View Poll Results: Should units be allowed to stack?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1. No

    7 38.89%
  • 2. Yes – no limit/restriction

    0 0%
  • 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%
  • 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%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    I thought about the facing/stacking issue some more: if units are to use facing, stacking really isn't a very elegant/smooth mechanic anymore.

    I said I might change my mind...I voted for #2, but now I'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'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've gone through about 3 revisions of that system, thanks to some folks' feedback and playtesting experience. The main thing I'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're using a D&D system we should assume that a 5' square is an optimal minimum fighting space for foot soldiers, a 5'x10' 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'm sorry, but these soldiers' ability to fight in special formations has nothing to do with a general'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.

  2. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1
    Downloads
    8
    Uploads
    0
    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'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's better to expand the field, wich it's what happen in a war, more man means more space for a war is utilize.

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

  3. #13
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    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't seem to find any reference except that units are composed of about 200 men.

    B
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  4. #14
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    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're intending to stick with the original battlemap, the number of areas is so small as to make stacking a necessity!

    - 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'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
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  5. #15
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    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't "official" as sanctioning stuff. They have been useful as discussion starters and focuses, but you'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'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.

  6. #16
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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
    Duane Eggert

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.