Can ground units stack in this game?

[CDGfan]

My sense is no, that only one ground unit can occupy a tile, but a skim through the manual doesn't explicitly state that there isn't stacking.

If there isn't, and if this is the same as in previous versions, could some of you who have played before let me know how the lack of stacking impacts the game's feel of realism.

Not having armor and infantry elements able to occupy the same space does not seem right to me for a game at this scale.

[SeaMonkey]

Come on CDG, when do you ever remember a WW2 formation the size of a corps not having an infantry element, or you could even imagine that the anti-tank upgrade tech for infantry formations(army, corps, egrs, SFs) as the armored contingent.

Use your imagination, this is after all a grand strategic game and many things are abstractly represented. We don't want micro-management, nor an AI which is perpetually incompetent. KISS!

[CDGfan]

Thanks for the reply, SeaMonkey. I see that some of your proposals in the "New Features" thread deal with this and related issues a bit.

At the corps and army level, one per hex makes sense, and I accept the rationale that armored elements are integral to the infantry formations.

But the engineers and special forces seem like they could share the space with a larger formation.

With respect to tank groups--are these supposed to represent a corps-size force, too? Are they very vulnerable to infantry if they are just sitting there on their own?

[Snowstorm]

CDG,

If the infantry have alot of anti-tank tech advances, they can do some real damage against a tank unit.

[Bill101]

But the engineers and special forces seem like they could share the space with a larger formation.

They can, but you wouldn't really want them to be there in the long run because their defence values are pretty low, unless of course you've fully upgraded them, but even so having engineers holding the line is normally an act of desperation. They also can't start to build any new fortifications if they are adjacent to the enemy.

[pzgndr]

could some of you who have played before let me know how the lack of stacking impacts the game's feel of realism.

This is something we have all wrestled with since SC1 was released long ago. The classic Panzer General model is relatively simple for programming and interface - single unit stacking, single unit moves, single unit attacks. This defies the traditional wargame with unit stacking, simultaneous unit moves, and combined units odds-based combat.

My take on this approach has been to NOT scrutinze too deeply at this abstract scale what happens for an individual unit, in a specific tile, during a single turn. It will never make sense. But take a step back and take a broader look at the overall combat power employed in an area over a period of several turns and compare the game results with historical results and other wargames. With that perspective in mind, the SC model plays out pretty well.

[Desert Dave]

I've played -- only a couple times each, for reasons that will soon be made evident -- a few games where you had to... click click

Click click click click click

Click click click click click

CLICK!

Through all these stacks of units scattered to Hades and gone all over the doggone map.

And, never even ever discover that lost & lonely (... must be, and perhaps? even UN-loved?) infantry unit that I just KNEW had to be around here somewheres!

Truly dislike that kind of anti-free-form jazz.

Well, that's only me.

Others might like all that

Click click click click clicking!

Through them seemingly interminable!

Scattered stacks.

To each their own, I reckon it, and that's fine.