steevodeevo -> RE: Why no stacking (12/10/2018 8:38:41 AM)
|
I'm sure this is known, but something said above made me wonder if all appreciate this feature.. If you have units 'stacked' in depth, so for example have two units adjacent to an enemy unit and 2 more units in support behind the units facing the enemy and all have action points, you can attack with the facing unit, then hold Shift and 'swap' with the rear unit and attack with that. Do this with both facing units and you get to attack one unit with 4 units. You can of course, as with many games, soften up first with arty and/or bombers and if the defending unit retreats then you can move other units with available move points to attack again and penetrate the gap. I mention this as folks seem to be considering a lack of stacking as a weakness or flaw to SC. I don't see it that way at all. I too play other games that have stacking (GGs War in the East and West, TOAoW etc), but I definately do not feel that SC suffers or is dumber as a result of no stacks. Using adjacent reserves well works in a similar way and requires some planning and seems realistic to me. People say stacking is realistic. Im not always so sure. Units didn't sit on top of each other, they say adjacent or in reserve and were poured in. Combined forces were also key. I've played stacking wargames and gotten lazy surrounding enemies with red flagged (over stacked) units and just pummeled away without much care or thought. This actually seems less realistic and ballanced than the SC approach.
|
|
|
|