Stacking

[joe98]

I would suggest 2 units to a hex.

1 unit is too few and 4 is too many.

A 1 unit limt would make it feel like Axis and Allies

There could be a small number of "special" units such as armour or airborne, that can be added to a 2 stack to make a maximum 3 stack.

[jon_j_rambo]

Hmm, interesting how 3R still remains in the minds of many. I played 3R a little as a kid, thought it was rather boring. Only 4 turns per year! You had to wait forever just to get your move. Intercepts were weak, etc. Obviously computers have helped us since then.

Far as "stacking" & "armor", there are many options in design. I'm not too picky, long as the playability & action is good. Gee, that's a rather general statement.

[pompousdivinus]

Ok, Slitherine folks, although you already said a couple of times stacking is not in this time, there is obviously quite a number of people out there (all the old cosim folks like me I guess, who are very used to that and would not let go...) who would love to have stacking included somehow.

Since you don??™t want to adopt a ???no stacking but two sizes of units ??“corps and divisions- idea??? neither, here is one last attempt to reconcile you with the ???militant stacking faction???

The idea is based on the fact that all the nations obviously used different unit sizes and numbers in a corps anyway, some like the Germans, Russians changing formation size at some time during the war.
The idea does not require stacking in the traditional sense!

Why not do the following:
A ???corps??? in the end is an amount of added or multiplied figures (I guess) to represent it??™s strength ??“ e.g. Armour level 10, AT Level 6, Experience of the personnel 7, level or organisation 0.75 ??¦etc.etc.
Why not allow also a figure representing ???size??? as a multiplier (which, by sheer coincidence can be interpreted with numbers of divisions in the corps ). E.g. in case of a size 3 the whole figures mentioned above will be multiplied by 3). Like that it is possible to produce weak and strong corps (other than by mere technology advantage) and if you are sooo reluctant about it you
1)
Don??™t have to allow regrouping, either at all,
or
2)
(which I??™d prefer) don??™t allow regrouping on the front but allow the player to put a corps into strategic reserve so that a corps with a unit size of, say, 5, could then give the player the possibility to form one corps of seize 2 and one of seize 3 or combine the lot with a newly produced corps.

IS THAT REALLY TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR ???!!!


Furthermore this could really add a new feature: the necessity of reconnaisance. Most of the wargames imo do not include that to a sufficient extend although e.g. DDay could not have been successfully taken place without a fooled enemy intelligence.
The adversary might not be allowed to see the size level of the corps (even not in an adjacent hex) unless he has the necessary reconnaissance points (e.g. airpoints allocated to that role) thus creating much more realism than just having a "fog of war" that usually does not comprise adjacent hexes.

[stalins_organ]

I think Iain has mentioned somewhere in another thread that they have looked at, or are looking at, the idea of allocating points of some sort to units rather than having them pre-defined - so each hex can hold jsut 1 "corps", but that corps can be varied in size, so your wish is at least not completely out of left field!

However I disagree with your idea that changes could only be made in a strategic reserve. Troops weer often shunted between higher formations and I see no problem with doing so in the front lines - as long as it uses up the appropriate resouorces - at the very least troops beign shifted from one "Corps" to another should not be useable while traveling, and should probably be more vulnerable than usual to interdiction by airforces.

[xtiaan72]

Hmm, interesting how 3R still remains in the minds of many. I played 3R a little as a kid, thought it was rather boring. Only 4 turns per year! You had to wait forever just to get your move. Intercepts were weak, etc. Obviously computers have helped us since then.

I completely agree with you. This is a computer game so gameplay and interface is key. ( put the good stuff under the hood).


Pompous and Stalin- These ideas remind me of some of the good things in Clash of Steel. Funny because the end effect is putting stacking "under the hood". Result- Better interface and a game more people want to play.

[stalins_organ]

Yes I've ben disappointed by SC2 because it simply doesn't account for "under the hood" stuff at all - we've got a heap of computaional power, please let's use it!!

[ancient]

A 1 unit limt would make it feel like Axis and Allies

Have you even played Axis and Allies? There is no stacking limit.

[honvedseg]

If they ever played Axis & Allies, that's a good reason NOT to do things the same way. That game had more huge bugs than a swamp.

[vveedd]

Hmm, interesting how 3R still remains in the minds of many. I played 3R a little as a kid, thought it was rather boring. Only 4 turns per year! You had to wait forever just to get your move. Intercepts were weak, etc. Obviously computers have helped us since then.

I completely agree with you. This is a computer game so gameplay and interface is key. ( put the good stuff under the hood).


Pompous and Stalin- These ideas remind me of some of the good things in Clash of Steel. Funny because the end effect is putting stacking "under the hood". Result- Better interface and a game more people want to play.

Well, everyone has right to have own opinion but 3R is the best game I have ever played (and I am still playing it). To my opinion the one and only index to see how game is great is longevity. 3R is VERY OLD game and people still play it with few other games like Clash of Steel, TOAW, Axis and Allies, Panzer General. Lots of new strategy games are made on basic concept from these games (good examples are SC, SC2, GGWAW games).
The greatness of 3R is in fact that players have numberless strategic options and tactics. Even today some players invent some new moves and discuss it. If Commander ??“ Europe at war developers achieve something similar you will make great game.

As for stacking, my suggestion is two units per hex, but I respect your decision with one per hex. But in that case you must be careful with one big problem which SC and SC2 games has ??“ when player want to replace units in same hexes. For example, I have in Berlin hex infantry unit and in one hex nearby armor unit and I want that armor unit put in Berlin hex and infantry from Berlin put in same hex where armor unit was. In SC and SC2 games this is not possible and it is very annoying. You should have temporary stacking rule at least.

[xtiaan72]

As for stacking, my suggestion is two units per hex, but I respect your decision with one per hex. But in that case you must be careful with one big problem which SC and SC2 games has ??“ when player want to replace units in same hexes. For example, I have in Berlin hex infantry unit and in one hex nearby armor unit and I want that armor unit put in Berlin hex and infantry from Berlin put in same hex where armor unit was. In SC and SC2 games this is not possible and it is very annoying. You should have temporary stacking rule at least.

Valid issue.

[IainMcNeil]

An alternative solution is to allow you to move the units more than once, i.e. until all movement points are used up.

[stalins_organ]

That's a good option too - especially if combat costs movmenet points rather than ending movement altogether.

Indeed one idea is to allow different levels of combat depending upon the amount of time you use to prepare - represented by hte number of movement points you give up.

TAOW allows this - attacks by single elemetns can take almsot no time at asll, while planned attacks by several units can use up all or most of your turn.

[ancient]

Regarding the movement and combat systems, I think this game can learn much from Clash of Steel.

[IainMcNeil]

I played COS to death at the time but have very few exact memories of it. I tried getting it to run a year or so ago but no luck. Remind me how it works.

[ancient]

I played COS to death at the time but have very few exact memories of it. I tried getting it to run a year or so ago but no luck. Remind me how it works.

Well, all units have a certain amount of action points (depending on type) which they can use to move or attack in any order. This means individual units can attack several times per turn. There's also a special type of attack called an "assault" which can be used to attack an enemy unit with several adjacent friendly units at once. After every attack every unit involved loses morale/efficiency and possibly strength points. Air attacks reduce morale/efficiency but never strength points.

[vveedd]

I like better Panzer General 2 system. You also have action points but you can attack only once with all units except armor. You can move before or after attack with all units. Armor units have special type of attack: if they overrun (destroy completely) enemy units they get additional action points.

[gaiuslaelius]

I like better Panzer General 2 system. You also have action points but you can attack only once with all units except armor. You can move before or after attack with all units. Armor units have special type of attack: if they overrun (destroy completely) enemy units they get additional action points.

Great game, Panzer General 2. I played it for many years, and just days ago threw away the disk. I played it so long that it became predictable for me; I wanted a new challenge, so I destroyed the disk to prevent second thoughts. A wonderful game though. I always saw PG2 as a battalion level game (with the exception of infantry formations which I interpreted as regimental in size; and the air units as groups or gruppes).

[joe98]

You also have action points but you can attack only once with all units except armor. You can move before or after attack with all units.

This sounds very much like Battles in Normandy and Battles in Italy by SSG Games. Both great games!

[te_wooglebug]

Why not allow also a figure representing ???size??? as a multiplier (which, by sheer coincidence can be interpreted with numbers of divisions in the corps ). E.g. in case of a size 3 the whole figures mentioned above will be multiplied by 3). Like that it is possible to produce weak and strong corps (other than by mere technology advantage)

Pompusdivinus:

The more I think about it, the more I like your idea. Each Corps could be composed of from 1 to 5 "strength points" (perish the thought that we should call them divisions ), which would have different characteristics (eg. armored, infantry, mechanized, amphibious, artillary, etc.). So for example a corp could consist of 1 armored and one mechanized strength point, or 3 infantry strength points, or any other combination that the player could produce from available resources. The strength points would not show up on the map, they would either be in some sort of "national reserve" or be assigned to some corps. They could be transfered from one corp to another though they might have to spend some time "in transit", depending on how far the two corps are from each other. While in transit the strength points would not be available for any other purpose, except that the player could change their destination if he chose. Transfering a strength point into of out of a corp would produce some disruption, similar to the "shock and awe" effect produced by naval and air power, thereby making use of a mechanism that already exists. Combat loses would weaken the strength points (each strength point would have less strength! ), but strength points would usually not be entirely eliminated. Replacements could be assigned to the corps if it sat inactive for a turn and were not attacked.

Each corps would have a historical commander, rated for his various abilities, eg. attack, defense, armored, administrative, etc. Perhaps there could also be a higher level of organization (army group or front or something similar) in order to give people like Eisenhower, Rundstad and Zuhkoff some place in the game. Each corp would move and fight as a unit, though a provision for multi-corps attacks would be nice. Corps would not be able to end their turn stacked, but could move thgough each other during the turn at the cost of increased disruption (I really like the "shock and awe" mechanism the designers came up with!). This would also allow for retreats as a result of combat. A corp could be forced to retreat into a hex occupied by another corp, at the cost of increased disruption to both corps, but they could not still be stacked together at the end of the owning players turn. If such a stack were attacked, the stronger corp would defend, but the combat results would be applied to both corps.

Perhaps there are problems with this that are not apparent to me, but it seems like this type of approach could allow for a smooth playing game, without excessive micromanagement, while still giving a historically plausible game with a realistic feel. If Slitherine can produce a great game that is also a realistic simulation, they will have reason to be very proud.

[gaiuslaelius]

Western Allied and German army corps had anywhere from 2-4 divisions to a Corps, and I believe that Soviet Armies approximated one of these Corps in size. So it sure seems to me that unless the hex scale is very small, the Corps frontages are not going to correspond anywhere near to historical reality. Anyone have an idea as to the hex scale?