Stack mechanic questions

[GaryThunder]

Several questions about how stacks work:

1. I understand that stack bonuses max out at 8, but why should units not simply merge into one super-stack and let all of their various bonuses pile up onto each other? Maybe stack bonuses decrease at 9 and above, just saying that they max out at 8 doesn't mean that they stay maxed. Maybe leadership bonuses decrease as they are spread out across more units, or maybe a "max stack" means that stacks can only have so many units in them? We know units can join huge stacks: Transylvito warlords like to stack with dozens of bats each, Caesar alone has over twenty. And Wanda, here, is leading over two thousand Uncroaked units so they'll carry her bonus. Also here. So what gives?

2. Since leadership bonuses are so powerful, why not form 8-man stacks of high-level warlords and crush everyone's faces with heavily buffed stacks with attacks of thirty, forty, or more? Attack power is a strictly mathematical formula, see Vinny *kicking* a dwagon to death with Ansom's leadership and artifact bonuses buffing him and recall that Ansom, buffed to 33 attack, could have taken a city by himself. I understand it's a bit risky to commit many high-level units into one stack, but it seems like with terrain or other buffs, magic items, caster support or other things, they would be indestructible. This trick was used to fortify Ossomer beyond attackability, to where GK had to shock the other warlords to decrease his massive bonus.

...There was a third question I had, but I can't remember it now. I'll edit it in later.

I know these have probably been asked before, but, uh...not anytime recently.

[Native Jovian]

1. I understand that stack bonuses max out at 8, but why should units not simply merge into one super-stack and let all of their various bonuses pile up onto each other?

They do that. We've seen it at least twice, and possibly three times, that I can recall -- Translyvito's bats are one example, as you mention, but there's also Wanda's leading the uncroaked hordes in the dance-fight near the end of TBfGW, and Stanley moving with large dwagon forces at least twice (first when taking Faq, second when fleeing at the end of tBfGK) -- it seems likely (though isn't explicitly stated) that he was traveling in a single stack in those instances. I'm pretty sure the "stack bonuses max at 8" think means that you get bonuses for having more units in a stack up to 8 units per stack, and after that more units offer no additional bonuses above and beyond their normal fighting strength. This doesn't really have much effect on tactics beyond suggesting a minimum of eight units in an unled stack, as grouping units in larger stacks can have much greater advantages (such as receiving a warlord's leadership bonus) and there doesn't seem to be any penalty for larger stacks as far as we know.

2. Since leadership bonuses are so powerful, why not form 8-man stacks of high-level warlords and crush everyone's faces with heavily buffed stacks with attacks of thirty, forty, or more?

I don't believe that leadership bonuses stack. There can only be one "leader" in a stack at a time, even if there is more than one warlord. While you probably could pile all your warlords in one stack to make a ridiculously powerful force based on their abilities as warriors, it's largely more efficient to spread them out among different stacks so their bonuses actually get used.

[GaryThunder]

They do that. We've seen it at least twice, and possibly three times, that I can recall -- Translyvito's bats are one example, as you mention, but there's also Wanda's leading the uncroaked hordes in the dance-fight near the end of TBfGW, and Stanley moving with large dwagon forces at least twice (first when taking Faq, second when fleeing at the end of tBfGK) -- it seems likely (though isn't explicitly stated) that he was traveling in a single stack in those instances. I'm pretty sure the "stack bonuses max at 8" think means that you get bonuses for having more units in a stack up to 8 units per stack, and after that more units offer no additional bonuses above and beyond their normal fighting strength. This doesn't really have much effect on tactics beyond suggesting a minimum of eight units in an unled stack, as grouping units in larger stacks can have much greater advantages (such as receiving a warlord's leadership bonus) and there doesn't seem to be any penalty for larger stacks as far as we know.

So if warlords give leadership bonuses to everyone in their stack, why bother with lower-level warlords? Why not have one high-leadership warlord leading a massive stack consisting of every other unit? Even if the other warlords' leadership doesn't count, that's still far more efficient than putting them into smaller stacks. If Ansom gives ten to everyone in his stack but only five to everyone in his hex, why not put every unit in his hex into a massive stack led by him? There has to be a reason why not, or they'd be doing it.

I don't believe that leadership bonuses stack. There can only be one "leader" in a stack at a time, even if there is more than one warlord. While you probably could pile all your warlords in one stack to make a ridiculously powerful force based on their abilities as warriors, it's largely more efficient to spread them out among different stacks so their bonuses actually get used.

Ossomer at the bridge was leading a stack of Noble warlords, and Tramennis, which is why the Archons had to Shockmancy everyone but the Princes in that stack.* Ansom said specifically that they "couldn't possibly win" against Ossomer in his stack, whereas he did fairly well against Ossomer once the stack was shocked and Tramennis was neutralized (he knocked him out in one blow, after all). If the warlords hadn't been shocked and Tramennis hadn't been gummed up, Ossomer would have cleaned Ansom's clock, even with Wanda's bonus (and the Arkenpliers artifact bonus). The Shockmancy and dwagon breath negated their leadership bonuses. I think they stack.


*Well, they shocked the Princes too, but they're presumably tougher than even their Noble brethren, being Royal units and all. Interesting note: Tramennis, whose bonus is unknown but presumably much smaller than Ossomer's, still remained on his feet. Either his considerably smaller bonus was still the second highest in the stack, given that every other warlord was knocked down and bonus correlates to level, which correlates to fighting skill and toughness...or his being a Royal unit gave him enhanced spell resistance or something.

[Shusagi]

So if warlords give leadership bonuses to everyone in their stack, why bother with lower-level warlords? Why not have one high-leadership warlord leading a massive stack consisting of every other unit? Even if the other warlords' leadership doesn't count, that's still far more efficient than putting them into smaller stacks. If Ansom gives ten to everyone in his stack but only five to everyone in his hex, why not put every unit in his hex into a massive stack led by him? There has to be a reason why not, or they'd be doing it.

Remember when Parson had Sizemore selectively take out the leadership? That's why. If you have a single level 10 warlord and he croaks, you're screwed. The purpose of sending in lower level warlords is as backups, and to help them level in case the high-level one dies. Also, without multiple warlords, you can only have a single (albeit massive) led stack. Now, so far we've seen no penalties for having a massive stack (Wanda's uncroaked, warlord+bats combo, etc.) but what if you need to send troops to two places at once? What if you want to keep a caster safe in another stack with some stacks to screen for them? And, if the enemy decides to split into 5 stacks, and you're only in one, you can only attack one at a time while they're left to do whatever (such as selectively targeting your leader, pulling off other tricks, etc.). In defending a certain location, for instance, if you have one massive defending stack and the attackers have 10 small stacks, nine of those stacks would slip by as you engage the one. Think of the Transylvitans trying to stop Stanley. He'd split into a few stacks with most of them guarding him, so the enemy had to split into enough stacks to take on each of his stacks if they wanted a chance at him. If you have superior numbers and you're on the offensive, it seems like it's a good idea to stick to one huge stack. Otherwise, it depends on the situation.

Ossomer at the bridge was leading a stack of Noble warlords, and Tramennis, which is why the Archons had to Shockmancy everyone but the Princes in that stack.* Ansom said specifically that they "couldn't possibly win" against Ossomer in his stack, whereas he did fairly well against Ossomer once the stack was shocked and Tramennis was neutralized (he knocked him out in one blow, after all). If the warlords hadn't been shocked and Tramennis hadn't been gummed up, Ossomer would have cleaned Ansom's clock, even with Wanda's bonus (and the Arkenpliers artifact bonus). The Shockmancy and dwagon breath negated their leadership bonuses. I think they stack

If Ansom attacked Ossomer with all of the other Noble warlords there, he would've been trying to fight an entire stack of powerful units by himself. I don't think it has anything to do with leadership stacking, I think it has to do with the fact that warlords are strong, and if Ansom went in solo against a stack of them, he would lose.

[GaryThunder]

Perhaps. We know at least that Ansom's leadership bonus stacks with Wanda's, from the summer update. But it's not clear if Wanda has a real leadership ability or it's a special that applies only to Decrypted units but stacks with regular leadership.

[charles]

Could also be that Ansom was weaker after he was hit by Ossomer's shockamancy bracer. Ansom was dismounted which counted as a fall and Parson did note that you could even die from a three foot fall. We don't know the rules for wounded, but Wanda seemed to indicate to Ansom that he'd be less effective when she argued for him to stay behind. Ansom should have been a higher, or equal, level to Ossomer and had a further bonus with Wanda's presence in his stack but Ossomer appeared to have the upper hand once they entered combat. Only Wanda's intervention saved him.

Obviously we don't know the rules for wounded units. It could simply be that the odds where in Ansom's favour and Ossomer got lucky with the roll of the dice.

[Thunder]

i was wondering when 8 man stacks are mentioned as a max, does that mean that the bonuses applied to a stack effect only 7 other units in the stack and then not effect the remaining?

this seems like the only way to possibly explain why you would stop at 8 as opposed to massing a stack under the highest warlord

[GaryThunder]

Ossomer did say that Ansom had bested him before, "...but that...was when you were a man!" Slam. "To dust! Return! Be free!" Maybe Decrypted aren't quiiiiite up to par with their old selves after all, despite not decaying and not losing their levels. Or maybe Ossomer is just boasting.

[Shusagi]

Ossomer did say that Ansom had bested him before, "...but that...was when you were a man!" Slam. "To dust! Return! Be free!" Maybe Decrypted aren't quiiiiite up to par with their old selves after all, despite not decaying and not losing their levels. Or maybe Ossomer is just boasting.

His stats are the same, Wanda tells us when she first decrypts him. Meaning Ansom was stronger than Ossomer before.. And still stronger. Just Ossomer trying to feel superior. And apparently, either with the bracer or a lucky die roll, he would've beaten Ansom if not for Wanda.

[effataigus]

I think your interpretation is the most likely Shusagi, but I'll throw another option out there:

Ansom was fighting to disarm whereas Ossomer was fighting to kill. In this case, as in my household growing up, this differential in objectives is truly what levels the playing field for younger brothers.

[Tanaar]

I think the 'stack bonus' is a sort of teamwork bonus. Two people working together at a task is more effective than them working separately, and eight people is more effective than two groups of four, etc. It's just that this bonus for working together stops accruing past eight. So these very large stacks still make sense in some cases, especially for weak units.

For example, say you had Caesar, two more Transylvito warlords, and 101 bats. Grouping them all in one stack wouldn't make the best sense, because the extra leadership bonuses of the warlords would be wasted, as well as the tactical benefits of having three independent stacks going after three independent targets, and the lesser warlords gaining experience on their own. Giving seven bats to each of the three warlords and splitting the rest of the bats into ten stacks of eight each, you'd max out the stack bonuses conferred, but those ten stacks would lack the additional benefits of being in a led stack. So you'd do something like giving Caesar 41 bats and each of the other warlords 30, and have a primary combat and two support units, rather than a bunch of weak stacks supporting three strong but small ones.

[GaryThunder]

Eh...I suppose leadership bonuses don't stack. But then this comic doesn't make sense. Jillian is level 9. Caesar is really tough, but almost certainly not actually tougher than that. He might, might be level 10, but I doubt that. And yet despite her very high level, Caesar grabs her and nearly breaks her wrist without even appearing to try hard. My theory is that he's being buffed by all the other warlords in his stack. How else is he so easily overpowering Jillian, who is tough as hell?

[the_tick_rules]

He is chief warlord, might get bonuses for that as well. But then again we've seen chiefs get taken out in like 2 hits from other high units.

[effataigus]

Another bit of info regarding stack mechanics... not sure how to interpret it though:

From Sammy: "Restack the entire column," he told the Captain, without looking up. "Warlords with archery, every archer stack with a Warlord or a multilevel scout." He crumpled the message and dropped it on the road. "Watch the skies."

Archon's reaction: "That ache had moved to the pit of her stomach when Sammy ordered the column to restack for maximum veil-spotting. "Watch the skies," he'd said."

[pSycHOtic chICkeN]

Eh...I suppose leadership bonuses don't stack. But then this comic doesn't make sense. Jillian is level 9. Caesar is really tough, but almost certainly not actually tougher than that. He might, might be level 10, but I doubt that. And yet despite her very high level, Caesar grabs her and nearly breaks her wrist without even appearing to try hard. My theory is that he's being buffed by all the other warlords in his stack. How else is he so easily overpowering Jillian, who is tough as hell?

Compare the French emperor Napolean I to Mike Tyson. Who is tougher? The warlord level and it's bonus is likely to be different from the unit combat statistics. Jillian's combat stats might be linked to the sword. I think you could call womens gymnastics a tough sport. A young women with a medal in uneven bars might have good reason to be afraid of getting mugged or raped in a dark ally.

i was wondering when 8 man stacks are mentioned as a max, does that mean that the bonuses applied to a stack effect only 7 other units in the stack and then not effect the remaining?

this seems like the only way to possibly explain why you would stop at 8 as opposed to massing a stack under the highest warlord

I have been watching for a clarification of what a "stack" means. There are plenty of possibilities. It is not likely that the stack has to be in a column or row based on Xin's pictures. A rugby scrum has 8 members. A 9th person in the scum would not be much help.




If that was stabbers then positions 1, 2, and 3 would be the bloody ones. If you kept adding rows it would still be 3 units in contact with the opponents.

My understanding was that the stack bonus effects all members of the stack. +8 is the maximum effect. If, on the other hand, position #2 is the only one that gets the bonus then a three rank formation would would be the way to get a maximum first rank. 6 ranks would then make sense because of casualties and mixing. Some Ancient Greek formations did use 6 ranks.

A lot of things in erf world are done taking turns. If stacks alternate attacks then two stacks will have an advantage over one stack because they can attack twice.

[GaryThunder]

Compare the French emperor Napolean I to Mike Tyson. Who is tougher? The warlord level and it's bonus is likely to be different from the unit combat statistics. Jillian's combat stats might be linked to the sword. I think you could call womens gymnastics a tough sport. A young women with a medal in uneven bars might have good reason to be afraid of getting mugged or raped in a dark ally.

Level appears to be directly correlated to bonus, for warlords. Ansom is Level 10 and gives a bonus of ten to his stack. Parson is Level 2 and gives a bonus of two to his side as CWL. Jillian has a bonus of 9, so it's safe to assume she's Level 9.

And let's just talk straight up wrist strength. Her wrists are strong enough to hold that massive sword one-handed and fight meaningfully with it, but Caesar is able to nearly snap her hand off with a casual motion? He's got to have a higher attack than her, which probably means he's packing stacked leadership bonuses.

[charles]

Ceasar is a Chief warlord with his own bonus stacking on himself, but you'd think Jillian would count as the same with her Bonus stacking on her.

I guess Ceasar was probably counted as being in a stack with his other warlords at the time so maybe he had a +7 bonus from that which made the difference... Beyond that... Vampire strength, but even then I agree that it can't have been easy against Jillian's enormous, sword weilding arm. *meh* put it down to story purposes or the idea that Jillian wasn't really all that committed to the act of killing him and didn't give it her all.

I don't think leaderships of different warlords in the same group stack together, but I agree that its likely for protection of the leader and backup that they group together. Warlords are probably the most powerful units available, beyond even knights. Your Chief Warlord is your most important units, particularly if he's on the battle field. One of the greatest advantages the enemy can take is to kill your Chief Warlord and thus, remove the bonus he's supplying to his entire side, particularly to the units your fighting in that hex. So you stack him with other warlords to help discourage attack on the head stack. In this case, Wanda's bonus to uncroaked/decrypted DOES stack on top of the warlord bonus, so you put her in the leadership stack with decrypted warlords and suddenly your screaming.

Ansom's 33 attack would consist of at least his Level 10 bonus, Wanda's Level 8 bonus and a +7 stacking bonus to make up 25 of his attacks so after that we'd just have to presume he has a regular attack of 8... Although I seem to recall him saying that the weakest unit in the stack had 30 attack, but I wouldn't think that Wanda's bonus would stack on her, so I don't see how she could have had an attack as much as 30... Even if her bonus does stack on her, she'd still have to have at least 5 attack which seems unusual for a caster (Jack is a master class foolamancer and he only had 2)... But maybe the Arkenpliers give her an extra 3... HELL! We didn't even take the artifact bonus into account. Although its not specified if that bonus is applied to attacks or something else.

[Smoker]

I guess Ceasar was probably counted as being in a stack with his other warlords at the time so maybe he had a +7 bonus from that which made the difference...

Thats the answer, I think.

Also, the max stack bonus really does only make sense for unled troops, because if you had some Warlords nearby its much better to just divide your units up into stacks with leadership: They all get their +8 and the leadership bonus on top of that.

The reasons stated above for why you dont stack everything into one giant stack I think are pretty solid. Max stacks (whatever the maximum is) only come into play when you have a huge number of units who have a pretty simple goal (defend the bridge, for example).

But remember near the start of book one? Webinar encounters a stack of spidews, who seem to be just patrolling the place. So for scouting your own backyard, or patrolling for feral units (which seem to pop in 2's at most) the standard 8 stack seems pretty sensible.

So in the battles we have seen (ie, the interesting ones) the +8 bonus is a bit redundant, but it still has its place. I like to think of it as flavour mechanic.

[GaryThunder]

It's not necessarily +8. It could be +4, going up a point every two units until it maxes out at 4. We don't know its number, just its nature. That'll probably be how it goes for other things like dance-fighting and artifact bonuses. Rob doesn't give us numbers if he doesn't need to.

[Rizban]

Another bit of info regarding stack mechanics... not sure how to interpret it though:

From Sammy: "Restack the entire column," he told the Captain, without looking up. "Warlords with archery, every archer stack with a Warlord or a multilevel scout." He crumpled the message and dropped it on the road. "Watch the skies."

Archon's reaction: "That ache had moved to the pit of her stomach when Sammy ordered the column to restack for maximum veil-spotting. "Watch the skies," he'd said."

"Restack the entire column" does not mean "Put the entire column into one stack." It means, "Reorganize the entire column into new stacks," presumably to be better defended.

The second part is specifics on how to organize the stacks, i.e. by grouping archers with warlords and scouts for leadership bonuses to use against the dwagons.