dh_epic said:
In real life, there is obviously there is some theoretical limit. The realism buffs just complain about the calculation of the amount of area in a tile and work out how many men could be fit in there -- who cares. We know there's a limit, and if they imposed a limit of 5 units in a square, people would understand that there's just not enough room. It's realistic enough, and intuitive.
And it would lead to way more strategy.
As I mentioned, the usual idea behind stack limits is not based on the number of people that can fit in a square, rather on other factors, primarily transport and supply factors. At least this is how the idea developed in those games where stack limitations first appeared (ie tabletop Avalon Hill style hex-and-chits wargames).
When you're thinking in terms of stack limits remember that a turn-based game is trying to approximate the real world, where everything doesn't "freeze" at the end of the week, that is locations are not as static as the nature of turn based games would seem. Stack limits more or less represent what you can move
through a square, not necessarily what you can have
on a square, although they also represent the maximum amount of forces you can supply in a given location. Stack limits also model organizational limitations, because for modern armies, the more concentrated the forces, the more strain it puts on organization overall. Not only does it strain logistic organization, it also strains command, beyond a certain point of concentration.
It's difficult to justify stack limits for ancient armies as easily, because of course the limitations of roads and their ability to bear heavy equipment and vast amounts of supplies really isn't a factor. It doesn't emulate well the pattern of ancient warfare, which was based more on large concentrated field armies mixed with small, scattered garrisons protecting a radius; contrasted to modern warfare, which consists (well, until recently) of front lines, with armies deployed along vast ranges. Concentration occurs in modern warfare, but it is the exception not the rule, and it is usually a major logistic feat, one which more or less happens only at beachheads. More typically combat occurs along a very broad area relative to ancient warfare. The Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of Kursk for instance occurred across a length of a hundred or miles, and an area of thousands of square miles, but most ancient battles occurred on a single square mile, sometimes two or three at the most.
Also given Civ's distortions in scales of time and space, its difficult to say if stacking is truly realistic or not. In short, stacking represents finite limitations of transport and supply factors (not how many fit in an area) over time, and both area and time are quite distorted in Civ.
The biggest problem of course is how do you model stacking limitations when the nature of transport and supply are changing so rapidly in the game? Without devising an overly complex formula that renders most planning impossible it wouldn't be at all easy. And of course there are other considerations, such as whether or not it is even a necessary model in terms of the Ancient and Middle eras.
. You know, where if you lost 1 unit in a stack, you lost EVERYONE!!!!)
