Stacking?

[benpark]

Will SC3 allow stacking of units? The inability of the previous games to allow attacks from a single point has been an issue for me.

[SeaMonkey]

No need for stacking with a DoD feature![8D]

[TR]

Uhmmm, what's the DoD feature again?

[TR]

Okay. Just read about it. Density of Deployment. I look forward to reading about this more.

[benpark]

Anyone have a link to the planned feature?

[SeaMonkey]

The "link" is moi! Not necessarily a "planned" feature, just one I had outlined for SC3 in the BF forum when SC3 was imaginary. Believe me, Hubert, Bill, and Al have many ideas from over a decade of forum member idea exchange. What will be implimented will be the subject of additional commentary and testing, rest assured that the development team will be listening.

Good ideas that can be accomodated for the AI have an excellent chance of inclusion. This is how the evolution of the series came about, so now is the time to make a case for your favorite mechanics.

Remember though there is an SC "prime directive"; KISS![;)]

[benpark]

I'm interested in hearing about the DoD idea.

Stacking has been around for a very long time- with good reason. It's not just an old wargamers habit! Allowing two or three units to inhabit one space (hexes, thankfully in this case) is pretty time honored and simple for good reason- it works in simulation terms (given operational and strategic games), and it simulates military operations starting with a concentration of force in order to weigh the odds in favor of the attack quite well. Stacking also would allow interesting groupings of the types of units SC has on offer (which are arguably operational unit types on a strategic level map). There's no reason an AA or AT unit should take up an entire hex of the area of the SC map, for instance. Stack it with an infantry division or corps, and things get interesting.

If there's a new and better way to do the above, I'm game.

[SeaMonkey]

It's actually pretty simple, imagine that a hex is a bag or basket that can contain different tools, like if you're going to do a task, you fill the bag with the tools you'll need. If you're familiar with Norm Koger's TOAW unit build feature, you add certain pre-designed combat formations into the mix until you've created the customized "task force".

In this manner, a hex can be filled with whatever weapons platforms/formations you want for the job, just remember that there are terrain limitations. For instance, you invade a jungle island hex with an amphibious unit and to create greater DoD, you bring in an engineer and supplies, the DoD increases and then can accomodate an air unit, later artillery, fortifications, armor, you get my drift. Slowly but surely depending upon the player's committment the hex can attain its maximum DoD and some hexes will already have a developed infrastructure(road/railroad, city, etc) and can handle a large deployment of combat formations without improvement, all at the campaign designer's whim.

So now you attach an image, a NATO symbol, whatever, with the appropriate formation size designation, division, brigade, corps, + assets, you're the owner, decide, and your combat pull down menu reflects all the attributes of your tool box(hex). You can bombard with artillery, infiltrate with special forces, bomb with air units, blitz with armor, etc and your CTV(combat target values) reflect all the combat strengths you need to perform the designated mission. Hope that you chose wisely, because your opponent can do the same![8D]

[benpark]

Thanks for the outline. It certainly sounds inventive and interesting (and makes real world sense).

[wodin]

Personally I've never been a fan of stacking, however thats just me. Though I like the idea above..or maybe you can shift say five attack points worth of troops from the division behind into your attack division..i.e your bolstering the division with troops from another division..maybe have amax size in a hex and maybe you can take troops from any near division to join your attacking unit?

[SeaMonkey]

That's kind of what you do with the HQ emphasis feature SC has. I would like to see the HQ as the focal point for assets and supplies to be disbursed into the theater combat units. Imagine the theater HQ sits at the end of an auto convoy lane set up on the LoC from the home country. The un-intercepted supply & assets accumulate there for the player to attach to units within the HQ combat radius which is just an extension of the LoC but now you have the HQ combat emphasis, those "attack points" you refer to wodin.

[wodin]

Sounds cool...some things like stacking are due to the restrictions of boardgames..now we have a PC doing all the complex maths and mechanics surely we can overcome stacking and make it more realistic..

[GJK]

The DoD feature sounds like it's similar to what the boardgame "Hitler's War" does with the Army "containers" that can be filled with certain levels of infantry, armor, air support, etc so that you shape it to be the army group that you need for the mission (within limitations of allowable builds). I am correct in comparing the two games in this manner?

[DSWargamer]

I need my stacking.

Civilization V was quite the shock to the senses as it is. Love the game, but going from IV and kill stacks was quite the trauma for many.

[SeaMonkey]

You know that if you create an ability for units to have various attachments, upgrades and strike capabilities, and enough APs to use, then any hex deployment can take on multi-tasking each turn. No need for stacking.

[DSWargamer]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

You know that if you create an ability for units to have various attachments, upgrades and strike capabilities, and enough APs to use, then any hex deployment can take on multi-tasking each turn. No need for stacking.

You have a future in politics . Now what exactly did you say

[SeaMonkey]

Sorry, DSW, my diabolical tendencies are not that honed for politics. It's a variation of the DoD and since you're familiar with SC just imagine those research upgrades as optional capabilities. For example with a "ground attack" upgrade you could turn a fighter into a fighter-bomber, give it LR and three or four strikes and then you could conduct recon, intercept and escort, all in the same turn.

Further if we could get ground units that could be broken down into divisions of various armaments and reformed say two to three for a corps, then a couple of corps to make an army, you could design some decent combined arms teams that have the flexibility to concentrate for attack or spread out for other types of missions.

The key here is, can the AI utilize these features efficiently.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

You know that if you create an ability for units to have various attachments, upgrades and strike capabilities, and enough APs to use, then any hex deployment can take on multi-tasking each turn. No need for stacking.

I agree..

DS read SeaMonkeys and my thoughts further up for away around Stacking which is probably more realistic and not restricted to boardgame conventions.

[SeaMonkey]

DSW if you'll take the time to read my post #8, contemplate it, think it through, you'll realize that through this one feature you've created an infinitude of replayability. And this is just the beginning.

[DSWargamer]

DoD? It took me so long to figure out those three damned letters, took a while to find the original reference, and then it started to make my head hurt.

I hope I am not just getting too old for this stuff.

So is it like everything has a unit size and a hex can only hold so much in total like the stacking in ASL? I hope so, or I will need the idiot explanation.