Chap 6 - Should units be allowed to stack on the battlefield?

[irdeggman]

Let's keep this initial poll simple. If the votes go to Yes - then we will pare that down to exactly how, how many, etc.

As I said earlier the previous poll had a no as the leading getter but if some of the other "related" polls were combined it could have changed things.

[Osprey]

Doh!

How silly -I accidentally voted "yes" when I meant to vote "no." Sorry!

What I was going to post was "no, units shouldn't be allowed to stack. However, with some hindrance (extra movement cost), units should be able to pass through other unengaged units on the field.

Osprey

[Raesene Andu]

Whenever there is talk of units stacking, I have a mental image of troops standing on top of each other. So obviously I voted no.

[irdeggman]

Doh!

How silly -I accidentally voted "yes" when I meant to vote "no." Sorry!

What I was going to post was "no, units shouldn't be allowed to stack. However, with some hindrance (extra movement cost), units should be able to pass through other unengaged units on the field.

Osprey

No problem - when I do the final tally and analysis I'll subtract 1 from Yes and add it to No.

[earthbeard]

I voted no! purely and simply, it just seems too iffy, from a logical and bizarre thought as has been said people standing on top of each other.

I won't go into lengthy discussion about why i believe it for now, i will simply wait till discussion pops up.

[geeman]

At 12:41 PM 9/21/2005 +0200, earthbeard wrote:

>I voted no! purely and simply, it just seems too iffy, from a logical and
>bizarre thought as has been said people standing on top of each other.
>
>I won`t go into lengthy discussion about why i believe it for now, i will
>simply wait till discussion pops up.

Hm. Well, let`s hope them being described as a "company" of soldiers
doesn`t mean you all picture them in corporate executive outfits pummelling
their opponents with leather briefcases....

Anyway, I`d vote "yes" but it seems birthright.net is having a little
trouble recognizing me as a valid user right now.

Gary

[earthbeard]

The standing on top of each other part was more daftness than anything!
I just dislike the idea for several reasons-one of which is unit cohesion, allowing stacking? means how do you handle this...the battles are abstract enough as it is, but from knowledge first hand witnessing....big sword wielding fights, turn into chaos rapidly.

Also the other part that bugs me, is if stacking what limitations?, for example both armies all occupy the same square and become a super stacker army and then attack each other? just seems to me stacking is more of a meta-gaming, power thing?

Of course i do not oppose completely units occupying same space, especially for tactical reasons etc? but stacking just feels wrong.

It's fully a complex and multi faceted issue.

[irdeggman]

The standing on top of each other part was more daftness than anything!
I just dislike the idea for several reasons-one of which is unit cohesion, allowing stacking? means how do you handle this...the battles are abstract enough as it is, but from knowledge first hand witnessing....big sword wielding fights, turn into chaos rapidly.

Also the other part that bugs me, is if stacking what limitations?, for example both armies all occupy the same square and become a super stacker army and then attack each other? just seems to me stacking is more of a meta-gaming, power thing?

Of course i do not oppose completely units occupying same space, especially for tactical reasons etc? but stacking just feels wrong.

It's fully a complex and multi faceted issue.

See you getting wrapped around the axles here.

That is why I tried to make it clear that any details would be handled later if the result was yes.

The past poll had a lot of people feeling that yes but with limits - the "with limits" wasn't delved into real deep and shouldn't be if the clear majority feels they shouldn't at all.

[earthbeard]

I know, that why i said in my original post in this thread...that i'd my discussion till later.

But i was quoted on the standing on top of each other....so felt a need to explian my reasoning....thats all.

[geeman]

At 04:34 PM 9/22/2005 +0200, earthbeard wrote:

>The standing on top of each other part was more daftness than anything!
>I just dislike the idea for several reasons-one of which is unit cohesion,
>allowing stacking? means how do you handle this...the battles are abstract
>enough as it is, but from knowledge first hand witnessing....big sword
>wielding fights, turn into chaos rapidly.
>
>Also the other part that bugs me, is if stacking what limitations?, for
>example both armies all occupy the same square and become a super stacker
>army and then attack each other? just seems to me stacking is more of a
>meta-gaming, power thing?

How is it meta-gaming?

>Of course i do not oppose completely units occupying same space,
>especially for tactical reasons etc? but stacking just feels wrong.
>
>It`s fully a complex and multi faceted issue.

That it is, though the issues themselves are outlined fairly easily. When
it comes to the issue of stacking units it really depends primarily on a
combination of factors having to do with

A. The size of the battlesquare and
B. The length (time) of the combat round.

Those factors are, themselves, connected in that one must relate the size
of the battlesquare to the movement rate of the troops in it, which means
the amount of time troops have to maneuver is one of two prime
considerations; the rate of movement and the time of movement.

It is, for instance, weird to have units with a movement rate of "3" during
1 minute battlerounds if the battlesquare upon which the combat is
conducted are 100` x 100` because a unit of soldiers could move much
further than that in a minute during a standard march. (I use my own
system, but IIRC that was the size decided upon in the BRCS, wasn`t
it?) 100` x 100` battlesquares makes for 400 standard 5` x 5` squares,
which more than one unit could fit into.

To a certain extent, of course, this has to do with how much one is trying
to portray the standard, D&D adventure level combat rules into a system of
large scale combat. Some abstraction and general "slippage" of the numbers
is sensible in that a group of 100+ individuals is not going to operate
with one mind and must, therefore, not have the same maneuver as a single
person would. But I think the point remains valid that if one is trying to
portray a system of battlerules that aren`t so different from the adventure
level of play as to constitute an entirely different subset of rules then
these are the primary considerations.

Those issues aside, however, the inability for troops to stack also has a
secondary issue in that it means that troops are a barrier to the movement
of other, friendly units. That is, if units can`t stack it means that
units are unable to maneuver through battlesquares controlled by
allies. Movement through occupied spaces should be allowed, but in some
way penalized. (I charge an extra movement point to enter a battlesquare
occupied by allies.)

Gary

[Sorontar]

Guys... the one problem with this poll. As indicated by previous responses, you haven't defined what "stacking" is? Multiple armies in the one area? Armies being able to add multiple attack/defence bonuses? Multiple hero units being able to applied to an army? Opposing armies being able to occupy the same area as their opponents? Armies in a rugby scrum? I'm not voting (or abstaining) until I see a definition.

Sorontar, the pedantic linguist.

[irdeggman]

Guys... the one problem with this poll. As indicated by previous responses, you haven't defined what "stacking" is? Multiple armies in the one area? Armies being able to add multiple attack/defence bonuses? Multiple hero units being able to applied to an army? Opposing armies being able to occupy the same area as their opponents? Armies in a rugby scrum? I'm not voting (or abstaining) until I see a definition.

Sorontar, the pedantic linguist.

All right the meaning of "stacking" is the same as it was in the 2nd ed rules. 2 or more units operating from the same battle square.

In 2nd ed there was unlimited "stacking" in the BRCS-playtest units can not stack at all.

Gary - as far as movement through an occupied square that is a legitamate concern - but I think it is best handled in the same manner as is a normal combat and friendly units moving through occupied squares. (At least that would be my first assumption - but we can deal with that later when we cover movement rules and "special" actions a little more in-depth). For now let's assume this poll is only talking about friendly units fighting from the same battle square.

[earthbeard]

Gary,

I understand and fully support your arguments! as i hope you understand and at least agree a little with my point of view?

What i meant by meta-gaming ((porbably not the correct phrase to use looking back))...is in DnD you always have players that seek the hidden advantage or loopholes.....regardless of you agree or not, sometimes this can create problems.

The immediate problem i have is not such units stacking, but more a issue of the stacking abused...sure the spearmen, would shield the archers ((occupying the same square)). But what if that same square was occupied by some knights? at the same time. for sake of just simplification...say those units all stack offence/defence...there going to be harder than a single unit of infantry...for example...so the infantry player, would then put his units into stacking...to offset the numbers.
Thus creating some mad rush for some players to forge whole armies in one battle square....just feels wrong and well just wrong.

Of course the above example is if stacking added offence/defence etc! but what if you just used the best....and any unit could take the damage....same kind of problem.....it's meta-gaming to me...when said player usesit in this way. I do not oppose min/maxing or powergaming at all, in fact i will willingly admit to doing it often myself....as a player and DM...it get's old and dull for everyone else real fast.

Of course on the other hand you could allow units to stack, but give them a penalty for doing so ((less co-ordinated etc?))...but then you would find it rare for players to do so, becuase of the penalty...has to be a blance between useful/functionality that somehow offests the loopholes and potential powergaming.

Yes i am aware that Birthright will and often does pit players against each other, and often intends that to be the case. But the less mathematical/tactical/rules lawyerish behaviour against the players that aren't that way inclined through choice etc.....just gives one big and unhealthy advantage...

Anyway i am beginning to ramble and i hope my point of view ((not argument...i would agree with stacking if it was sensible...and not easily abused...as sadly as many things are in DND)).

I agree units need to be able to move through each other.

But not sure if you have/know the rules for Warhammer Fantasy Battle? but only rare units can move through others...Possibly a movement/unit structure similar may be advantageous? I see units able to move through units of Archers...much better than a unit of Pikeman for example.

I would like to add finally...i am aware the rules for battles need to be abstract and less realistic for game play.


We were told not to discuss just vote, and then from there discuss etc. ((Sorry Idreggman))

Brendon.

[irdeggman]

We were told not to discuss just vote, and then from there discuss etc. ((Sorry Idreggman))

Brendon.

No you weren't. Discussion, like knowledge, is good.

The only thing I wanted was to not delve too deeply into all of the possible permutations of how units could stack and what (if any) restrictions should apply to that stacking.

That is where people get lost - they think (like you seem to per your posts) that simply saying yes in this poll will allow an infinite stacking. I specifically said not to get into any sort of details (or qualifications) when making your vote. A yes only means that we would proceed to the next step and then figure out what restrictions/mechanics would be involved in having units stack.

What happened in the last poll was that most people said No stacking but a lot of others thought they should but had qualifications to how that mechanic should work. Thus by voting on separate mechanics the overall result appeared to be watered down at least IMO.

[earthbeard]

Well seems i'm getting a little Hostility here????

I thought the reponses and qouting of my comments were a little...mmm off, after i was quoted on the "Men standing on top of each other" When Rasene himself said it...But hye new guy understandable...if a little uncessary.

Irdeggman...from your inital quoting of my comments...i got the impression that discussion was to be left for a bit later...so i asked for this current discussion to be left till it opened up with the actaul rulings and pro/cons. Obviously my impression was a little faulty....sorry for that.

I will state i had two people read over the thread and they pointed it out as being Hostilish? i said not really....

No i'm not being defensive....but for asking this thread to remain simple and to the pointish ((despite my postings and greater depths, which i apologised for)) I still some how get "Beatdown".

Sorry i stepped into the playground...too fast.
I'll lurk a little longer, get a better feel.

;)
Brendon

[irdeggman]

Well seems i'm getting a little Hostility here????

Sorry didn't mean to come off that way.


I thought the reponses and qouting of my comments were a little...mmm off, after i was quoted on the "Men standing on top of each other" When Rasene himself said it...But hye new guy understandable...if a little uncessary.

Well at least I know I didn't make a comment about that part. Thank goodness I was only a little bit off.


Irdeggman...from your inital quoting of my comments...i got the impression that discussion was to be left for a bit later...so i asked for this current discussion to be left till it opened up with the actaul rulings and pro/cons. Obviously my impression was a little faulty....sorry for that.

Hmm maybe I was a little off in my statements.


I will state i had two people read over the thread and they pointed it out as being Hostilish? i said not really....

Shoot you should see when Gary and I get into it. Heck go back about a year and half ago and see some real hostile comments - Ecliptic I think was the poster.


No i'm not being defensive....but for asking this thread to remain simple and to the pointish ((despite my postings and greater depths, which i apologised for)) I still some how get "Beatdown".

Sorry I didn't think I brow beat you. I only wanted to point out that there was never a call for no comments. I only wanted people to not get bogged down in mechanics for this poll - only to decide if we should bother to "debate" mechanics later. That is specifics.


Sorry i stepped into the playground...too fast.
I'll lurk a little longer, get a better feel.

;)
Brendon

Don't hesitate to comment - it is what the point of the boards is all about.

It is my job to try to keep the discussion to a specific point withuot stifing creativity in the BRCS discussion topics.

Again sorry if I came off as harsh or brow beating.

[tcharazazel]

Hmm... so far it looks almost 50/50, which MAKES NO SENSE!?!?!?!? At least to me, but then maybe some of the people have forgotten all of the other rules, ie grid size and average unit size that would affect the ability of units to actually stack in any logistical manner.

irdeggman,

You maybe should mention those exact poll results for the people as they seem to be having problems doing the math...

So far most of the people describing why they voted are for no, except for Gary, who brought up the valid point of troop movement. However, I view troop movement and stacking as 2 separate things for allowing 2+ units to stay in the same grid square and fight is different than allowing 2 units move through each other.

So, I disagree with stacking and agree with allowing troops to move through each other with a movement penalty, ie costs an extra movement point to move through your friendly troops do to the change in formation to fit through them.

[RaspK_FOG]

So, I disagree with stacking and agree with allowing troops to move through each other with a movement penalty, ie costs an extra movement point to move through your friendly troops do to the change in formation to fit through them.I am of similar standing: there's no real reason that the same troops would manage to pinch themselves in one tight hole and get several bonuses without the steapest of penalties; in fact, the penalties would be tremendous and, guess what, while, generally speaking, quite possible, no well-known tactician ever put his armies in one small pack because it would have a bad effect on their ability to fight with little counterbenefit.

If you wanted to do something similar, allow troops to move throughout another company at a movement penalty (not being able to pay the cost meaning they end their move there, losing any more movement they would otherwise have had) or allow them to get tightly packed together for a slight defence bonus, to which I am mostly against for simplicity reasons. But, my perspective is that no real stacking should be allowed, if only for Raesene's paradigm.

[irdeggman]

Thread with previous poll results for reference.

http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2699 (http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2699)

[bluntaxe]

I have very little opinion, cause I don't know all of the rules off bat, however just to throw in some info. I recall watching something on the History Channel (maybe it was the Learning channel - but whatever...) regarding the tactics of various ancient armies. One of the main things I remember was how they lined up and trained to easily move parallel with one another and even split and join groups as needed in the battle (I think this was a viking era/area in particular they were reffering to).

[irdeggman]

Just to help those visualize the area we are talking about (based on the previous polls' results).


Units are roughly 200 indivuals.

Battle squares are roughly 100 ft by 100 ft.

Everytime I do this I end up messing things up.

Someone give me how many 5 ft squares are in this area (I come up with 400 100 ftx100 ft/25 sq ft). Where 25 sq ft is 5 ft x 5 ft or the space an individual occupies in standard D&D.

[Sorontar]

> Someone give me how many 5 ft squares are in this area
> (I come up with 400 100 ftx100 ft/25 sq ft). Where 25 sq ft
> is 5 ft x 5 ft or the space an individual occupies in standard D&D.

That is correct. 400 5ft by 5ft fit in a 100ft by 100ft area.

Think of it this way, the area has 20 sets of 5ft by 100ft. Each set fits 20 5x5 squares. So overall there are 20x20=400 5x5 squares.

So if there are 200 individuals, they each have on average 2 x 25 = 50 sqft each to fight in., i.e. they can back off 5ft from a single opponent and they won't intrude into another combat.... on average.

Just remember that when we are working out the rules for battle combat, we are trying to keep it simple. So averages are good.

Sorontar

[geeman]

At 01:32 AM 9/28/2005 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

>Someone give me how many 5 ft squares are in this area (I come up with 400
>100 ftx100 ft/25 sq ft). Where 25 sq ft is 5 ft x 5 ft or the space an
>individual occupies in standard D&D.

400 is correct. 100` on a side is twenty 5` x 5` squares. 20 x 20 =
400. Which is interesting because it`s also approximately the size of my
adventure level, wet-erase combat grid....

However, it should probably be noted at some point that the "one
medium-size being per 5` x 5` square should" standard of the adventure
level of combat need not necessarily be assumed to also be employed by
massed, formed troops of 200 individual soldiers. There is a general
abstraction of the adventure level into the company level of large scale
combat; hp to hits, the time of the combat round, etc. A unit of soldiers
could and in some cases would stand bunched together in order to form
skirmish lines, maximize the number of weapons facing an opponent in
"hedgehog" types of arrangements, a rank or two of couched (kneeling)
defenders, etc. Since pretty much all the adventure level stats of the
individuals who make up such units are being abstracted into new, company
level stats it would be inconsistent (in addition to being unrealistic) to
assume that company level units will occupy the same 5,000 square foot area
that 200 individual adventure level medium-sized creatures do in D&D`s
adventure level of combat.

Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

I suggested earlier that we provide rules for such things as units in tight formations and so on, which, while worthwhile if we really are to strive for realism, may well undermine the whole project if we pay too close attention to them.

So, the question stands: should units be allowed to contract instead of stack, which is what was normally done historically, which means that we have to break down the battle grid square to quarters, or are we going to prefer the abstraction of stacking units?

[irdeggman]

I suggested earlier that we provide rules for such things as units in tight formations and so on, which, while worthwhile if we really are to strive for realism, may well undermine the whole project if we pay too close attention to them.

So, the question stands: should units be allowed to contract instead of stack, which is what was normally done historically, which means that we have to break down the battle grid square to quarters, or are we going to prefer the abstraction of stacking units?

Please stick to the question being asked going off into too much detailed discussion will only compound the issue, IMO. (i.e., mechanics).

If stacking is chosen then the means would be decided later - that could include the contracting you are talking about. We don't need to deal with mechanics yet. Regardless they both have to do with can more than one unit be in the same battle square (disregarding movement for the moment)?

[RaspK_FOG]

Please stick to the question being asked gingo off into too much detailed discussion will only compund the issue, IMO. (i.e., mechanics).

If stacking is chosen the the means would be decided later - that could include the contracting you are talking about. We don't need to deal with mechanics yet. Regardless they both have to do with can more than one unit be in the same battle square (disregarding movement for the moment)?
That's exactly the kind of attitude I wanted to get back for feedback; kudos!

[Osprey]

K.I.S.S. :cool:

[C0R5A1R]

Hmm... so far it looks almost 50/50, which MAKES NO SENSE!?!?!?!? At least to me, but then maybe some of the people have forgotten all of the other rules, ie grid size and average unit size that would affect the ability of units to actually stack in any logistical manner.


I can't speak for others who voted 'yes', but I did so because as far as I can tell, to vote down stacking rules we kill any possibility of a unit's size being represented in its combat statistics. Marching several units into a single 100-ft. square mid-battle may be questionable, but working out some modifiers to represent a unit with a bit more (or fewer) troops than average seems worthwhile- especially if BR 3.5 isn't going to include a go-between system for smaller battles (like the skirmisher rules found in the original 2nd Ed. BR Rulebook or the 3.5 skirmisher rules in HoB- or was it the Mini HB?). Currently, the only means I'm aware of by which one can represent a smaller-than-usual unit is to apply 'Scout Training', which isn't very appealing when I'm trying to simulate a small group of infantry. In short, if 'stacking' is meant to include alterations to a unit's standard size Off-the-field as well as On, I would hesitate to throw out the option.

[Urban fox]

Those issues aside, however, the inability for troops to stack also has a
secondary issue in that it means that troops are a barrier to the movement
of other, friendly units. That is, if units can`t stack it means that
units are unable to maneuver through battlesquares controlled by
allies. Movement through occupied spaces should be allowed, but in some
way penalized. (I charge an extra movement point to enter a battlesquare
occupied by allies.)

Gary

I agree with this statement.

[geeman]

When it comes to the issue of "contracting" units (so we can move on) the
point I was trying to make earlier was just that one needn`t assume that
companies of 200 individual soldiers are going to occupy the same amount of
space (one hundred 5` x 5` squares) when abstracted into a single unit as
those same soldiers would at the adventure level, not anything to do with
"contracting" or types of what would be, I guess, formations. Those things
can be abstracted into the stats of the unit itself, without too much
rationalization, and stacked units would also be similarly
abstracted. That is, one could simply assume that issues of formation
(like soldiers in company being "compressed" into smaller than standard D&D
5` x 5` squares) would be part of how many might stack in a square. That
is, if one were going to allow 4 units to stack in a 100` x 100`
battlesquare one is assuming that they each are occupying a 50` x 50` area,
which is half the space 200 individuals would normally take up at the
adventure level.

However, aside from capping the number of companies in a battlesquare at a
number higher than two per square one needn`t do much more to assume that
units are "contracting" in some way. Most issues of formation should IMO
just be assumed to be part of the stats of the units. That is, a unit that
fights in a particularly defensive formation (phalanx style, for example)
has a slightly higher DV than another unit of that type. Thus, formation
is abstracted into the company`s stats and the way units might reform to
"contract" or "spread out" can be similarly abstracted into a general rule
that caps the number of units that can stack in a single square.

Gary

[irdeggman]

Alright this poll is now closed and the results are (moving Osprey's vote from yes to no):

Yes: 17
No 24
Abstain: 3


Not a clear majority but a majority none the less and when combined with the results of the last poll on the subject I think it is safe to say that most do not want units to stack (in combat - not dealing with movement issues). So in the BRCS units do not stack on the battlefield.

[Nikola]

What do you think about special training for stacking with certain type of units? Like pikes guarding archers or cavalry with additional horses for greater maneuverability of heavy infantry. That would mean bonuses for one unit, but penalties for the other. Overall bonuses should be greater because of the spent feat(spec training) and the maintainance of two units. This way one would specify what the special training does as well as to whom it does it to.
I vote yes for stacking, but I would limit it to two units because more would be chaos for the rules as well as the event itself. I could imagine pikes guarding archers, but not pikes guarding archers with infantry that's attacking and cavalry that's helping all of them move faster! And of course no stacking for two units of the same type, because that would be poitless, abuse of the rules.

[bbeau22]

Wow you dug this post from the depth of the internet.

Back in my first Birthright campaign I was playing as a player. I thought then that the Birthright battle system had some serious flaws.

If two armies met on the battlefield, it was always in the best interest of the army with the larger numbers to stack all of their units into one or two squares and begin moving forward. This often forced the army with the fewer forces to gather up into one large force.

The larger force army would charge into the smaller. Probably linking up his forces right before he moved in. In that giant battle in one square the units would be matched up. Any extra units could be matched up however the general with the larger army decided being able to create as many mis-matches as possible.

The war ended almost always with the larger force winning unless the small army had battlewise.

Another flaw with allowing multiple units onto one square back in the day was battlespells. They became far too powerful when one spell could hurt thousands of troops in one shot. It made the side with a single high level priest or wizard a must or you would lose.

My only beef with the new system with having just two opposing units in the same square is that there isn't quite enough squares. Troops with good movement don't have any where to move. Has anyone tried to say double the size of the board and see if the system still holds up?

-BB

[irdeggman]

Well part of the discussion on revising the chapter had to due with battle grid squares. IIRC the general consensus was to do away with the old 2nd ed sheet and go with a regular battle map (i.e., 1" squares).

This allows the system to flow more cohesively with standard combat concepts. It also allows for larger battlefields. The downside is tha the old unit sheets would not be very effective as "markers" anymore.

As far as having a special training option. Nothing is wrong with that at all. Remember that not all training options are in the BRCS (nor should they be). The question being asked was about standard stacking (just like a normal war game). That was the one they looked to be frowned on by most people.

[bbeau22]

How big of a battle map are we talking about? I am actually playing this evening and will probably have a small scale war to do.

-BB

[irdeggman]

How big of a battle map are we talking about? I am actually playing this evening and will probably have a small scale war to do.

-BB

That was to be left up to the DM based on terrain conditions and such. At least that was what I gleaned from the way people had posted on the subject. This makes a lot of sense since the DM normally determines the size of the field of play anyway.

Using a standard battlemap also aids when using regular spells on the battlefield (something else people seemed to like). This one I have trouble with working on since it is far too easy to overpower a large scale combat with a single character - I tend to favor "zoom in" combats to reflect how an individual actually handles a smaller combat and using the Hero Unit instead. Otherwise you can readily lead to the flying invisible wizard with a wand of fireballs (ala Forgotten Realms) concept, which does not seem very BR-ish to me at all.

Remember - none of this has made it into any "revisions" of the playtest document yet. So it would be house-rules for you. I personally would not introduce anything so vast without more preparation time (and time to let the players in on the concepts).

[Mirviriam]

I did not vote - since neither fit my view - basically movement is possible if they are moving into terrain controlled by their forces or open space.

Circumstances:

AOE & moral checks of one unit failiing implies both units fail, but success is per unit.
Only movement is allowed while both units are in same hex. <-Mainly nice for routing/regrouping