Stackng Penalty is Consequential

[Commander666]

Finally managed to run an in-game test without the clever AI spoiling later reload test results by SRing away the units I want to attack.

So, with 3 corps of ARM-7 (3 divisions/corps) I attacked same 3 brigaded Vichy units 3 different times.. first using 1 corps, then 2, and finally 3.

3 ARM-7 (-33 stacking penalty) took 32 hours to win. 6 ARM-7 (-50 stacking penalty) took 21 hours to win. Both corps had same terrain modifiers.

Finally, 9 ARM-7 (-58.09 stacking penalty) took only 14 hours to win. And that is with the extra armor corps having additional -40 river crossing, but - because 3rd angle of attack - all units get +10 multiple fronts.

In its simplest analysis, it shows that "stacking penalty is irrelevant" because it is simply the side effect of gathering a bigger attack force. You win faster with bigger stacking penalties - not because stacking penalty is good - but because bigger stacking penalty means a bigger force (which then is what wins faster).

 

[Saltynuts]

So Commander, shouldn't your thread title be 'Stacking Penalty is NOT consequential"?

So what exactly does this mean? Obviously, attack with more units rather than trying to attack with fewer over time. But I take it I should never go over the over command limit (12 with field marshal, or double that if HQ is in effect)?

Thanks!

 

[Commander666]

I hard a hard time deciding if it should be "consequential" or "inconsequential". While I state stacking penalty is irrelevant, that would seem "inconsequential". But as actual amount of stacking penalty modifier increases with more units, stacking penalty is the result - or consequence - of the # of units contributing to an attack. Obviously, as stacking penalty is both consequential and inconsequential I think it best to just forget about it... since there is very little player can do to mitigate it.