? on stacking penelty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message

freeboy -> ? on stacking penelty (6/27/2007 4:29:10 AM)

If I overstack, but only use one or two units to attack from the hex do I still suffer a penalty on offence?



JAMiAM -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (6/27/2007 6:15:05 AM)

Yes.



Veers -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (6/27/2007 7:12:04 AM)

Hmmm...didn't know that. Crappy.
Why is that the way it works?



Veers -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (6/27/2007 7:13:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

If I overstack, but only use one or two units to attack from the hex do I still suffer a penalty on offence?

Yes.


Is it the same penalty?



JAMiAM -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (6/27/2007 8:54:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

If I overstack, but only use one or two units to attack from the hex do I still suffer a penalty on offence?

Yes.


Is it the same penalty?

Yes. The attrition penalty against the attacking units is calculated based on the density of the attacker's hex, whether it is one unit attacking from the stack, or nine. The only exception is where the attacker's hex contains only one unit, in which case the density penalty is not activated.



golden delicious -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (6/27/2007 3:33:53 PM)

This is the lesser-known benefit of attacking from multiple hexes; you can have numerical superiority without suffering density penalties.



freeboy -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (6/27/2007 3:40:22 PM)

well, it is a trade off, sometimes it is better to take the losses and not worry.. Is there also not a defensive overstack penelty too?



[sm=Tank-fahr09.gif]that seems much more intuitive! thanks agian.



golden delicious -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (6/27/2007 3:43:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

well, it is a trade off, sometimes it is better to take the losses and not worry.. Is there also not a defensive overstack penelty too?


Yeah.



sefirot -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (6/29/2007 2:05:10 PM)

Does it mean that stacking penalties are computed before the attack really takes place as a function of the number of units you have in the atacking hex and not on the total amount of units commited in the attack?

For instance, if in TWIN I attack with two tank Panzer Battalions from the same hex I will suffer a stacking penalty (the yellow dot appears). But I will not suffer any penalty if I use the same two tank battalions but this time attaking from two adjacent hexes. Is this correct?



JAMiAM -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (6/29/2007 7:00:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sefirot

Does it mean that stacking penalties are computed before the attack really takes place as a function of the number of units you have in the atacking hex and not on the total amount of units commited in the attack?

For instance, if in TWIN I attack with two tank Panzer Battalions from the same hex I will suffer a stacking penalty (the yellow dot appears). But I will not suffer any penalty if I use the same two tank battalions but this time attaking from two adjacent hexes. Is this correct?

Yes. Correctly stated in all cases, assuming that in the last case, there are no other units in the hexes that the two battalions are attacking from.



sefirot -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (7/1/2007 10:44:59 PM)

Many thanks Jamian,

Now all it's clear.



el cid -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (7/2/2007 6:54:15 PM)

And yet however only the units from the stack suffer losses, correct?

Even if defending artillery participate in the attack, correct?

I do not know if that makes sense.



JAMiAM -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (7/2/2007 7:01:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid

And yet however only the units from the stack suffer losses, correct?

Even if defending artillery participate in the attack, correct?

I do not know if that makes sense.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking.



el cid -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (7/2/2007 9:17:13 PM)

Either is not easy to explain, or I am terrible at explaining it.

It has been said that when an attacking unit is over-stacked with others, but these are not attacking, the attacking unit suffers overstacking penalty and its losses increase.

This unit losses could come from supporting artillery fire of the unit that is defending.

The artillery fire (and range) is to the hex where the defending unit is. Yet it is benefited by the situation in another hex (the hex where the attack is coming from because of overstacking).

For me it would be more logical if the overstacked penalty for the attacker would depend on the units that are actually attacking from the same hex.

Imagine you go hunting for ducks, and you can only shoot them in the air, I can see that if there are 1000 ducks in one location and 3 take off flying, is the same as if there are 10 ducks and 3 of them take off flying. But if the 1000 take off flying, you can bet that you can shoot random like crazy and hit a few ducks.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (7/2/2007 10:15:32 PM)

Yes, but in TOAW ducks cannot fly, they must waddle forward into the attack! And like your 1000 flyers that are easy to cause casualties to, the 1000 waddlers also suffer some excessive damage.



JAMiAM -> RE: ? on stacking penelty (7/2/2007 10:17:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid

For me it would be more logical if the overstacked penalty for the attacker would depend on the units that are actually attacking from the same hex.

In short, I agree with you. However, we're still dealing with a large amount of legacy code that we can't change willy-nilly, without thought for overall effect on gameplay. So, further enhancements might be possible for TOAW III, or might instead have to wait for its successor. We'll see...



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625