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 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    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

  2. #22
    Site Moderator Sorontar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    4,248
    Downloads
    88
    Uploads
    8

    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.

    Sorontar
    Sorontar
    Information Communication ILLUMINATION!!

  3. #23
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0

    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

  4. #24
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    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?

  5. #25
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 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?
    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)?
    Last edited by irdeggman; 09-28-2005 at 10:08 PM.
    Duane Eggert

  6. #26
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman
    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!

  7. #27
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    K.I.S.S.

  8. #28
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Size Modifiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  9. #29
    Junior Member Urban fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    23
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by geeman
    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.

  10. #30
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0

    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)

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.