stacking limit ?

stacking limit ? (Full Version)

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

Message

scout1 -> stacking limit ? (11/3/2007 12:04:13 AM)
Still trying to get the hang of this game. Playing the tutorials. Noticed retreats and advances seem to have no stacking limit. Given the scale changes with the scenario (which means the answer is "it depends"), is their a stacking limit ?

JAMiAM -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/3/2007 12:05:27 AM)
Nine units per hex.

scout1 -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/7/2007 6:40:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM Nine units per hex. Is this irrespective of unit size for a given map scale ?

Veers -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/7/2007 7:49:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scout1 quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM Nine units per hex. Is this irrespective of unit size for a given map scale ? Yes.

golden delicious -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/8/2007 6:57:51 PM)
With TOAW, we have density penalties and traffic penalties. As such, the main reason for a maximum number of units is that it's simpler for the computer to manage, and easier to display to the player. Strictly speaking, the stacking limit should be in terms of density penalty. But this might require a lot of reworking. It would also break one or two scenarios.

ColinWright -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 8:28:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious With TOAW, we have density penalties and traffic penalties. As such, the main reason for a maximum number of units is that it's simpler for the computer to manage, and easier to display to the player. Strictly speaking, the stacking limit should be in terms of density penalty. But this might require a lot of reworking. It would also break one or two scenarios. Unlimited stacking would probably also be bad for us. A lot of us wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to detail things even more finely -- 'now I can have those engineers as a separate platoon -- no more problems with the stacking limit.' So we wind up with hopelessly cluttered, unplayable monsters. This would not be an improvement. Nine's about right. If your scenario is bumping its head against this limit a lot, you need to think about combining some units -- not start asking for a higher stacking limit.

L`zard -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 8:48:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious With TOAW, we have density penalties and traffic penalties. As such, the main reason for a maximum number of units is that it's simpler for the computer to manage, and easier to display to the player. Strictly speaking, the stacking limit should be in terms of density penalty. But this might require a lot of reworking. It would also break one or two scenarios. Unlimited stacking would probably also be bad for us. A lot of us wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to detail things even more finely -- 'now I can have those engineers as a separate platoon -- no more problems with the stacking limit.' So we wind up with hopelessly cluttered, unplayable monsters. This would not be an improvement. Nine's about right. If your scenario is bumping its head against this limit a lot, you need to think about combining some units -- not start asking for a higher stacking limit. Myself, I'd go with nine to the hex, were it not that air and naval are stuck in there along with fixed units, and all reguardless of map scale.........

Erik2 -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 9:56:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: L`zard Myself, I'd go with nine to the hex, were it not that air and naval are stuck in there along with fixed units, and all reguardless of map scale......... Yes, it would be nice if the scenario designer could set the max naval/air units in a hex, these should be in addition to the land units.

golden delicious -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 4:25:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Nine's about right. If your scenario is bumping its head against this limit a lot, you need to think about combining some units -- not start asking for a higher stacking limit. Take Seelowe. An airfield unit, a brigade HQ, one of those artillery "regiments" which turns out to have around three guns, and two battalions split into three having taken heavy losses. Hex is full- with a total of maybe a thousand men. There's not even a green density light.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 5:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Nine's about right. If your scenario is bumping its head against this limit a lot, you need to think about combining some units -- not start asking for a higher stacking limit. Take Seelowe. An airfield unit, a brigade HQ, one of those artillery "regiments" which turns out to have around three guns, and two battalions split into three having taken heavy losses. Hex is full- with a total of maybe a thousand men. There's not even a green density light. See 7.11 in the wishlist. If all sub-units of a sub-divided unit counted as one unit for stacking purposes, the above wouldn't be at the limit. That should fix most of the problems that are encountered. The idea of basing it entirely on density could result in unimaginable stacks. Someone will design a 50km/hex scenario using platoons, and the game will have to handle stacks of 5000, etc.

hueglin -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 6:04:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Nine's about right. If your scenario is bumping its head against this limit a lot, you need to think about combining some units -- not start asking for a higher stacking limit. Take Seelowe. An airfield unit, a brigade HQ, one of those artillery "regiments" which turns out to have around three guns, and two battalions split into three having taken heavy losses. Hex is full- with a total of maybe a thousand men. There's not even a green density light. See 7.11 in the wishlist. If all sub-units of a sub-divided unit counted as one unit for stacking purposes, the above wouldn't be at the limit. That should fix most of the problems that are encountered. The idea of basing it entirely on density could result in unimaginable stacks. Someone will design a 50km/hex scenario using platoons, and the game will have to handle stacks of 5000, etc. If someone makes an unmanageable scenario, you can choose not to play it. I agree with those who want the stacking limit removed. In a game that has so much scope for fine detail, it just seems way too arbitrary to set a limit of 9 units per hex. It's not like we need to worry about the pile of counters falling over!

vahauser -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 6:20:59 PM)
hueglin, I disagree. The stacking limit of 9, while artificial, is at least graphically presentable using the GUI. Trying to display stacks larger than 9 (say, in the attack planner) is problematic to say the least. While 9 might not be perfect, it does at least have the advantage of being readily presentable using the GUI. Changing the GUI to handle larger stacks might not only be impractical from a programming aspect, but it might also look like crap too and thus be unusable to the vast majority of players. Don't misunderstand me, I not a big fan of 9. But 9 at least works reasonably well most of the time. And until somebody can prove that some number larger than 9 is practically and aesthetically superior, then I'll continue to advocate sticking with the poison I know instead of the poison I don't know.

golden delicious -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 6:21:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay See 7.11 in the wishlist. If all sub-units of a sub-divided unit counted as one unit for stacking purposes, the above wouldn't be at the limit. That should fix most of the problems that are encountered. The idea of basing it entirely on density could result in unimaginable stacks. Someone will design a 50km/hex scenario using platoons, and the game will have to handle stacks of 5000, etc. Since the unit limit is 4,000, this would be impossible. Aren't we usually on opposite sides of the "let designers make unplayable scenarios" argument? Anyway, the obvious limit to the number of units which can appear in a hex is display. At present the attack planner and the group composition view are both limited to nine units. Even for your suggested change, you would need to modify this to allow the player to have access to all the units, either displaying them all at once or allowing the player to scroll through. There's also the matter of how the data on the units is stored, but this may be easier to handle. There more or less has to be some upper limit on the number of units in a hex for memory reasons- but there's no reason this should be nine. Sixteen (a four-by-four display) or twenty-five (five-by-five) would fill up less quickly. For lower resolutions, the 2D (small) icons could be used for this, and the view could even scale according to the number of units in the hex.

ColinWright -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 7:25:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Nine's about right. If your scenario is bumping its head against this limit a lot, you need to think about combining some units -- not start asking for a higher stacking limit. Take Seelowe. An airfield unit, a brigade HQ, one of those artillery "regiments" which turns out to have around three guns, and two battalions split into three having taken heavy losses. Hex is full- with a total of maybe a thousand men. There's not even a green density light. See 7.11 in the wishlist. If all sub-units of a sub-divided unit counted as one unit for stacking purposes, the above wouldn't be at the limit. That should fix most of the problems that are encountered. Yeah -- but this sounds like a lot of work from a programming point of view. The displays, etc. At the same time, if such things happen frequently in a scenario, it is a design flaw. There are too many small units running around the map. The designer needs to get a grip and combine some of them. I should know: it came up in Seelowe. Okay: more brigades and fewer battalions. Combine the brigade AT and engineers. Put some of the divisional artillery in the divisional HQ's. The result was a better, more playable scenario.

ColinWright -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 7:27:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Nine's about right. If your scenario is bumping its head against this limit a lot, you need to think about combining some units -- not start asking for a higher stacking limit. Take Seelowe. An airfield unit, a brigade HQ, one of those artillery "regiments" which turns out to have around three guns, and two battalions split into three having taken heavy losses. Hex is full- with a total of maybe a thousand men. There's not even a green density light. It does happen occasionally -- but not much. That's what I mean: there was a problem, I treated it as a design problem, and I corrected it. The scenario is better as a result, not worse. The one place where the limit still chronically comes into play is when the German is rushing air-liftable units into the 'airfields' he has captured. Subdivided and reorganizing units pile up, and he can't land another regiment at Detling that day. I'm quite happy with that. The Ju-52's would indeed pile up as they tried to wedge their way onto that one grass runway. No problem at all.

ColinWright -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 7:36:41 PM)
I tend to look at this from the point of view of practical play. Sure, in a completely perfect simulation, we'd have to concern ourselves with the minutia of supply, discipline problems arising out of that battalion having been 'resting' in central Paris for two months, etc -- but do we really want that? Isn't the idea that we're able to do without a staff and hundreds of subordinate commanders and manage the campaign ourselves, directly? This is achieved through simplification. Hopefully accurate simplication -- but definitely simplification. Your supply trucks just come up on their own: the issue is getting the engine to make them do correctly. We don't want bloody 'ration units' and such. At least, I don't. Similarly with the stacking limits. Managing fronts where each stack contains 10-20 units would suck. The nine-unit limit forces reasonable design and leads to more playable scenarios. Now, if no limit existed and we were deciding what limit to set, what limit would we choose? Gotta be something: the computer can't just allow for an infinite number of units in each hex. I think we'd wind up picking nine. At any rate, it's a fine choice. So I say stick with it.

wolflars -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 8:51:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Take Seelowe. An airfield unit, a brigade HQ, one of those artillery "regiments" which turns out to have around three guns, and two battalions split into three having taken heavy losses. Hex is full- with a total of maybe a thousand men. There's not even a green density light.

wolflars -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 9:30:42 PM)
Furthermore for those who play against the AI, Elmer most likely could not handle larger stacks properly. As is, he has difficulty not over stacking and getting the density penalities. 9 seems fine. Hell, it might even be too many. Scenarios with too many units, thus too many large stacks, limit maneuver unrealistically in a game that is supposed to model operational warfare. It is unfortunate that many scenarios suffer poor design resulting in campaigns that rely more on attrition than maneuver, partly because of poor unit size to hex size ratios and too much map clutter. I think the density penalities are too low, players should be really punished for overstacking. Think about it, say a scenario has divisions as the primarly element at 10 km hexes (or even 15 km), and a player stacks 9 divisions in 10 kms!!!! Unless its a parade I doubt they will be very effective.

ColinWright -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 9:49:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wolflars Furthermore for those who play against the AI, Elmer most likely could not handle larger stacks properly. As is, he has difficulty not over stacking and getting the density penalities. 9 seems fine. Hell, it might even be too many. Scenarios with too many units, thus too many large stacks, limit maneuver unrealistically in a game that is supposed to model operational warfare. It is unfortunate that many scenarios suffer poor design resulting in campaigns that rely more on attrition than maneuver, partly because of poor unit size to hex size ratios and too much map clutter. I think the density penalities are too low, players should be really punished for overstacking. Think about it, say a scenario has divisions as the primarly element at 10 km hexes (or even 15 km), and a player stacks 9 divisions in 10 kms!!!! Unless its a parade I doubt they will be very effective. ? You'd definitely get a density penalty if you put nine divisions in a 10 km hex.

vahauser -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 11:01:14 PM)
What Colin said.� Even in dense assaulting environments, the most densely-packed divisions take up at least 10-15 square kilometers each.� And since the area of a 10km hex is 86.60 square kilometers, then trying to cram 9 divisions within that area is historically ridiculous.� For example, the II SS Panzerkorps at Kursk (3 large divisions plus supporting troops) attacked along a frontage of approximately 3-4km per division.� This was considered to be a very dense assault frontage.� In TOAW III terms, this means that the II SS Panzerkorps probably couldn't be squeezed into a 10km hex (at least not realistically), but it could fit into a 15km hex.� And a 15km hex has an area of 194.86 square kilometers. EDIT: We're talking WW2 densities here. A Napoleonic army could fit into a 10km hex because the unit densities were so much greater in 1805 than in 1943.

ColinWright -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 11:31:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vahauser What Colin said. Even in dense assaulting environments, the most densely-packed divisions take up at least 10-15 square kilometers each. And since the area of a 10km hex is 86.60 square kilometers, then trying to cram 9 divisions within that area is historically ridiculous. For example, the II SS Panzerkorps at Kursk (3 large divisions plus supporting troops) attacked along a frontage of approximately 3-4km per division. This was considered to be a very dense assault frontage. In TOAW III terms, this means that the II SS Panzerkorps probably couldn't be squeezed into a 10km hex (at least not realistically), but it could fit into a 15km hex. And a 15km hex has an area of 194.86 square kilometers. EDIT: We're talking WW2 densities here. A Napoleonic army could fit into a 10km hex because the unit densities were so much greater in 1805 than in 1943. Based on Seelowe, OPART will allow about one regiment plus bits in a 5 km hex before it starts applying density penalties. That seems a bit too stiff to me -- not too lenient. Also, armor is really bad. You move a brigade with circa a hundred tanks into that 5 km area, you can't add much else without getting at least a yellow light.

rhinobones -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/9/2007 11:36:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Strictly speaking, the stacking limit should be in terms of density penalty. Unlimited stacking . . . So we wind up with hopelessly cluttered, unplayable monsters. This would not be an improvement. Nine's about right. Much prefer a density penalty that displays some relationship of mass (i.e. total number of people/vehicles) to area over the current stacking limit of nine units. As it is, the mass of nine divisions is equal to nine regiments which are equal to nine ant units. I can think of plenty of scenarios that are negatively impacted by the limitation of nine units per hex. (Wonder what the limitation is for a hex that contains both a port and an airfield?) Also, the stacking in a density/penalty scheme does not necessarily have to be unlimited. There can be a mass/area density penalty that still has an upper limit to prevent the absurd. As for designers making scenarios with ever finer detail, well, that is their prerogative and no one should be discouraged from their efforts. If the scenario doesn�t work, no one will force you. Regards, RhinoBones

ColinWright -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/13/2007 8:45:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Strictly speaking, the stacking limit should be in terms of density penalty. Unlimited stacking . . . So we wind up with hopelessly cluttered, unplayable monsters. This would not be an improvement. Nine's about right. Much prefer a density penalty that displays some relationship of mass (i.e. total number of people/vehicles) to area over the current stacking limit of nine units. As it is, the mass of nine divisions is equal to nine regiments which are equal to nine ant units. I can think of plenty of scenarios that are negatively impacted by the limitation of nine units per hex. (Wonder what the limitation is for a hex that contains both a port and an airfield?) Also, the stacking in a density/penalty scheme does not necessarily have to be unlimited. There can be a mass/area density penalty that still has an upper limit to prevent the absurd. There is the argument that nine units is that limit. I suppose some might argue for sixteen, or even twenty five -- but nine really is okay. Good design can keep it from becoming a problem. Bad design will run into any limit assigned. After all, and basically, what's the most convenient for play is when one has one-three units per hex as a norm. Now, one thing and another punches that number up, but if you're starting to find nine units an uncomfortable limit as a matter of course, your scenarios are flawed from a certain point of view.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/13/2007 10:08:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright There is the argument that nine units is that limit. I suppose some might argue for sixteen, or even twenty five -- but nine really is okay. Good design can keep it from becoming a problem. Bad design will run into any limit assigned. After all, and basically, what's the most convenient for play is when one has one-three units per hex as a norm. Now, one thing and another punches that number up, but if you're starting to find nine units an uncomfortable limit as a matter of course, your scenarios are flawed from a certain point of view. I've got at least one scenario where I depend on that limit (France 1944). There really were situations where there was no more space for anything else in the line. To depict those congested battles as if they were as wide open as the eastern front would just be wrong.

golden delicious -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/14/2007 12:40:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I've got at least one scenario where I depend on that limit (France 1944). There really were situations where there was no more space for anything else in the line. To depict those congested battles as if they were as wide open as the eastern front would just be wrong. Having played this scenario, the quantities of active defender equipment in a typical nine unit stack is so absolutely huge that it would be virtually suicidal for the player to place such a stack in the frontline. I found that the Allied player typically wanted only two or three units in each frontline hex- maybe a few more if he had odd bits like recon battalions and chemical artillery, which is about right given the scale of the scenario. The German player for his part wants the bare minimum that will hold the hex, because the attrition divider is so lethal that a regiment of infantry will be pretty much annihilated in a couple of combat rounds by the potent Allied artillery. On the other hand, rear areas do become severely clogged in this scenario (I ended up parking all my AA around Cherbourg because there was just no room for it within four hexes of the front). What's the scale here- 10km/hex? Do nine artillery regiments require that much space?

Curtis Lemay -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/15/2007 5:22:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Having played this scenario, the quantities of active defender equipment in a typical nine unit stack is so absolutely huge that it would be virtually suicidal for the player to place such a stack in the frontline. I found that the Allied player typically wanted only two or three units in each frontline hex- maybe a few more if he had odd bits like recon battalions and chemical artillery, which is about right given the scale of the scenario. The German player for his part wants the bare minimum that will hold the hex, because the attrition divider is so lethal that a regiment of infantry will be pretty much annihilated in a couple of combat rounds by the potent Allied artillery. He may want only two or three in the frontline hexes, but he is under such a tight timetable requirement, that he can't afford to be so cautious. I've got plans to post the AAR of the continuation of the game where I posted the detailed first turn earlier. I'll go into detail about how to do it then. I'm only about halfway currently. Regardless, I depend on the stacking limit. I don't have confidence that density penalties would negate the unrealistic firepower of overstacking. quote: On the other hand, rear areas do become severely clogged in this scenario (I ended up parking all my AA around Cherbourg because there was just no room for it within four hexes of the front). What's the scale here- 10km/hex? Do nine artillery regiments require that much space? Sounds about right to me. That's equivalent to three divisions.

golden delicious -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/15/2007 4:22:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay He may want only two or three in the frontline hexes, but he is under such a tight timetable requirement, that he can't afford to be so cautious. I'm not convinced. One thing this scenario catpures well is the battle of annihilation which made up the first part of the Normandy campaign. The Allies didn't breakout, but in the end it didn't matter, because they were able to do so much damage to the German force that they were no longer able to hold the entire line by the time of Cobra. The artillery and airpower is what does most of this killing. The rest are just along for the ride. quote: Sounds about right to me. That's equivalent to three divisions. Presuming that all of those guns deploy within 500m of the main road running through the hex, it's less than a regiment per square kilometre. 25,000 square metres per gun. Of course there's scads of personnel and transport in the hex, so losses and traffic will be severe. But this is covered by other factors in the game. You're saying that with 8 units in the hex, units can push through in a couple of hours. With 9, they just can't move down the road.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/17/2007 12:12:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious I'm not convinced. One thing this scenario catpures well is the battle of annihilation which made up the first part of the Normandy campaign. The Allies didn't breakout, but in the end it didn't matter, because they were able to do so much damage to the German force that they were no longer able to hold the entire line by the time of Cobra. The artillery and airpower is what does most of this killing. The rest are just along for the ride. Not sure who you were playing, but if the German player deploys properly - ringing the Allies with Panzers, the artillery can't get it done. That requires ground forces. And, I don't use ant-unit attacks. Stay tuned for my AAR. quote: Presuming that all of those guns deploy within 500m of the main road running through the hex, it's less than a regiment per square kilometre. 25,000 square metres per gun. Of course there's scads of personnel and transport in the hex, so losses and traffic will be severe. But this is covered by other factors in the game. An artillery regiment has got about as much equipment as any other regiment. So, like I said, it's about equivalent to three divisions. quote: You're saying that with 8 units in the hex, units can push through in a couple of hours. With 9, they just can't move down the road. They just have to move one unit out of the hex to allow through traffic.

vahauser -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/17/2007 5:49:48 AM)
golden delicious, I agree with you. Stacking should not prohibit movement. Stacking might severely hamper movement, but it shouldn't prohibit it. The problem in TOAW is that the game-code doesn't know the intentions of the player or any given unit. TOAW doesn't know that you just want to pass through a maximum-stacked hex. So TOAW adopts a logically simple solution of simply prohibiting movement into a maximum-stacked hex. There is a way to let TOAW know your intentions, however. And that way is to modify the TOAW pathfinding algorithm. If TOAW is given your starting location and your intended ending location, then the TOAW pathfinding algorithm could be modified to accept movement through a maximum-stacked hex. I'm not advocating putting this on the wishlist just yet because I haven't spent a lot of thought on this issue. But the basic concept of being able to move through a maximum-stacked hex is not unrealistic or unreasonable. After all, the stacking limit is an arbitrary limit that has nothing to do with realism. So, theoretically I have no problem with your idea that maximum stacks should not prohibit movement. Indeed, many (most?) wargames I've played allow movement through "maximum stacked" hexes.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: stacking limit ? (11/17/2007 6:01:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vahauser golden delicious, I agree with you.� Stacking should not prohibit movement.� Stacking might severely hamper movement, but it shouldn't prohibit it.� The problem in TOAW is that the game-code doesn't know the intentions of the player or any given unit.� TOAW doesn't know that you just want to pass through a maximum-stacked hex.� So TOAW adopts a logically simple solution of simply prohibiting movement into a maximum-stacked hex.� There is a way to let TOAW know your intentions, however.� And that way is to modify the TOAW pathfinding algorithm.� If TOAW is given your starting location and your intended ending location, then the TOAW pathfinding algorithm could be modified to accept movement through a maximum-stacked hex.� I'm not advocating putting this on the wishlist just yet because I haven't spent a lot of thought on this issue.� But the basic concept of being able to move through a maximum-stacked hex is not unrealistic or unreasonable. After all, the stacking limit is an arbitrary limit that has nothing to do with realism.� So, theoretically I have no problem with your idea that maximum stacks should not prohibit movement.� Indeed, many (most?) wargames I've played allow movement through "maximum stacked" hexes.� There are issues with that, though. The attempt to exit the overstacked hex could fail, due to enemy ZOCs. Also, the unit could trigger an interdiction air attack while in the overstacked hex.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6723633