Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Stacking

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Stacking Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Stacking - 6/22/2016 8:22:53 PM   
xwormwood


Posts: 1149
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Happycat



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.)


Swapping was introduced with Strategic Command - The Great War (Patch 1.01).
Just another proof that the delopers listen AND improve the game, even after the release (SC WW1 had at least 5 patches, not only with bug fixes, but with lots of additonal features and free MAJOR campaigns).



< Message edited by Xwormwood -- 6/22/2016 8:26:20 PM >

_____________________________

"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)

(in reply to Happycat)
Post #: 61
RE: Stacking - 6/22/2016 11:55:22 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 638
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline 		If you newer SCers had any idea how much this game has changed over the years, there would be no questions about Hubert and Company's dedication to this product.

It was a good game to begin with(mostly bug free, no game breakers), but as time and input from the community blossomed, the best ideas were incorporated.

Stacking? Believe me, it's not a "make or breaker", just like the tiles of the past, inconsequential to the game play, just a delusion of the owner.

(in reply to xwormwood)
Post #: 62
RE: Stacking - 6/23/2016 2:55:08 AM   
solipsismMatrix

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/13/2013
Status: offline 		By now, there either is or isn't - it's too late for a major change like that. I'm looking forward to finding out which it is.

(in reply to Steely Glint)
Post #: 63
RE: Stacking - 6/23/2016 6:32:47 AM   
Ason

 

Posts: 352
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline 		tiles inconsequential? I think they were a real pain.. For starters you need 8 units to surround 1 single enemy unit(compared to 6 with hexes).

I'm sure it takes some time to get used to but if you once started playing games with hexes it's really hard to "subconsciously" understand the tiles(atleast for me), the east-west distance looks alot longer(tile to tile) than than the NW to SE which is confusing.
Also with tiles you have 2 types of directions where you can't make a straight frontline(west-east and north-south)
with hexes you only have 1 (east-west).

For me personally they are the reason I don't start a new game of Assault on Democracy... Everything else is so good but the tiles are just too big a pain..

So I for one am really happy to see hexes!

on-topic though, I would really like to see a simple system of stacking atleast 2 units on the same hex, it would really add a new layer of "simple complexity" to the game which would make it really stand out from the other games like Time of Fury, CEAW, and SC2 etc.
I also think it would give the game much more replayability as the map would feel and be so much bigger allowing for more strategies.

But anyway I'm sure Solipsim is right, probably too late now, but hopefully it can be added in a patch in the future.

< Message edited by Mrslobodan -- 6/23/2016 6:43:48 AM >

(in reply to James Taylor)
Post #: 64
RE: Stacking - 7/19/2016 5:41:43 PM   
lionel1957


Posts: 68
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline 		In my view, stacking is not an issue. Example, many times the purpose of stacking is to increase attack/defend numbers.
You can use the editor to increase attack/defend numbers to compensate for stacking. Just my point of view as I have always disliked stacking.

(in reply to Steely Glint)
Post #: 65
RE: Stacking - 10/18/2016 3:35:05 PM   
Greybriar


Posts: 1148
Joined: 2/9/2007
Status: offline 		Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but the topic of this one was too appropriate to start a new one.

So let me get this straight. If a bomber is to bomb a land unit or a fighter wants to strafe a land unit, it has to be adjacent to its target instead of above it?

SSI had better aerial combat in Panzer General in 1994; why release an inferior model 22 years later? I don't understand the rationale behind this decision.

_____________________________

This war is not about slavery. --Robert E. Lee

(in reply to Steely Glint)
Post #: 66
RE: Stacking - 10/18/2016 4:35:32 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

it has to be adjacent to its target


Sorry, this is not true at all.

(in reply to Greybriar)
Post #: 67
RE: Stacking - 10/18/2016 4:45:34 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		Hi Greybriar,

If I understand the concern correctly here, no you don't have to be adjacent to a target as air units can strike from a distance so long as the target is within strike range. Interceptions and escorts also occur as long as the interceptors and escorts are in the applicable flying range of each other.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

(in reply to Greybriar)
Post #: 68
RE: Stacking - 10/18/2016 8:09:01 PM   
Scook_99

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline 		Stacking isn't an issue, especially in this 3rd iteration of Strategic Command. Since you can move, attack, then move out, any units close by can attack. Since each unit attacks individually, stacking up for attacking is a moot point.

And, tiles vs hexes, it really doesn't make too much of a difference. Yes, it takes two more units to completely encircle a unit, but it is so rare. The most unusual is how far a plane can reach using the diagonal. Yes, each tile is adjacent and therefore, is eligible to move there. However, on the diagonal, I believe you multiply the tiles by 1.4 to get the actual distance moved. So, if it's 8 hexes, the true distance is 8 x 1.4 = 11.2

I am not sure if it is changes to hex, or if Hubert has really outdone himself in SC3, to me the AI is much improved and is playing quite well. Regular difficulty isn't too bad, and I turned it up a notch in my next game. Well, it's 1942 and I have ended up in the Axis Death Loop, the point where you spend all MPPs on repairing your units and don't have anything left for research or buying next units. The Russkies are stacked 2 deep everywhere and are pushing me hard. The AI is a better at finishing off low strength units and is good at prosecuting attacks in an area. I am barely holding on and have to pump up those poor bastards, they keep going to 8 strength back to 2 or 3. It won't be long before I can't keep this up and I will lose a lot of units.....quickly. My opponent, his Shock Armies are pounding me and he has a second line of fresh units just waiting to exploit any holes. I am impressed, and will turn down the difficulty again, and work on perfecting Barbarossa.

Stacking and hexes both have an effect, but not too dramatic. I really don't think stacking is a good idea in this game, it's works well using the current system.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 69
RE: Stacking - 10/18/2016 10:23:00 PM   
Greybriar


Posts: 1148
Joined: 2/9/2007
Status: offline 		I was confusing Strategic Command WWII War in Europe with another game that had a similar title. I am a fan of the original Strategic Command game and should have known better. Sorry about that.

Thanks for the responses everyone.

< Message edited by Greybriar -- 10/18/2016 10:50:38 PM >

_____________________________

This war is not about slavery. --Robert E. Lee

(in reply to Scook_99)
Post #: 70
RE: Stacking - 10/19/2016 3:48:45 AM   
MrLongleg

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Plymouth, MA, USA
Status: offline 		What bothers me about the combat system are situations where you could attack a hex from several sides and you have to do it sequentially instead of simultaneously. That means your first unit attacking will take much higher losses than it should in reality. Moreover the moving in and out of units into adjacent hexes to kill a unit seems pretty artificial to me. Advanced Tactics got that problem solved in a nice way.

_____________________________

MrLongleg

Life is too short to drink bad wine ;-)

(in reply to Greybriar)
Post #: 71
RE: Stacking - 10/19/2016 11:02:04 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

I sure wish some modders would gain access to Time of Fury and fulfill it's potential.


I have not played SC, but hoping that it will be as good as TOF might have been. TOF is also not stacking, but overcomes this by being able to swap, split and merge units, which gives a lot of flexibility.

Split and merge, effectively is stacking, allowing you to concentrate units of the same type, with a top strength limit (make a stack), or split a large unit into smaller units, of the same type, if you need to spread out in defence.

You get flexibility, but always only one unit per hex.

Still playing TOF, with some mods and tweaking, it's still a good game.


< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 10/19/2016 11:08:13 AM >

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon

“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 72
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 10:07:24 AM   
cdcool


Posts: 660
Joined: 1/25/2005
From: United States
Status: offline 		Me personally, I don't see or understand the rational of air units taking up an entire hex, That's just me.
You can justify anything. This game does not support stacking, which is a probability a design limitation. I would prefer to have it in the game which would make more since given the size of the hexes.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 73
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 10:44:39 AM   
Hartmann

 

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/28/2000
Status: offline 		It's all a matter of personal preference, not of Truth, but I for one

- would not have bought yet another "tiles"-based game
- would not have bought a game where the rule "one hex-one unit" does not apply (stacking).

One thing I REALLY love about SC3 is that with it we finally got a worthy successor to "Clash of Steel". That said, the only thing I'd like to be added to the combat mechanics is an assault option where you can chose any number of adjacent units (to a target) to assault simultaneously for a bigger effect. (This too was a mechanics of "Clash of Steel".)

(in reply to cdcool)
Post #: 74
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 10:53:31 AM   
cdcool


Posts: 660
Joined: 1/25/2005
From: United States
Status: offline 		It's also a matter of how realistic you want the game to be.

(in reply to Hartmann)
Post #: 75
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 11:12:14 AM   
IainMcNeil


Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dale H

So, this is 150 km per hex? Units are corps as basis? Artillery as separate units? Back 1 hex? Incorporated into corps?

Agree completely that air and ground need to co-habitate a hex?

There are times you might want to listen to your (prospective) players.


Yes we are listening but we disagree. Our job is to take all feedback and filter it. Its not a question of what is realistic, its a question of what helps the game best achieve its vision. Some people prefer one option and some the other, and neither is "right". However Strategic Command's design philosophy requires no stacking. I understand that that might make some people not want to buy it, but conversely it makes a lot more people want to buy & play it. E.g. Me. I find games with stacking far too time consuming to play. It's not a comment on the quality of the game just a personal preference.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to Duck Doc)
Post #: 76
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 11:26:36 AM   
cdcool


Posts: 660
Joined: 1/25/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dale H

So, this is 150 km per hex? Units are corps as basis? Artillery as separate units? Back 1 hex? Incorporated into corps?

Agree completely that air and ground need to co-habitate a hex?

There are times you might want to listen to your (prospective) players.


Yes we are listening but we disagree. Our job is to take all feedback and filter it. Its not a question of what is realistic, its a question of what helps the game best achieve its vision. Some people prefer one option and some the other, and neither is "right". However Strategic Command's design philosophy requires no stacking. I understand that that might make some people not want to buy it, but conversely it makes a lot more people want to buy & play it. E.g. Me. I find games with stacking far too time consuming to play. It's not a comment on the quality of the game just a personal preference.


The time-consuming piece I disagree with Iain.

(in reply to IainMcNeil)
Post #: 77
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 1:56:36 PM   
Happycat

 

Posts: 177
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline 		I have been involved with SC both as a tester and player ever since the very first shareware version (1999 or so I think?)

Stacking has never been implemented for the game, and is totally un-needed. This is a strategic game with many operation over-tones, and functions exceptionally well no matter how one views it. There is no doubt in my mind that Hubert and Bill have listened to their fans and client base, and that is precisely why there is no stacking in SC3.

And, I agree with Ian---stacking is a pita. I want to see my units at a glance, and not scroll through stacks.

_____________________________

Chance favours the prepared mind

(in reply to cdcool)
Post #: 78
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 2:27:29 PM   
Goodmongo

 

Posts: 346
Joined: 9/22/2011
Status: offline 		There are many other games with stacking and there are probably other games without it. That's a good thing. Not every game should be the exact same thing. If you only play games with stacking then go for it. Me I play both and it's refreshing to see the changes.

And Ian is 100% correct in saying:
"but conversely it makes a lot more people want to buy & play it."

Because I also am one of those people. Not sure about "a lot more" but that can be verified by sales numbers.

(in reply to Happycat)
Post #: 79
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 3:21:53 PM   
The Land

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline 		The land warfare aspect of the game works really elegantly without stacking, in my view. Compared to history it gives a certain amount more emphasis to space as a limiting factor than actually applied, but (outside of exceptional situations like Stalingrad) not that much - and this limitation supports fun gameplay.

I still don't see much logic for applying the rules that work for land units to air and naval units, though each of the air and naval systems would also need careful thought and development. My suggestion for air in case it's of any use to anyone would be:

Allow one air unit per hex regardless of whether there is a land unit there or not. Create an "air mode" which greys out friendly land and naval units to emphasise only air units and their potential targets/destinations. Enter the "air mode" by pressing a hotkey or by selecting an air unit.





(in reply to Goodmongo)
Post #: 80
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 3:34:16 PM   
dox44

 

Posts: 668
Joined: 5/7/2000
From: the woodlands, texas
Status: offline 		i didn't play the previous games. i bought this one not really knowing what i was getting. looked like old tabletop game 3R from AH so i bought it. I kind of like no stacking and it
makes sense-doesn't bother me at all. i can get all the stacking i want/need in WitW, TotH etc etc.

This a great game. plays smooth and fast but still demand enough strategy to give pause and variation to user.

job well done to everyone involved.

thanks!

(in reply to Goodmongo)
Post #: 81
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 4:07:35 PM   
cdcool


Posts: 660
Joined: 1/25/2005
From: United States
Status: offline 		LOL..not having stacking doesn't make it a bad game. I own all the SC versions and this one, and a beta tester for SC WWII War in Europe., it is a very good game, well done and fun to play. The fun part is most important.
Stacking would have been nice, swapping units would work as well. The game is very well done and has It's own place in the Wargame genre.


(in reply to dox44)
Post #: 82
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 4:21:54 PM   
OxfordGuy3


Posts: 1041
Joined: 7/1/2012
From: Oxford, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Ron Dockal games have some of the worst stacking rules I ever tried. It reminded me of Kampfgruppe back in the 80's when it first came out. You could stack every unit into one hex and run around the map slaughtering everything in sight because the AI didn't do that cheatin/exploity stuff. Then they fixed it in Battlegroup an only allowed 2 units per hex and that was a good game. Later came Panzer Strike and Typhoon of Steel and I think they dropped it back to just 1 unit per hex. Steel Panthers later came out and I forget how many units could bunch up in that game but I'm pretty sure it had limits as well.

I don't like Dockal games and I don't like large stacks. Games like Panzer General and Panzer Corp do it right. One infantry and one plane. I think that is enough. Whoever heard of guys getting up on their comrades shoulders so they all could stand on one piece of dirt?


Being able to Stack one land unit and one air unit together would seem like a reasonable compromise that I would be happy with

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 83
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 4:23:20 PM   
OxfordGuy3


Posts: 1041
Joined: 7/1/2012
From: Oxford, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cdcool

LOL..not having stacking doesn't make it a bad game. I own all the SC versions and this one, and a beta tester for SC WWII War in Europe., it is a very good game, well done and fun to play. The fun part is most important.
Stacking would have been nice, swapping units would work as well. The game is very well done and has It's own place in the Wargame genre.



Commander Europe at War didn't have stacking either and was/is still a very good game. Would still be nice to have the possibility to stack an aur unit with a ground one, though

(in reply to cdcool)
Post #: 84
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 4:45:16 PM   
Hartmann

 

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/28/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy


quote:

ORIGINAL: cdcool

LOL..not having stacking doesn't make it a bad game. I own all the SC versions and this one, and a beta tester for SC WWII War in Europe., it is a very good game, well done and fun to play. The fun part is most important.
Stacking would have been nice, swapping units would work as well. The game is very well done and has It's own place in the Wargame genre.



Commander Europe at War didn't have stacking either and was/is still a very good game. Would still be nice to have the possibility to stack an aur unit with a ground one, though


Now that you mention CEAW, I remember there was the very same "stacking" discussion when it was still in development. I think it was even more vicious with people threatening to "boycot" the game if it wouldn't allow for stacking etc.

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)
Post #: 85
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 4:56:27 PM   
cdcool


Posts: 660
Joined: 1/25/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy


quote:

ORIGINAL: cdcool

LOL..not having stacking doesn't make it a bad game. I own all the SC versions and this one, and a beta tester for SC WWII War in Europe., it is a very good game, well done and fun to play. The fun part is most important.
Stacking would have been nice, swapping units would work as well. The game is very well done and has It's own place in the Wargame genre.



Commander Europe at War didn't have stacking either and was/is still a very good game. Would still be nice to have the possibility to stack an aur unit with a ground one, though


I agree

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)
Post #: 86
RE: Stacking - 12/9/2016 8:06:14 PM   
Scook_99

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline 		I just don't think stacking will be part of this series. However, one thing I think could be interesting would be attachments.

Instead of the upgrades which affect mainly the attack and defense values, I was thinking of specialized attachments that would be pricey, and only one can be attached to a unit.

Some things would be, Combat Engineers, which would add one to the defensive value, add 10% more to De-moralization, and add 1 to De-entrenchment value.

Another would be Motor Pool, which makes your supply one louder (goes to 11), and adds 1 to movement value. And how about Corps Artillery, add one to attack value, higher De-moralization, but drops your readiness faster, as the cohesion and use of supply by artillery is high.

How about Long range Fighter Escort, add 2 to the defensive value to a strategic bomber. Something like this, very limited in quantity (one or two at the most), and would really beef up the unit it is attached to.

That would be a nice alternative to stacking. Heck, maybe even affect the strength of the unit by a point or two. Since experience is capped at 3 instead of 5 like the old days, with something like this you can achieve that scary 15 strength unit

(in reply to cdcool)
Post #: 87
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Stacking Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.109