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.
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
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.
No problem - when I do the final tally and analysis I’ll subtract 1 from Yes and add it to No.
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.
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, lets hope them being described as a "company" of soldiers doesnt 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
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.
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.
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, wasnt 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
Guys… the one problem with this poll. As indicated by previous responses, you haven’t defined what “stacking” is? Multiple armies in the one area? Armies being able to add multiple attack/defence bonuses? Multiple hero units being able to applied to an army? Opposing armies being able to occupy the same area as their opponents? Armies in a rugby scrum? I’m not voting (or abstaining) until I see a definition.
Sorontar, the pedantic linguist.
All right the meaning of “stacking” is the same as it was in the 2nd ed rules. 2 or more units operating from the same battle square.
In 2nd ed there was unlimited “stacking” in the BRCS-playtest units can not stack at all.
Gary - as far as movement through an occupied square that is a legitamate concern - but I think it is best handled in the same manner as is a normal combat and friendly units moving through occupied squares. (At least that would be my first assumption - but we can deal with that later when we cover movement rules and “special” actions a little more in-depth). For now let’s assume this poll is only talking about friendly units fighting from the same battle square.
Gary,
I understand and fully support your arguments! as i hope you understand and at least agree a little with my point of view?
What i meant by meta-gaming ((porbably not the correct phrase to use looking back))…is in DnD you always have players that seek the hidden advantage or loopholes…regardless of you agree or not, sometimes this can create problems.
The immediate problem i have is not such units stacking, but more a issue of the stacking abused…sure the spearmen, would shield the archers ((occupying the same square)). But what if that same square was occupied by some knights? at the same time. for sake of just simplification…say those units all stack offence/defence…there going to be harder than a single unit of infantry…for example…so the infantry player, would then put his units into stacking…to offset the numbers.
Thus creating some mad rush for some players to forge whole armies in one battle square…just feels wrong and well just wrong.
Of course the above example is if stacking added offence/defence etc! but what if you just used the best…and any unit could take the damage…same kind of problem…it’s meta-gaming to me…when said player usesit in this way. I do not oppose min/maxing or powergaming at all, in fact i will willingly admit to doing it often myself…as a player and DM…it get’s old and dull for everyone else real fast.
Of course on the other hand you could allow units to stack, but give them a penalty for doing so ((less co-ordinated etc?))…but then you would find it rare for players to do so, becuase of the penalty…has to be a blance between useful/functionality that somehow offests the loopholes and potential powergaming.
Yes i am aware that Birthright will and often does pit players against each other, and often intends that to be the case. But the less mathematical/tactical/rules lawyerish behaviour against the players that aren’t that way inclined through choice etc…just gives one big and unhealthy advantage…
Anyway i am beginning to ramble and i hope my point of view ((not argument…i would agree with stacking if it was sensible…and not easily abused…as sadly as many things are in DND)).
I agree units need to be able to move through each other.
But not sure if you have/know the rules for Warhammer Fantasy Battle? but only rare units can move through others…Possibly a movement/unit structure similar may be advantageous? I see units able to move through units of Archers…much better than a unit of Pikeman for example.
I would like to add finally…i am aware the rules for battles need to be abstract and less realistic for game play.
We were told not to discuss just vote, and then from there discuss etc. ((Sorry Idreggman))
Brendon.
No you weren’t. Discussion, like knowledge, is good.
The only thing I wanted was to not delve too deeply into all of the possible permutations of how units could stack and what (if any) restrictions should apply to that stacking.
That is where people get lost - they think (like you seem to per your posts) that simply saying yes in this poll will allow an infinite stacking. I specifically said not to get into any sort of details (or qualifications) when making your vote. A yes only means that we would proceed to the next step and then figure out what restrictions/mechanics would be involved in having units stack.
What happened in the last poll was that most people said No stacking but a lot of others thought they should but had qualifications to how that mechanic should work. Thus by voting on separate mechanics the overall result appeared to be watered down at least IMO.
Well seems i’m getting a little Hostility here???
I thought the reponses and qouting of my comments were a little…mmm off, after i was quoted on the “Men standing on top of each other” When Rasene himself said it…But hye new guy understandable…if a little uncessary.
Irdeggman…from your inital quoting of my comments…i got the impression that discussion was to be left for a bit later…so i asked for this current discussion to be left till it opened up with the actaul rulings and pro/cons. Obviously my impression was a little faulty…sorry for that.
I will state i had two people read over the thread and they pointed it out as being Hostilish? i said not really…
No i’m not being defensive…but for asking this thread to remain simple and to the pointish ((despite my postings and greater depths, which i apologised for)) I still some how get “Beatdown”.
Sorry i stepped into the playground…too fast.
I’ll lurk a little longer, get a better feel.
Brendon
Sorry didn’t mean to come off that way.
I thought the reponses and qouting of my comments were a little…mmm off, after i was quoted on the “Men standing on top of each other” When Rasene himself said it…But hye new guy understandable…if a little uncessary.
Well at least I know I didn’t make a comment about that part. Thank goodness I was only a little bit off.
Irdeggman…from your inital quoting of my comments…i got the impression that discussion was to be left for a bit later…so i asked for this current discussion to be left till it opened up with the actaul rulings and pro/cons. Obviously my impression was a little faulty…sorry for that.
Hmm maybe I was a little off in my statements.
I will state i had two people read over the thread and they pointed it out as being Hostilish? i said not really…
Shoot you should see when Gary and I get into it. Heck go back about a year and half ago and see some real hostile comments - Ecliptic I think was the poster.
No i’m not being defensive…but for asking this thread to remain simple and to the pointish ((despite my postings and greater depths, which i apologised for)) I still some how get “Beatdown”.
Sorry I didn’t think I brow beat you. I only wanted to point out that there was never a call for no comments. I only wanted people to not get bogged down in mechanics for this poll - only to decide if we should bother to “debate” mechanics later. That is specifics.
Sorry i stepped into the playground…too fast.
I’ll lurk a little longer, get a better feel.
Brendon
Don’t hesitate to comment - it is what the point of the boards is all about.
It is my job to try to keep the discussion to a specific point withuot stifing creativity in the BRCS discussion topics.
Again sorry if I came off as harsh or brow beating.
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.
irdeggman,
You maybe should mention those exact poll results for the people as they seem to be having problems doing the math…
So far most of the people describing why they voted are for no, except for Gary, who brought up the valid point of troop movement. However, I view troop movement and stacking as 2 separate things for allowing 2+ units to stay in the same grid square and fight is different than allowing 2 units move through each other.
So, I disagree with stacking and agree with allowing troops to move through each other with a movement penalty, ie costs an extra movement point to move through your friendly troops do to the change in formation to fit through them.
I am of similar standing: there’s no real reason that the same troops would manage to pinch themselves in one tight hole and get several bonuses without the steapest of penalties; in fact, the penalties would be tremendous and, guess what, while, generally speaking, quite possible, no well-known tactician ever put his armies in one small pack because it would have a bad effect on their ability to fight with little counterbenefit.
If you wanted to do something similar, allow troops to move throughout another company at a movement penalty (not being able to pay the cost meaning they end their move there, losing any more movement they would otherwise have had) or allow them to get tightly packed together for a slight defence bonus, to which I am mostly against for simplicity reasons. But, my perspective is that no real stacking should be allowed, if only for Raesene’s paradigm.
Thread with previous poll results for reference.
I have very little opinion, cause I don’t know all of the rules off bat, however just to throw in some info. I recall watching something on the History Channel (maybe it was the Learning channel - but whatever…) regarding the tactics of various ancient armies. One of the main things I remember was how they lined up and trained to easily move parallel with one another and even split and join groups as needed in the battle (I think this was a viking era/area in particular they were reffering to).