Opinions on stacking limits?
theduke last edited by
Do you think stacking limits are a good or bad idea? Why or why not? If you think there should be a limit, then what should it be set at?
What their should be are manpower limitations. Their is simply no good or realism in buying 12-16 infantry and thats it!
- It could not be sustained by any nation (except China) for very long.
- It destroys play balance because it creates a static battlefield enviroment.
- It reduces the vitality of creative strategy. What is meant is the game has alot of forgone strategic concepts that reduce it to a game that is decided by the fewest errors, while the dice can produce this very error.
The “infantry push mechanic” and the math says buy lots of infantry, so while your building these “cold war” stacks they just sit around untill the big battle. The game is decided by too few battles which are multy round dice fests. Again this reduces the game to a static affair.
I propose limits on the number of infantry that may be raised each turn based on nations historical abilities and some measure of play balance.
If this is too far of a change then a limit of some value should be imposed.
- double the value of the territory= number that can be stacked
- a fixed amount say 12 units for all territories except sea and air units
- a mixed system where some regions have highter limits. Less in africa, higher limits in eastern europe, more in asia etc… this would presumably be based on the terrain, region of the map, value of the territories etc.
theduke last edited by
i see your point about terrain mattering but a straight limit based on a multiple of ipc value is overstressing the point.
forgetting the game for a moment, just in terms of realism why can a european territory hold approx. 3 times the number of men that an african territory can hold?
Because of the propensity of a relatively undeveloped nations ability to support a huge army and the ability to move large forces in harsh terrain in poor weather and in extended unimproved logistical supports.
In Europe everything has either a rail line, clear and planned roads to move about, While in afrika is like “turn left just after the Elephant just pass the oasis with the vulture”. In say Vienna the michelin map says “moscow is due east on the smolensk highway”. The ability to move ans sustain large forces in developed areas has a lot to do with the ability to “stack”. Their are fixed and varible costs in sustaining forces in remote areas. I tend to view these things with a cost rather than simply imposing an ad hoc limit. Anybody knows its possible to have your entire army in one territory but it would cost a huge amount to provide for it. Thats why id tie it into the value of the territory.
In Europe everything has either a rail line, clear and planned roads to move about, While in afrika is like “turn left just after the Elephant just pass the oasis with the vulture”.
I like your directions IL :lol:
I agree with Imperious Leader. Thier should definately be a cap placed on the amount of infantry that can be purchased by each nation–per turn/per territory.
This is a simple rule that should be very easy to incorporate into the original game rules. Although simple, it can have a huge impact. As IL stated this rule can help prevent the “infantry push mechanic”. Constant battles of infantry vs infantry turns the game into battles of just pushing sand back and forth. With less infantry being purchased, more money can be spent on the higher priced units.
I also base the limit amounts of infantry on nation specific historical abilities. If this is to complex, an easy rule of thumb is to base the total amount on either:
-total IPC’s earned that turn
-double the value of the territory units are to be placed in
-a set max amount per turn for every nation.
The “manpower” limitations rule can also be used with all the other units. This can help prevent nations from only buying one type of unit each turn. Ex. Japan shouldn’t be able to buy only infantry and tanks each turn in order to help Germany with Russia.
Limits on the amount of each type of unit purchased per turn/per territory can also be used to bring some life back to the navy. The sea units seem to take too much of a backseat to the land and air units without some modifications to the rules.
Thats right! I hate the backseat idea that the navy takes in this game. Its allmost like its too abstracted. It should be more like a/a pacific.
BTW did you get those pictures of the Bulge game yet?
Oh no. Do I hear an argument for ENR’s coming?
Got the pictures this morning. But I’m having trouble opening the folder. It’s downloading but I can’t view them. I’ll try again when I get home.
Have you read Aarons email about the new pieces to be made. I listened to the conversation that he taped. It seems that finally the voice of the piece junkie has been heard! I made a list. I’ll email it to now.
good. and thanks!
Personally, I think the “IPM” is overrated and not that effective anyways. If my opponent buys all INF, and I buy a good balance of forces (Obviously, I’ll have more INF than any other unit as was discussed in AgentO’s thread–shouts out to Imperious ), then I will be victorious the majority of the time (assuming average rolls). For example, say my opponent has 13 INF, and furthermore they’re Japanese Bonzai’s. Let’s say he attacks a more balanced force (of approximately similar value) comprised of 5 INF, 3 ARM, and 1 FTR. What odds would you take? Who will win: attacker or defender?
5 INF, 3 ARM, and 1 FTR
vs 13 infantry
This was covered under most valuable unit thread…
Again you have to compare like for like… so you got 15 IP plus 15 IP, plus 10 IP total is 42 IP vs equal value in infantry…= 13 infantry= 26 vs. 17 which means your expensive pieces are gonna die at a greater rate than my infantry and cost you the battle. Just plug it in a dice computer as check it out.
Using the Infantry Push Mechanic because of the advantage it gives in battle against more expensive units is only part of the problem.
Buying only infantry means that there are fewer of the other types of units on the map. This not only makes the game unrealistic, but it greatly reduces the number of battles. Which in turn takes away the play balance by creating a pushing sand back and forth type of battlefield. As a result, the overall strategy of the entire game is lowered.
I think Eagle Games Attack! uses a hybrid combat sequence similar to Risk in that both attackers and defenders start out the battle with only a few units. Extra units sitting idle in the battle are trickled in as the battle progresses to the next round. They also set up the dice in such a way that balanced forces will deliver more hits.
In such a case, the stack is not as powerful on the battlefield.
I only saw it through a single game.
The store where I saw that promo game has since gone out of business.
My preference for AA over Risk is that your stack actually favors you in a battle. This allows you to economize losses. You can also have a rough estimate of how any given battle will turn out before you send in the troops.
Large stacks in risk can be defeated by a defending underdog with hot dice. This randomness is mostly, but not completely reduced in AA.
Of course, I mention these odds because I played this battle against AgentO…The results were pure attrition, which favored me as the defender.
I will take my odds as defender with less INF…However, as an attacker,
the above mentioned odds are suicidal and tactically unsound and I would
postpone my attack until I had a smaller INF ratio to my opponent, he/she
did something stupid (like attack me), or I had made a technological
breakthrough with which to destroy his/her INF in mass quantities…In a
way, HeavyBombs/CombinedBombard/Rockets are the antidote to your
large INF stacks…That’s why I make prudent investments in my
technologies to give me the winning edge over my opponent…Stack all
you want, my breakthroughs will win me the game everytime…
I still maintain that a balanced force will beat a one-dimensional force everytime…Que no?
My overall point is that attacking with INF and only INF won’t win you many games…at least not when I’m your opponent
No one had a response for that huh?
CanucKev last edited by
Oh, I completely I agree that a balanced force will beat out a force of pure infantry (especially if the balanced force is the one attacking). I remember seeing on AH’s website that something like 3 tanks + 5 inf offered the best chance for success on the first round, using only 30 IPCs.
My idea for a stacking limit - while still trying to keep very simple - was to limit the number of inf any country could have on the board at any given time, to their current production level (or some multiple of it). I was thinking of doing 2x your income (as being the max number of inf allowed) but that’s still a pretty big amount, IMO. I was also considering allowing Russia to have a few extras (it’s Russia, after all).
Anyway, at the beginning of your turn, if your income is, say, 45, and you had a total of 42 infantry on the board, you wouldn’t be allowed to buy more than 3 infantry. (But if you then lost territory, without losing infantry, so that your income was only 43 but you had 45 infantry on the board, you wouldn’t have to kill them off - however, at the beginning of your next turn, you wouldn’t be allowed to buy infantry).
Of course, if that limit is too low (for an income of 20 IPCs, you can only have 20 infantry), you can set it to whatever you want - 1.5x, 2x, 2.5x, etc. So if your income was 20, and you’d set it at 1.5x, you could have up to 30 infantry on the board.
You could even use a control marker with an “I” written on it, to keep track (on the production chart) of the number of infantry you’ve got …