LTDave

LTDave

Badges & Trophies

Profile

Latest Submissions

  • LTDave published a blog post Stack Bonus Comic 7 days ago
      It's been a frustration to me for the last five years that I (and my forum gaming associates) cannot come up with a system to apply a stack bonus that actually motivates players to form stacks of 8 units that also aligns with the comic...
    Comments
    • ArtyD 3 days ago

      @OneHugeTuck: Flanking in Hex is not as simple as attacking from two adjoining hexes.  There is the front, left, right, left flank, right flank, and rear hexes.  In order to flank you must lock the enemy front facing down one direction.  Since actions within a single hex do not adjust for this you would need to consider them attacking from both hexes at the same time.  After which flanking would very likely stop on the second engage.  In order for this to work though it would very likely need communication between the sets of stacks to strike at the same moment in turn.  It would be massive, brutal, and quick slaughtering of a few units.  Then the flanking bonus would be gone because the stack is aware it's being attacked from multiple directions.

      My guess is it would be unable to force the fight and the seriously wounded micro stacks could always disengage, re-stack the injured out and go back in with the healthier units due to the massive stack being unable to follow without exposing itself to another flanking assault.  The smaller stacks would then have near if not zero losses as they chip away at the larger stack.  Parson abused this very effectively on the siege units.  No battles were won, but the damage was insane.  More so due to the fact that the enemy didn't have air power covering their siege.  If the tool didn't "bug out" the next round would have been spent finishing off all the siege, putting them on a level they would be unable to breach the walls while being hit with all the ranged from GK without direct and expensive CC additions.  Their only hope would be the marbits getting thru the tunnels vs Sizemore or GK running out of upkeep for Parson.  Either way as the SCV says "Job finished."

      Now if these stacks were divided equally then any direction is equally reacted to by a stack negating the flanking bonus entirely as each stack of 8 reacting to attacks from all directions acts at once.  This would be where the warlord bonus (as opposed to leadership bonus per stack) would be best applied to the defenders.  The 8 stacks could force the battle to prevent disengagement by the attacking 8 stacks and thus any combat benefit of retreating would result in more of the attackers losses.

      TL;DR: Flanking is free hitsies bonus and free disengagement.  This is negated by not putting all your units in one stack.

    • OneHugeTuck 3 days ago

      Why are you insisting that forces must be attacking from other hexes?

       

      "Since actions within a single hex do not adjust for this"  

      Do not adjust for what, specifically?  I'm confused by the 'two hexes' thing on a variety of levels as that's new to the conversation but you're referring to it like it has something to do with my question or the post I'm questioning.  Maybe it does, but at the moment I'm confused by it.

    • Morris 2 days ago

      This may need to get deleted if it clashes horrendously with the rules already in place, but I'll point it out anyway...Perhaps the problem is not so much the stacking bonus, but more so the additive abilities in large stacks, and the (lack of?) leadership dilution with stack size.

      If you are the 100th piker standing in the middle of the column, you are of zero benefit to the waves of people in your stack that must be croaked before you'll reach the outside edge of your column and be able to start stabbing something; whereas if you're piker no. eight of eight, you are likely to see action in any engagement and be able to assist anyone in your stack. A column should perhaps have an attack capacity proportional to its attacking surface area and ability to see the enemy, while the hits of the stack are proportional to summed hits alone (i.e. stack independent). This might work for archery units as well as stabbers. If you were an archer in a massive blob of a stack, you could have trouble peering past your peers to aim at the enemy; better you all be broken in to smaller groups and spread thinly.

      Assuming eight as the 'golden number': two stacks of eight can be considered equally dangerous to a stack of 16, provided they are attacking a stack/unit of somewhat similar size. The stack of eight could receive the full attack bonus of their eight members, whereas a stack of 16 may only receive marginal (or at least delayed) benefit from the ninth-onward members, since they may not even be able to reach the enemy to attack them until other stack members croak. In action: if your stack engaged a stack of 16, it should only have to deal with eight at once (unless you were huge, like a dwagon); the attack capacity of the enemy should 'max-out' on surface area. If your stack was instead to be engaged by two stacks of eight, maybe only half of each enemy stack could hit yours whilst you were dealing with them; half of each enemy stack has to 'wait' again.

      In this way:
      - there is no benefit to choosing one x 16-stack vs two x eight-stacks based on an engagement of a single enemy stack.
      - max stack size is arbitrary, but relative stack size is relevant; e.g. 20 spidews could surround but might struggle to each lay their attacks on 8 pikers (they couldn't squeeze past each other/the surface area of pikers is small) but 20 pikers may more easily surround 8 large spidews
      But there may be the advantage of commanding two x eight-stacks to do different things (flexibility) provided enough Leadership/Orders.

      ... which is perhaps worth considering too; can Leadership be diluted? Should stack bonuses be a function of leadership bonuses or v.v.? If a commander can give orders and leadership bonus to 20 units in the same stack as well as he/she could to just eight units, then there is probably not a reason to split into two x eight-stacks. But if, for example, two commanders of equal level could do a better job separately (i.e. provide stronger bonus) in two x eight-stacks than if both warlords and all units were combined, then there would actually be a good reason to split into two stacks.

  • LTDave published a blog post Tales from Erflia: Battle at Goanna City 64 days ago
    “To pop this morning, and croak before you’ve even seen a turn begin. To never hear the Ferrr-Durrrp of freedom. Tough break.”

Top Submissions

  • LTDave published a blog post Stack Bonus Comic 7 days ago
      It's been a frustration to me for the last five years that I (and my forum gaming associates) cannot come up with a system to apply a stack bonus that actually motivates players to form stacks of 8 units that also aligns with the comic...
    Comments
    • ArtyD 3 days ago

      @OneHugeTuck: Flanking in Hex is not as simple as attacking from two adjoining hexes.  There is the front, left, right, left flank, right flank, and rear hexes.  In order to flank you must lock the enemy front facing down one direction.  Since actions within a single hex do not adjust for this you would need to consider them attacking from both hexes at the same time.  After which flanking would very likely stop on the second engage.  In order for this to work though it would very likely need communication between the sets of stacks to strike at the same moment in turn.  It would be massive, brutal, and quick slaughtering of a few units.  Then the flanking bonus would be gone because the stack is aware it's being attacked from multiple directions.

      My guess is it would be unable to force the fight and the seriously wounded micro stacks could always disengage, re-stack the injured out and go back in with the healthier units due to the massive stack being unable to follow without exposing itself to another flanking assault.  The smaller stacks would then have near if not zero losses as they chip away at the larger stack.  Parson abused this very effectively on the siege units.  No battles were won, but the damage was insane.  More so due to the fact that the enemy didn't have air power covering their siege.  If the tool didn't "bug out" the next round would have been spent finishing off all the siege, putting them on a level they would be unable to breach the walls while being hit with all the ranged from GK without direct and expensive CC additions.  Their only hope would be the marbits getting thru the tunnels vs Sizemore or GK running out of upkeep for Parson.  Either way as the SCV says "Job finished."

      Now if these stacks were divided equally then any direction is equally reacted to by a stack negating the flanking bonus entirely as each stack of 8 reacting to attacks from all directions acts at once.  This would be where the warlord bonus (as opposed to leadership bonus per stack) would be best applied to the defenders.  The 8 stacks could force the battle to prevent disengagement by the attacking 8 stacks and thus any combat benefit of retreating would result in more of the attackers losses.

      TL;DR: Flanking is free hitsies bonus and free disengagement.  This is negated by not putting all your units in one stack.

    • OneHugeTuck 3 days ago

      Why are you insisting that forces must be attacking from other hexes?

       

      "Since actions within a single hex do not adjust for this"  

      Do not adjust for what, specifically?  I'm confused by the 'two hexes' thing on a variety of levels as that's new to the conversation but you're referring to it like it has something to do with my question or the post I'm questioning.  Maybe it does, but at the moment I'm confused by it.

    • Morris 2 days ago

      This may need to get deleted if it clashes horrendously with the rules already in place, but I'll point it out anyway...Perhaps the problem is not so much the stacking bonus, but more so the additive abilities in large stacks, and the (lack of?) leadership dilution with stack size.

      If you are the 100th piker standing in the middle of the column, you are of zero benefit to the waves of people in your stack that must be croaked before you'll reach the outside edge of your column and be able to start stabbing something; whereas if you're piker no. eight of eight, you are likely to see action in any engagement and be able to assist anyone in your stack. A column should perhaps have an attack capacity proportional to its attacking surface area and ability to see the enemy, while the hits of the stack are proportional to summed hits alone (i.e. stack independent). This might work for archery units as well as stabbers. If you were an archer in a massive blob of a stack, you could have trouble peering past your peers to aim at the enemy; better you all be broken in to smaller groups and spread thinly.

      Assuming eight as the 'golden number': two stacks of eight can be considered equally dangerous to a stack of 16, provided they are attacking a stack/unit of somewhat similar size. The stack of eight could receive the full attack bonus of their eight members, whereas a stack of 16 may only receive marginal (or at least delayed) benefit from the ninth-onward members, since they may not even be able to reach the enemy to attack them until other stack members croak. In action: if your stack engaged a stack of 16, it should only have to deal with eight at once (unless you were huge, like a dwagon); the attack capacity of the enemy should 'max-out' on surface area. If your stack was instead to be engaged by two stacks of eight, maybe only half of each enemy stack could hit yours whilst you were dealing with them; half of each enemy stack has to 'wait' again.

      In this way:
      - there is no benefit to choosing one x 16-stack vs two x eight-stacks based on an engagement of a single enemy stack.
      - max stack size is arbitrary, but relative stack size is relevant; e.g. 20 spidews could surround but might struggle to each lay their attacks on 8 pikers (they couldn't squeeze past each other/the surface area of pikers is small) but 20 pikers may more easily surround 8 large spidews
      But there may be the advantage of commanding two x eight-stacks to do different things (flexibility) provided enough Leadership/Orders.

      ... which is perhaps worth considering too; can Leadership be diluted? Should stack bonuses be a function of leadership bonuses or v.v.? If a commander can give orders and leadership bonus to 20 units in the same stack as well as he/she could to just eight units, then there is probably not a reason to split into two x eight-stacks. But if, for example, two commanders of equal level could do a better job separately (i.e. provide stronger bonus) in two x eight-stacks than if both warlords and all units were combined, then there would actually be a good reason to split into two stacks.

  • LTDave published a blog post Tales from Erflia: Battle at Goanna City 64 days ago
    “To pop this morning, and croak before you’ve even seen a turn begin. To never hear the Ferrr-Durrrp of freedom. Tough break.”

Latest Forum Posts

  • No forum posts found.