-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Would it be worthwhile asking for/suggesting a "stacking weight" attribute for all units (whether divisions or brigades) so that you can set the value. EG for naval units, destroyers might not have as much stack weighting as battleships, and transports (that don't fight, basically) could have very low stack penalties. This would also help counter the effect of using all Brigaded divisions vs a bunch of unbrigaded ones, or of INF divs attacking GAR units - woudl also help us in CORE with 6 bn divisions vs 9 bn ones.. Then you could also make the stack weighting decrease with effective strength for land or air units (a ship is still a ship, after all, even if it can only crawl along at 5 knots and has 1 gun left working).
Tim
Tim
Stacking effects with units of odd sizes and/or less than full strength is a tricky area. Given that the stacking effect is largely about the military discipline of keeping reserves and formation "depth", it is definitely not as simple as small or understrength divisions counting as "fractional units" for stacking. Exactly how it does work is not at all clear from the historical statistics.
One thing important to note is that zero ORG units do not count for stacking. They have 'left the fight', effectively, so they have no bearing on the reserve/front line/formation depth equation. Sure - they would do for a time after reaching zero ORG, but that would be an overcomplication for little gain, I think.
Ships work somewhat differently anyway - and DDs and SSs represent ~5 ships per "division", in any case, so I think it should be close enough, there.
One thing important to note is that zero ORG units do not count for stacking. They have 'left the fight', effectively, so they have no bearing on the reserve/front line/formation depth equation. Sure - they would do for a time after reaching zero ORG, but that would be an overcomplication for little gain, I think.
Ships work somewhat differently anyway - and DDs and SSs represent ~5 ships per "division", in any case, so I think it should be close enough, there.
I think you're missing the point, Balesir. In CORE, destroyers are individual units and there are 2-regimental, 3-regimental divisions as well as regiment-sized formations, all counting as divisions for stacking penalty purposes.
I thoroughly endorse your first point Bal, but have to take issue with the second.
The issue of the effects of "defeated" units is not treated at all well in the original research and therefore, unsurprisingly, is not treated at all well in the model used here either. Zero org units might very well leave the fight in that they cease to contribute "combat effectiveness" as the model describes it, but they do not immediately and efficiently leave the zone of combat. Instead, their lack of organisation tends to result in them clogging avenues of tactical advance or retreat, disrupting communication, and exerting sometimes very powerful morale effects on the units remaining in combat or coming up to it. In this way, I would suggest, they reduce the effectiveness of those units - perhaps particularly in the reserve/front line/formation depth aspect of the equation.
The fact is that there is precious little that is unequivocally clear in the analysis of historical combat statistics; and if we stick ourselves with a model that confines itself only to those issues that are, then I fear we'll end up with a very poor and dislocated gaming experience. Where the data is silent you use your best guess to fill the gaps until more comprehensive interpretation is possible. Rather than not counting for stacking purposes, therefore, I'd argue that zero org units should attract a higher stacking weight to reflect the dysfunctional effects they produce.
Extending that argument to HistoryMan's request for stacking weights reflecting the differences between small and large divisions, there is certainly enough descriptive evidence to suggest that they did not perform equally in combat - and in his analysis of combat effectiveness Dupoy specifically attempts to control for this. Given that, I think it better to add stacking weights knowing that there's a strong likelihood that they won't entirely capture historical experience, than to continue to omit them in the knowledge that this will certainly misrepresent the historical case.
I completly agree with you, good point !
I really like the idea of having "stacking weight" added to units and moddable of course
and I agree that retreating/routed units (zero org.) should negatively affect the combat.
But I wonder if this is faisable, doesn't this need modifing the exe itself ?
Anyway if doable would be great !
AOD is becoming little by little a masterpiece...
Chapeau messieurs !
One thing I struggle with is that I sometimes have no choice but to "stack" divisions in a single province due to the relative lack of the overall number of available provinces on a front.
While being the attacker allows me to select the divisions I wish to commit to my initial thrust, defending does not allow me that option. Just because I have 30 or 40 divisions staging from a given province does not mean that all of them will be on the frontlines if the enemy attacks. Therefor, a stacking penalty should not apply. (Maybe it does not for defenders...I don't know. It has been way too long since I have read the manual).
While being the attacker allows me to select the divisions I wish to commit to my initial thrust, defending does not allow me that option. Just because I have 30 or 40 divisions staging from a given province does not mean that all of them will be on the frontlines if the enemy attacks. Therefor, a stacking penalty should not apply. (Maybe it does not for defenders...I don't know. It has been way too long since I have read the manual).
It does apply to defenders. And I agree that the defender should have a choice how much divs he wants to bring in combat, too. In HOI3 it's easier, because there are many provinces. In AOD it doesn't work that way...
This is a very valid point; for gameplay it's 'OK' as it is, but it could be better. We have toyed around with the idea of "stances" or "orders" for units (think of the "Anti-Partisan Duty" order, but for defining whether a unit engages directly or is in reserve, etc.), but have not managed to come up with a really elegant solution, yet.
On zero ORG units disrupting the front - yes, sure, they do - for a while. To be totally 'correct' we could have a declining penalty from their exit - but overall I think that would add a lot of complexity for little real gain. If you regard it as during the "dying days" of low ORG that they have the "obstructive" effect, it is more-or-less correct now. The "zero-ORG point" is just the point at which they have totally disengaged (apart from possible pursuit - which is represented as attrition, as someone noted earlier).
Hi
Do my attacking troops get the same penalty if i spread them to more provinces?
Easy example:
Case A: Attacking with 3 divisions from the same province
Case B: Attacking with 3 divisions from 3 provinces
(In all cases the target is the same single province)
I know in case B i get envelopment bonus, but shouldnt the stacking penalty be zero aswell since theres only 1 attacking division in each province?!
Do my attacking troops get the same penalty if i spread them to more provinces?
Easy example:
Case A: Attacking with 3 divisions from the same province
Case B: Attacking with 3 divisions from 3 provinces
(In all cases the target is the same single province)
I know in case B i get envelopment bonus, but shouldnt the stacking penalty be zero aswell since theres only 1 attacking division in each province?!
You get the same stacking penalty - it is based on the battle, not provinces or anything else. You do get the envelopment bonus, though, as you already noted.