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%
Results 21 to 30 of 37
-
09-27-2005, 11:32 PM #21
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.Last edited by irdeggman; 09-27-2005 at 11:35 PM.
Duane Eggert
-
09-28-2005, 12:46 AM #22
Mathematics
> 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.
SorontarSorontar
Information Communication ILLUMINATION!!
-
09-28-2005, 07:45 AM #23
Chap 6 - Should units be allowed to stack on the battlefield?
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
-
09-28-2005, 09:42 AM #24
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?
-
09-28-2005, 04:25 PM #25
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally Posted by RaspK_FOG
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)?Last edited by irdeggman; 09-28-2005 at 10:08 PM.
Duane Eggert
-
09-28-2005, 09:50 PM #26Originally Posted by irdeggman
-
09-29-2005, 03:36 AM #27
-
09-30-2005, 05:06 PM #28
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 2
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Size Modifiers?
Originally Posted by tcharazazel
-
09-30-2005, 05:25 PM #29Originally Posted by geeman
-
10-01-2005, 05:53 AM #30
Chap 6 - Should units be allowed to stack on the battlefield?
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
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks