some people profess that they are "historical" players.  "Historical" players go to great lengths to construct "historical" cores/formations in the game.

So what is the point of going to such great time and effort to construct an "historical" core if that core is not going to use historical doctrines and historical tactics?

All I am asking is:  where is the historical data (historical tactical doctrines and tactics) that supports a stacking rule?

If somebody who plays with a stacking rule can show some historical data to support using such a rule, then I am interested.

As of today, the only person I know who uses a stacking rule is KG Erwin, so I am asking him right now.

But if others use stacking rules, then I want to know the historical reasoning behind it.

--V






KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 3:44:15 AM)

A copy of the USMC Small Wars Manual is located here: http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/sw_manual.asp

The essential elements of US Army FM 100-5 of May 1941 are located here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM-100-5/index.html



Mac67 -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 3:51:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Mac67,

Okay...  Here is the issue.

Some people profess that they are "historical" players.  "Historical" players go to great lengths to construct "historical" cores/formations in the game.

So what is the point of going to such great time and effort to construct an "historical" core if that core is not going to use historical doctrines and historical tactics?

All I am asking is:  where is the historical data (historical tactical doctrines and tactics) that supports a stacking rule?

If somebody who plays with a stacking rule can show some historical data to support using such a rule, then I am interested.

As of today, the only person I know who uses a stacking rule is KG Erwin, so I am asking him right now.

But if others use stacking rules, then I want to know the historical reasoning behind it.

--V






Ok, where is the historical tactical and doctrines that support not having a stacking rule?? If someone wants to construct a historical core and then not play by historical tactics, so what? Its just a game! Games are something you are meant to have fun with. Like i said before, you take this way too seriously! Chill out man!



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 4:13:32 AM)

I'm finding some humor in this, too. Historical charts for deployment of armored and infantry forces are available on the web. The dispersal of said units is also made apparent. I'm done with doing research for someone else. [8|]



vahauser -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 5:13:25 AM)

Mac67,

A typical division has about 1000-1500 SPWAW units in it (depending on the kind of division, and not counting auxiliary support units not shown in SPWAW).  A typical "average" division has around 1250 SPWAW units.

Here are some actual historical troop densities:

Peleliu, September 1944
1 USMC division + 1 US Army division + 1 Japanese division
The island of Peleliu is about the size of a standard SPWAW Medium map (60 hexes x 100 hexes)
On a map about the size of a standard SPWAW medium map, the battle of Peleliu was fought with around 2500 American SPWAW units vs. about 1250 Japanese SPWAW units.  And this doesn't count air and naval units, only ground units.

Iwo Jima, February 1945
3 USMC divisions (reinforced) + 1 Japanese division (reinforced)
The island of Iwo Jima is about the size of a standard SPWAW Large map (80 hexes x 100 hexes)
On a map about the size of a standard SPWAW large map, the battle of Iwo Jima was fought with around 5000 American SPWAW units vs. about 2500 Japanese SPWAW units.  [Total troop strength engaged on Iwo Jima was about double that on Peleliu for both sides.]  And this doesn't count air and naval units, only ground units.

In the battles for Peleliu and Iwo Jima, those islands were literally jam-packed with troops.  Historical troop densities must have exceeded 10 or more units per hex along the "front line" in many places.  American historical casualties reflect the high historical troop densities since any artillery bombardments (or machinegun fire) hitting those dense American hexes would have (and did) caused terrible damage.

Other historical battles reflect similar troop densities along major offensive thrusts:  Battle of the Bulge, Kursk, Vistula-Oder, etc.

All I am asking is for some historical evidence behind an SPWAW stacking rule.  If anybody can produce that historical evidence, then I am very interested.

--V



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 6:00:34 AM)

OMG, Victor, do you actually believe that WWII battles were fought by armor and infantry masses packed shoulder-to-shoulder and wheel-to-wheel like the phalanxes of ancient Greece? Do you?



vahauser -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 6:09:27 AM)

Glenn,

Are you saying that the troop densities I just cited are not historical?

--V



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 6:10:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Glenn,

Are you saying that the troop densities I just cited are not historical?

--V


Check out this chart: http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/crossfire/history/frontages.htm

In SPWaW terms, this works out to one or two squads per hex (in most cases). You ignore an important factor--depth.

In my infantry fights, especially in Pacific island assaults against bunkers/caves, I try to use the forward squads to suppress the enemy fire, and have followup assalt teams/ engineers to then move up and destroy the fortification with flame and/or demolitions. That's how it was done. I do NOT have all these stacked up against the position, to be cut down by its MGs.

It's simple common sense, man. Can you not see that?



Goblin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 6:21:43 AM)


quote:

All I am asking is for some historical evidence behind an SPWAW stacking rule.  If anybody can produce that historical evidence, then I am very interested.

--V


It's not a 'SPWaW stacking rule'. Its a self imposed limit (definition of a house rule) by one player, that makes a great deal of sense. Someone could easily post where a very small unit held a very large amount of ground (thus an extremely sparse density) to counter your examples, but neither 'proves' anything, since it is about whatever you are comfortable with playing. I also fail to see what your goal is here either, other than possibly arguing for no reason...



Goblin



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 6:35:24 AM)

Thanks, Goblin. Look, I don't wanna gang up on Vahauser here, but in the island assaults he posted, the crowding on the beaches was NOT intentional. The intention was for the leading waves to move FORWARD, with the following waves to support and reinforce. At Iwo Jima it all fell apart, with the Japanese waiting until the beaches were packed with troops before they opened up with everything they had. The difficult terrain (that damnable black sand) kept the leading waves from moving ahead as fast as the Marines had planned, and it was close to being a disaster.



FlashfyreSP -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 6:40:02 AM)

Vahauser

Aren't you the very one that "imposes" you own rules for playing the campaign? What is the "Cataclysm Campaign" of yours but an arbitrary set of rules that YOU feel are necessary for playing the game. I don't agree with them, and I won't use them, but that's neither here nor there.

And this "obsession" you have succumbed to about what constitutes "historical" is disturbing...desiring historical accuracy in the force mix does not require that we use historical tactics and doctrine; the point of playing is to see how DIFFERENT tactics, used with the same forces as were available in the real battle, may have changed the outcome. Suppose the British had truly understood and implemented "combined arms" tactics in North Africa: would they have been more successful against the Germans than they were? Possibly...and that's why I play with historical force mixes. But I don't require others to do so; I just feel that it is important to provide, in the OOBs, a force of units that are as accurate to the real units used as the game can handle.



KG Erwin -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 6:49:14 AM)

Flashfyre, this isn't so much about force mixes as it is about my self-imposed "stacking rule", which to my mind is just common sense. I will NOT stack up three infantry squads and half-a-dozen tanks in one hex --- that's just dumb, IMHO. A good PBEM opponent would turn that into a pile of junk and dead bodies in short order.



vahauser -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 7:14:38 AM)

FlashFyre,

Cataclysm is basically YOUR campaign template modifed to fit a Generated Campaign instead of a WW2 Long Campaign.  Indeed, the differences between the Cataclysm and FlashFyre formats are very minor.  But that's not the point.  Whether you play FlashFyre or Cataclysm, neither of those campaign formats make judgments on what is "historical" or not.  Anybody can play either of those campaign formats and still apply historical forces and historical doctrines.  Both campaign formats are "historical independent" as it were.  Stacking rules, however, make some HUGE assumptions about what is and is not historical.  And that is what I am trying to discuss here.


Goblin,

You say that stacking rules "make sense".  But they don't yet make sense to me.  Hence this thread.  Indeed, I am trying to make sense out of stacking rules.  So far to no avail.  Also, defensive frontages are meaningless in this discussion.  Everybody knows that units could be strung out for miles defensively.  I'm more interested in assault frontages, because that is where the densities are highest.  Historical instances of assault frontages are what I'm looking for.


Glenn,

That is an interesting theoretical table you've supplied.  Unfortunately, the numbers given seen to vary wildly and seem to be based on theoretical models instead of what actually took place on the battlefield.  I'm looking for actual historical on-the-battlefield assault densities.  For example, that 4km assault frontage for a 1940 Soviet Rifle division is obviously of little value because they attacked the Finns on much narrower frontages during the Winter War, and they had to completely reinvent their tactical doctrines as soon as the Germans invaded in 1941. 
As an aside, I had a working acquaintance with Charles Sharp (the C.S. Sharp on your list) during the early 1990s when I was on the staff of the Europa Boardgame Series.  At that time he had just received his PhD and was working on a comprehensive Soviet OOB for WW2.  We had some wonderful arguments.  Heh.
Anyway, the theoretical models are nice and they are pretty, but I'm looking for actual historical assault frontages.  I am currently googling on the web for some actual combat maps with units and frontages.  I have found a few but want to find more.  Of interest, though, one Soviet map (from a source by David Glantz) has the entire II SS Panzer Corps attacking at Kursk on a frontage of roughly 10km (3 reinforced SS Panzer Divisions (yes, I know they were called panzergrenadier divisions but we all know they were panzer divisions) plus corps assets assaulting on a frontage of roughly 10km).  THAT is the kind of historical data I'm looking for.  I'm also looking for the actual unit maps for Peleliu and Iwo Jima to learn about actual battalion/company frontages on those islands.  Battle of the Bulge, Berlin, Stalingrad, Vistula-Oder, etc.  Those are the kinds of unit maps I seek.

--V



vahauser -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 8:02:06 AM)

Here is the kind of historical information I'm looking for:

http://www.winterwar.com/Maps/Frontline2.htm

Here is an excerpt from that webpage:

"The Soviet side
The high command of the Red Army, after the attacks in December were repulsed, noted serious flaws in their own organization and armed forces in general. The doctrines and theories, that had been used until now weren't usable in the Finnish terrain.
After the large scale attacks on the Isthmus were canceled in late December - early January, the high command started to the preparations to win the war. Because the Karelian Isthmus offered the fastest way to victory, it was decided to concentrate the needed forces there.
At first, the leadership was rearranged. In the isthmus a new northwestern front (Army Group) was formed with Army commander 1st Class S. K. Timoshenko as the commander.
K. A. Meretskov continued as the commander of the 7th army on the west side of the isthmus and Army commander 2nd Class V. D. Grendal was still on charge of the 13th Army, formed in 25th December.
At the end of January, the number of Soviet forces on the Karelian Isthmus had grown to consist the following units:

Unit type 7th Army 13th Army Total
Infantry divisions 12 9 21
Army group artillery regiments 7 6 13
Corps artillery regiments 4 3 7
Super heavy artillery battalions 2 2 4
Tank brigades 5 1 6
Machine gun brigades 1 1
Separate tank battalions 2 2 4
Aircraft regiments 10 5 15
Cavalry regiments 1 1

In addition to these forces, the Soviet High Command formed a reserve group with 3 inf. divisions, 1 tank brigade and a cavalry Corps.
(The information on the reserve group varies by different Soviet sources, other sources indicate that the reserve group had only 2 divisions and the total infantry division number on the isthmus was 23, and depending on the source, the number of units is somewhat the same.)
The Soviet war-machine was almost ready to launch, this time a very well prepared and practiced, offensive against the Mannerheim-line.
Two thirds of the artillery and some 60 % of the Soviet forces on the Isthmus were concentrated against the Finnish II Corps between Vuoksi and Karhula. The result was, that on the chosen 40 km long front, the approximate Soviet strength per kilometer of front was between 2 - 4.5 infantry battalions and 50 - 70 artillery pieces."

That density yields an average of about 3 battalions and 60 guns per kilometer of front, which is about 7 hexes (350 yards) per battalion and 3 guns per hex. Clearly there must be some depth, but the point is that the actual historical attack frontage for this Soviet assault against the Mannerheim Line on 9 February 1940 averaged 1 battalion per 7 hexes (350 yards) of frontage.

I think other WW2 assaults used comparable densities. That is the thesis I am seeking to prove or disprove. I will be posting other data as I discover it.

--V



vahauser -> RE: Stacking (2/25/2007 11:30:36 AM)

I found another map from the Battle for Okinawa taken from the Official US Military History.

This map shows the attack of the 96th Infantry Division from 20-24 April 1945. The total divisional attack frontage is less than 2km (around 40 hexes for the divisional attack frontage)

Notice that every single battalion attack frontage is less than 500 yards for each of the five days of this attack. Notice especially that the attack launched against the Nishiboru Ridge on the 20th, by the 1/381 and 2/381, is made on a very narrow frontage (the 2/381 on a frontage of about 300 yards (6 hexes) and the 1/381 on a frontage of about 250 yards (5 hexes)).



[image]local://upfiles/7691/54CE6AD2006B4257A808F2411A067C27.jpg[/image]



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.59375