Should units be allowed to stack

[irdeggman]

Another issue to help work out details for battlefield events and conduct.

[irdeggman]

I voted for based on ranks but I like the concept of a skill check too. It is just easier/quicker to handle something when it is based on ranks.

[The Jew]

I voted for other. I support it being based on Ranks, but it also has to be modified by by the training of the units. NO matter how good the general, the ability of the army to perfrom will be modified by the quality of his troops. And of course this could mean an army with a poor general leading elite soldiers could still do some interesting manuevers.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Jew@Mar 4 2005, 09:02 AM
I voted for other. I support it being based on Ranks, but it also has to be modified by by the training of the units. NO matter how good the general, the ability of the army to perfrom will be modified by the quality of his troops. And of course this could mean an army with a poor general leading elite soldiers could still do some interesting manuevers.
This a is a good reason to go with a skill check instead. Modifers to the check could include circumstance modifiers for number of units in the stack, morale of the unit (or amount of training), etc.

There is a finite number a ranks a non-epic character can have (23) so there is a built-in limit to the number of troops that can be stacked if using ranks.

One thing to be careful of is to not get too bogged down with the details so that the system becomes unwieldy. So a certain amount of abstractness is necessary.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Mar 4 2005, 11:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Mar 4 2005, 11:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Jew@Mar 4 2005, 09:02 AM
I voted for other. I support it being based on Ranks, but it also has to be modified by by the training of the units. NO matter how good the general, the ability of the army to perfrom will be modified by the quality of his troops. And of course this could mean an army with a poor general leading elite soldiers could still do some interesting manuevers.
This a is a good reason to go with a skill check instead. Modifers to the check could include circumstance modifiers for number of units in the stack, morale of the unit (or amount of training), etc.

There is a finite number a ranks a non-epic character can have (23) so there is a built-in limit to the number of troops that can be stacked if using ranks.

One thing to be careful of is to not get too bogged down with the details so that the system becomes unwieldy. So a certain amount of abstractness is necessary. [/b][/quote]
There are two critical factors in determining army strength, quality of soldiers and quality of leadership. I don&#39;t think giving attention to both is getting "bogged down". I support a combination of ranks and troop quality because the units will have already trained for this manuever, and so will know exactly how effective they can be. Maybe a warcraft check would be appropriate if they try to form together from two individual units during battle, but maybe not. Formations are beaten into soldiers, and if they are not then that is a sign of poor generalship.

[irdeggman]

I agree with you totally - I live in a large military community (largest military composition in the world).

I only meant not to bog down with too many details, specific limits based on quality of unit (training), size of unit (type - mounted units take up more space than archers), specifics of commander, etc.

That was why I pointed out the skill check mechanic. The 3.5 system of adding modifiers to a skill check easily accounts for this - as I mentioned the circumstance modifers based on training and unit type - the commander being reflected in the check itself (includes natural ability and training {i.e., ranks}).

I specifically didn&#39;t try to list all of the modifiers to the skill check becasue that is something we can work out later, if that is the method decided on.

Also an additional skill check during battle (whenever damage is received) wouldn&#39;t be uncalled for. This would be reflecting the keeping formation style of performance. But that is something else that can be decided later.

[Athos69]

I voted for no stacking of units. I feel that there should only be one unit per battle square, much as a character occupies a single 5x5 square on the tactical map. Units would come into base to base contact, but neither should be able to occupy the same space.

KISS -- Keep It Simple, Sheesh&#33;

[Osprey]

I voted for no stacking of units. I feel that there should only be one unit per battle square, much as a character occupies a single 5x5 square on the tactical map. Units would come into base to base contact, but neither should be able to occupy the same space.

KISS -- Keep It Simple, Sheesh&#33;

This has a strong appeal to me, too, largely for the simplicity factor and its identity with the 3.5 combat system.

In such a case, I would want the battlefield to be much larger than 3x5, and missile units to have longer ranges than in the old system.

[geeman]

Warcards don`t use facing (nor does 3e+, of course) but I found when it

comes to large scale combat the lack of facing really screwed with my sense

of realism. I have a similar problem with it at the adventure level of

combat, but when it comes to the formation, line of fire, ability to

flank/surround or otherwise maneuver to gain an advantage when it comes to

angle of attack, and the way troops move on the battlefield, not having a

facing on the units on the battlefield just didn`t work for me. So I added

it back in, and came up with some simple rules for handling facing at the

large scale combat level to replace the adventure level flanking rules in

3e. After some playtesting these rules worked surprisingly well.



I mention that in this thread because I also allowed units to stack within

a battlesquare. I went with 100` x 100` battlesquares and 100 man

units. Since the size of the battlesquare (four hundred 5` x 5` squares)

and the size of units worked out so well, I allowed up to four units to

stack in a square. (Actually, I have a unit size value that determines how

many units can fit in a square, but we needn`t get into that for

now. Suffice it to say four medium-sized infantry can fit in one

battlesquare.) That means that if one uses facing then four units can fit

in a single battlesquare each facing in another direction to create a sort

of Napoleonic square. It struck me as a nice ancillary benefit of the

system that one could create a defensive, four company "unit" on the

battlefield that way.



In any case, when it comes to whether or not units can stack in a

battlesquare I think the issue is really twofold. First of all, it depends

on the size of the units in question. Imagine, for instance, the

difference between units of cavalry and units of infantry, or units of

ogres vs units of humans. One is either imagining the size of the units

scaling up or down with the size of the creatures that make it up, or the

size of the battlesquare is large enough to occupy larger units.



That said, even if one doesn`t allow stacking there are situations in which

stacking will still necessarily occur in one way or another. What happens,

for example, when magic is employed on the field to allow for aerial

troops, or if units occupy structures like ships or siege towers that have

decks/floors to accommodate more than one unit. Unless those

ships/structures are going to occupy more than a single battlesquare

there`s going to be some sort of stacking of the units.



Gary

[Osprey]

That said, even if one doesn`t allow stacking there are situations in which
stacking will still necessarily occur in one way or another. What happens,
for example, when magic is employed on the field to allow for aerial
troops, or if units occupy structures like ships or siege towers that have
decks/floors to accommodate more than one unit. Unless those
ships/structures are going to occupy more than a single battlesquare
there`s going to be some sort of stacking of the units.

I don&#39;t think any single ship should hold more than 1 active fighting company of troops - if there are others stowed belowdecks, fine - but I have a hard time imagining a galleon having active fighting room for more than 200 men at a time. A ship that big has a lot of crew, who need to be able to move around the ship to keep it sailing properly, and deal with any damage she takes.

Likewise, no single level of a tower could hold 200 fighting archers. A decent section of a wall (with one or more towers) could.

A 200-man company is a pretty large unit size IMO. 100 men or les is much more managable. But BR&#39;s whole recruiting/unit system is built on the 200-man assumption, so I&#39;m going to stick with it for a BR battlesystem.

Larger companies = more abstract and generalized battlesystem. Which is why longer battle turns make some sense.

Non-stacking w/ facing works much better with regular unit shapes (square for warcards). It may not look quite as authentic as a rectangle for a typical infantry company, but it&#39;s so much easier to use a battlesystem resembling D&D with a square grid.

[Osprey]

I thought about the facing/stacking issue some more: if units are to use facing, stacking really isn&#39;t a very elegant/smooth mechanic anymore.

I said I might change my mind...I voted for #2, but now I&#39;m thinking that I should have stuck with my battlesystem...which for this poll means no stacking, for the battle grid poll would be "grid squares are approximately unit-sized sqaures."

This is a mix of 3.5 combat and warcards. Units do not stack, facing matters (+1 melee vs. unit&#39;s flank, +2 vs. rear), units use movement to march and turn, units can move through each other (for 1 extra move point), missile units have 2" (2 squares) or better range (and so can align themselves behind a defensive screen), cavalry must move in a straight line prior to a charge, terrain and fortifications cover more than 1 grid square...

I&#39;ve gone through about 3 revisions of that system, thanks to some folks&#39; feedback and playtesting experience. The main thing I&#39;m still monkeying with are missile ranges, unit speed, and battlefield grid size. My experience in the past was that a big map with varied terrain looked cool and was more realistic, but troop movements took FAR too long, and the reserves quickly became so distant as to be meaningless for any reinforcements in the initial battle (quite different fromthe warcard system, where most units could quickly move in and out of the reserves right to the front lines).

If we stick pretty closely to 2e warcard battles, then yeah, limited stacking with larger grid spaces makes sense.

I much prefer though that stacking be a matter of space much more than formation. If we&#39;re using a D&D system we should assume that a 5&#39; square is an optimal minimum fighting space for foot soldiers, a 5&#39;x10&#39; space for cavalry. Trying to make rules for special formations may be too much detail for a battlesystem.

Regardless, units that can fight in extra-tight formations do so because of specific unit training (shield walls and spear/pike/polearm hedges are what come to mind for extra-tight formations). I&#39;m sorry, but these soldiers&#39; ability to fight in special formations has nothing to do with a general&#39;s strategic skills (Warcraft) - no matter how brilliant the general might be as a commander and strategist, his peasant levies are still going to fight in a loose mob.

[Llaeddra]

Well i dont know if you remeber, but units comes in number of 200 for irregular and the like, 100 man for elite and 50 for knights from the boxset of second edition, it&#39;s normal that units cannot stack, due to the limitation of the size the army take, 500 undreds knight in the same units cannot receive order properly from the same leader of the unit. If your players got too much army it&#39;s better to expand the field, wich it&#39;s what happen in a war, more man means more space for a war is utilize.

It&#39;s fun for a player to have a super unit stack by undreds of warrior, but it&#39;s not really realistic.

[Green Knight]

Originally posted by Llaeddra@Mar 8 2005, 05:38 AM
Well i dont know if you remeber, but units comes in number of 200 for irregular and the like, 100 man for elite and 50 for knights from the boxset of second edition,
Does it really say that?

I can&#39;t seem to find any reference except that units are composed of about 200 men.

B

[Green Knight]

I voted "Other" because this poll is actually kind of weird...whether or not units should be allowed to stack depends on how the rest of the war cards battle system is intended to work.

In particular that applies with regard to the size of a battlefield area, and the number of battlefield areas on the battlemap.

- If you&#39;re intending to stick with the original battlemap, the number of areas is so small as to make stacking a necessity&#33;

- If you intend to use a more freeform battlemap, possibly just a large piece of paper with little squares on it, then you have to decide if those squares are really big, like 300 ft. x 300 ft or much smaller.

- Then there is the size of units. Does BRCS intend for units to be of different size (i.e. 300 men for levy, 200 for regulars, 100 for elites or somthing lke that)?

- There there is formation types. Pikes fight in packed phalanx formations, with each man stacked tightly. Regular infantry are much more loosely organized. Skirmisher type units even more so. What about cavalry?

Those are only some of the zillion factors that come into consideration. You can&#39;t simply use a poll to decide such a major factor - the difference between no stacking and unlimited stacking is so big as to make it a completely different game...

B

[Osprey]

I voted "Other" because this poll is actually kind of weird...whether or not units should be allowed to stack depends on how the rest of the war cards battle system is intended to work.

Uh huh.

I posted elsewhere that I hope these polls aren&#39;t "official" as sanctioning stuff. They have been useful as discussion starters and focuses, but you&#39;re absolutely right: voting seperately on interdependent facets of a rules system seems wierd.

It might be wiser to use these polls to get a sense of what people may or may not prefer or feel strongly about, and use those few things as guyideline markers when fleshing out the battlesystem.

For instance, 200-man units seems like it&#39;s here to stay. So a battlesystem needs to be built to accomodate that sort of unit size - including timescale, grid size, damage factoring, etc.

[irdeggman]

Time to close this poll. Here are the results:

Should units be allowed to stack?
1. No [ 7 ] [38.89%]
2. Yes – no limit/restriction [ 0 ] [0.00%]
3. Yes - but there is a limit (basis TBD, e.g., an absolute maximum or based on unit type/muster cost) [ 2 ] [11.11%]
4. Yes – but only units with a hero in them (no limit) [ 0 ] [0.00%]
5. Yes – Limited by ranks in Warcraft skill (specifics TBD, e.g. 1 unit for every 5 ranks, etc.) [ 4 ] [22.22%]
6. Yes – Commander makes a Warcraft check whenever attempting to stack units [ 2 ] [11.11%]
7. Other – please specify [ 2 ] [11.11%]
8. Abstain [ 1 ] [5.56%]

No stacking is the majority opinion, but there are several different versions of yes, but. . . that when added upmakes things a lot closer.

We need to discuss this one some more