View Poll Results: Should units be allowed to stack on the Battlefield?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    18 40.91%
  • No

    23 52.27%
  • Abstain

    3 6.82%
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37
  1. #1
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

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

    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.
    Last edited by irdeggman; 09-20-2005 at 03:38 PM.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #2
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    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

  3. #3
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  4. #4
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    No problem - when I do the final tally and analysis I'll subtract 1 from Yes and add it to No.
    Duane Eggert

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  6. #6
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7

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

    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

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  8. #8
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Duane Eggert

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  10. #10
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7

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

    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

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.