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