Infantry Stacking

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:11 pm

Comments (for what they are worth) noted

Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:08 pm

Post by d6veteran » Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:17 am

Lots of interesting ideas, but I can't help thinking that there is a better solution than putting limits on stacking. Having said that, I'm not really sure what the problem is that needs to be fixed.

It also pricked my ears to hear that the idea going forward is to have *fewer* units on the board and make them more valuable.


I mean right now the game treats expensive units as valuable. Infantry are used as fodder on the attack and as a meat shield on the defense. Pretty much sounds like WW2. No nation showed a propensity to value the grunts. I can give a significant example for each combatant (yes, including the US).

I don't see infantry stacking as a problem. To me it seems like an accurate strategy and I thought the prices adjustments to the revised game pretty much fixed any infantry stacking issues with the old game.

Plus, I love seeing those red chips on the board. I haven't played anyone who doesn't ;)

Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:37 am

Comments noted - Hear you D6.

User avatar
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Fri Feb 04, 2005 6:11 pm


What is wrong with big infantry stacks ?
What is wrong with infantry low attack and high defence value ?

In real ww2 all armies was based on hugh amounts of infantry, and a tiny elite force of tanks, heavy artillery and aircrafts.
In real ww2 the infantry defence was strong, and the infantry attack was weak.

Why fix a game that reflects reality in a beautiful way ?

The big challenge when playing A&A is managaging the Dead-zones, lurk your opponent into a trap, wear him down with Strafe-attacks, occupie a territory with minimal force, use cheap infantry as fodder.
This is just like real ww2, and I love it.
There is nothing to fix, the game mechanic are very good.

But everything can be improved.
Since sub can do Economic Naval Raids, Tommy are forced to build a navy to protect his income base.
Since fighters propably can escort and intercept bombers on SBR, Frittz must build fighters.
This two improvements was neccessary for the advanced game.

In all combat, the cheapest units will always be used as fodder.
This goes for both game purposes and real wars.
Making infantry attack on 4 and defend on 4 is a big mistake.
Making tanks attack on 6 and defend on 6 is a big mistake.
In land combat, the terrain affect the combat. Terrain favour defending infantry and artillery, and attacking tanks. It must look like this:
Infantry attack on 2, defend on 4.
Tanks attack on 6, defends on 4.
Naval combat is different, the sea favours nobody, so in an gun duell between two Battleships, they got same attack and defence value.

1. A combo of one matching inf/art/tank can roll one extra bonus dice.
2.All units in this combo got the same combat value, like the strongest unit boost up the others.
(like the artillery and infantry thing)
3.The units in this combo keep their own values, but can roll dices simultanesly.
(picking 2 for inf, 3 for art etc)

I belive Larrys Combined Arms will stimulate Art/Tank purchases more than a rigid stacking limit, wich will be difficult to managing. In Revised, we already got a rule that limits numbers of new units placed on a factory. Dont complicate it more.

In the Combined Arms consept, the tanks are obvious supporting the infantry. But what about independet operations ? What if a player could choose to commit his tanks to support inf/art in Combined Arms or independet PanzerBlitzing.

1.All commited tanks attack on 8 or less in first round of combat only, because of the surprice factor. (att. on 6 for next rounds)
2.Any successful roll give an extra bonus roll. (Reflects successful BreakeThrogh with exploitation)
3.This Tanks may withdraw after any round of combat, no matter what the other units do (contrary to the Combi Arms tank, that must stay with his inf/art)

Too many pills to swallow, huh ?

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Feb 04, 2005 6:37 pm

Making infantry attack on 4 and defend on 4 is a big mistake.
Making tanks attack on 6 and defend on 6 is a big mistake.
not sure what the established final numbers will be but , larry initially commented on different values by nation. The infantry stacking days should be over by creating unit values that force players to buy OTHER units besides infantry. making 1-2 on d6 system and changing it to say 3-4, will help eleviate this problem. The game system of 2nd edition, was prolongated by the strategy of sitting on huge stacks of infantry, waiting many turns before pulling the trigger on one huge battle seems to take the game in a less exciting road. Its more like a world war one concept. The advanced concept should promote a fluid rather than static battlefield condition. This is partially accomplished by changing the ratio of the defensive/ attacking value for all units.

ON the topic of combinations of certain attacking units their should be a bonus for the "combos" as you pointed out , but i guess when larry decides what the final values are, then we can come up with the die bonus for different attacking units.

Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:30 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Post by Sanford » Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:11 pm

I got an idea for this. I must say that I don't like the idea of physically limiting stack or total amounts of any piece. But we could discourage large stacks...

Are you familiar with the concept of diminishing returns?
Like if you work out 3 hours a day it is great. If you work out 10 hours a day its not that much better.

So how about diminishing the abilities of large stacks of infantry? I have not tested this idea, but it could work without being too complicated. For instance, the first 4 or 5 infantry in a stack could have certain attack/defense capabilities. But if the stack gets higher, than those infantry beyond 4 or 5 would have dimished capabilities. Perhaps their attack and defense would be half that of the first 4 or 5.

I seems logical to me, and not too complex. It would encourage combined arms without having a hard-set rule "NO! Bad! You cannot buy more infantry." In some situations it may be good to go ahead and stack infantry, other situations it may not. It would require thought and evaluation, which is always good for any game. Eh?

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:03 pm

To attack with an overwhelming force of units at a single "Schwerpunkt" results in a break and possible overrun of the enemy position. Thats what happened in the first 90 days of the barbarossa campaign. Their has to be another method to create situations where players build a mix of units for many purposes and end the practice of turns of building nothing but Infantry,and more Infantry..

User avatar
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:39 am

You have put your finger on it, Imperious - "players build a mix of units for many purposes". Each unit must have a special purpose or ability, as well as a weakness.

For example, if artillery fires in opening fire, the purpose of buying them will be to wither enemy forces without return fire. If those same artillery cannot take or hold ground without support, they must have infantry with them to do so. Checks and balances provide a reason to buy a mix of units. It also reflects reality. This is the principle I applied in my "infamous" Alternative Combat System.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests