Since I thought it deserved it's own thread...

As of the last few DLL's, stack limits have been included into the game, and can be modified in GlobalDefinesAlt.xml file (default of 7). The question is, should there be a stack limit? Should we instead focus on rules that make stacks unnattractive? Should we do both?

Some discussion so far:

Why is there a maximum stack size? I don't recall any discussion of this. Besides, collateral damage from magic and psychology and support fire will make this unatractive. Why should we forbid the player from doing this? Besides, it makes attacking cities in the end game vertualy impossible.


@Olleus
1.)Why should a stacklimit make collateral damage unattractive? I think on the contrary you really get a chance to wype a stack out.
2.)A city has 8 tiles surrounding it and this gives a maxnumber of 56 units being able to attack in one turn(not counted cavalry that can pass tiles after some units of the stack were killed-not to mention elves). I have no doubt capturing a city should be possible with this.;)

Still it's a good way to make the AI spreading out its forces imo.
Well whatever it will be configurable and I can write how to change the stacklimit into the mod's readme that should be enough don't you think?

The idea of Stack-limitations brings me to another idea (and it´s really just an idea):

What about limiting the units on one plot to WH like Armies?
This would, as far as my opinion is concerned, not mean to limit one plot to a maximum number of units, but maybe limit one plot to percentages of units like they are defined in WH (Core, Special, Rare etc.) this may include a new tag for UnitInfos.xml like "<WHUnitType>Core</WHUnitType>"

That way we could maybe actually implement the idea of "Special, rare..." units?

Hm I think this would be to complicated for the player. He would be wondering all the time why he can't stack certain units and we'd get a lot of stupid bugreports.
But we indeed need a concept more flexible than national units to restrict building of certain units in general. I prefer seeing all troops of a player as the army (not a single stack) where rare and special choices should get a percentage count to trigger their buildability.

In this case we should make sure, that the units that are most-permanently stationed in the players cities are not only counting towards the core units (like only stationing Archers [which might be core-units] in cities) but also towards either special- or rare-units. So a player can´t only attack with those special- rare-units like Silverhelms, Seaguard etc.

But I got no clue how we could do this?!?

---

let´s say A player builds 100 units - 10 % are rare - 20 % are special - 5 % are champions, heroes, whatever.

So he has 35% "unique" units.

65% of his units are core.

but 40% of his total units are stationed in his cities permanently (keeps them there for defence, happyness, reserve, whatever). But almost all of those units are Archer-types (because they are the best for city-defense).

Then the total % of "unique" units that the player actually uses on the battlefield/frontline will drastically increaese (because the normal units aren´t used for warfare but only for city defense)!

I'm of course with stack limitations ;) , but the mian reason is that I find it too easy to exploit the AI with a large stack. An AI will rarely launch a stack vs stack attack well and usually leaves scattered units around. That and it stops a huge army coming through a single plot pass or bottleneck with no penalty. So you can do the "battle of themopylae" thing and hold a pass with a few units because only so many can advance at a time.

If we were going the route of having Core units and Special units and Hero units and so on, then you could give the Special and Hero units promotions which increase the power of units in the same stack. That would encourage the player to move his non-core units into different stacks, spreading them out across his whole forces, including leaving them behind in cities.

I'm not sure how well the AI would handle it, but it would be a good way of encouraging (but not forcing) the player to dispere their units.

well, im kinda on the fence on this one. On one hand, i agree that the AI need to have a more evenly spread out force. i also like the idea of heros affecting units in thier plots. however, i doth like the limitations on players. also, thet wold leave cities very underdefended in the late game. (i usually have 10 or so units in each major city near the end, but near 15 in my capital, (i like to defend;) ))so perhaps, if you REALLY wanted to put in stack limitations, make the limit of city defendes twice the normal stack. so if the stack limit is 7, th city garrison limit is 14.

If we were going the route of having Core units and Special units and Hero units and so on, then you could give the Special and Hero units promotions which increase the power of units in the same stack. That would encourage the player to move his non-core units into different stacks, spreading them out across his whole forces, including leaving them behind in cities.


In order for that to work, I think the bonuses couldn't be cumulative. Otherwise, the players would probably just put them into one big stack anyway.

If it were cumulative, then a player would have a greater advantage from having one hero in each stack, so the optimal number of stacks would be dependent on how many hero / specials a player has. That seems to me like a good idea.

I've always thought that changing the way battle works to change stacks would require one of three things:

1,) Make seperation of units more advantageous.
2.) Make collection of units disadvantageous.
3.) Make collections of units impossible.

I'm always more for ideas that use the mentality of number one more than two or three. The idea of giving limited stack bonuses with units that are non-cumulative would fall under one, support fire would be an example of two, and hard-limits on stacks would fall under three.

So, to me, having a hero or special units give limited stack bonuses is a great idea. For example, perhaps a hero can have an ability where after it attacks a plot, the next X units to attack from it's starting plot to the plot it attacked gains a bonus.

Also, PL, with the current rules now, their is no cap in city plots.

Ok, well, after i have thought about it some more, i agree that some stack limitations would be good, but i dont think a stack cap would be the right way to do it. perhaps (this is only an idea) stacks with 7 or more units would suffer movement penalties (having to coordinate a huge army is a daunting task, and requires lots of planning) and perhaps some dissadvantage to do with logistics would be interesting.

So overall, i think im with Gerikes, Make seperation of units more advantageous, or Make collection of units disadvantageous.

In order for that to work, I think the bonuses couldn't be cumulative. Otherwise, the players would probably just put them into one big stack anyway.

Yep, sorry, I should have mentioned that. I figured it was implied, because people had already said in another thread that magic defence wouldn't be cumulative. But yes, I would say the bonuses definitely shouldn't stack with each other.

I'm always more for ideas that use the mentality of number one more than two or three.

I totally agree. It might take some tweaking to get the player to feel it's truly worth it to split their stack up, but I think it's better to just encourage that kind of thing rather than enforce it.

OK then, an advantage from spreading units, cause the hero units to give boni to surronding tiles (including it's own), if there is another hero but is NOT on the same square (in adjacent square instead), allow the bonus to accumulate. so a unit can have up to 8 hero boni (imaging at least one square free to attack) but if the 8 heros are in the same stack, you only get the best 1. or maybe limit the number of hero boni to max 3 or something from surrounding tiles.

no, i dont think hero bonuses should accoumulate at all. that wouldnt be fun (IMO) i say let it only affect their tile, but then give heros a possible promotion that expands thier area of influence, say 'inspirational auror' or something. but dont let abilities stack.

About abilities accumulating I vote no as well like with dispel.
I agree in general that making large stacks unattractive is allways better than enforce a limit. But the AI behavior is what concerns me more than this. If we can make the AI using small stacks only without stacklimit we can go for that until then I want to stick with the solution we have now.

isnt it possible only to give the AI stack limitations, not the player, but give the player things that will deter him from using large stacks?

Maybe but lets wait until large stack REALLY are unatractive. Right now they are pretty, especially if you have a couple of archers in there giving supportfire!

Well the way I plan to include psychology is that if a unit runs away from combat, there is a small chance for every other unit in the stack of running away, and if one of those units run away there is a second chance for other units to runaway. This makes having big stacks very dangerous as a single failed attack could rout your entire army.
This is all encouragement you need to spread your forces out.

very good idea, does it affect neighboring stacks? perhaps make some spells more collateral damaging also, that would deter me from large stacks.

I think that it shouldn't affect neighbouring stacks, as that would simply make attacking too difficult. As it is, about half the spells cause collateral damage (to unlimited units).

Good :D :D