Unit stacking?

[Nightmare]

Call me slow, but I just recently discovered of my own accord that before a battle (in "pre-battle" mode) I can literally stack unit after unit right on top of each other - like 10 more more - to get one compressed, super-dense blob of units, like a shield wall on steroids. Often times, tactically I find this more desirable and maneuverable than some huge line of units, particularly for skirmishers and the like.

I just wondered whether this is considered an "exploit" or "cheating" by the community, or if this is something that most people engage in? In particular, how do MP folks feel about this? Is it "anything goes" or are there house rules against the practice?

[athanaric]

It's an exploit and not advisable in MP battles (especially phalanx stacking), but people won't mind if you use it against the AI. After all, the AI uses all exploits against you as well.

[Alrik]

Depends, for some reason not all units like being stacked. (they spend time trying to get room instead of actually fighting when the heat is on) There's also the missile troops to take into account. Missiletroops that don't get their own space will not fire, (they swirl their slings and draw their bows, but no missiles are actually fired.) And in the regard of your opponent's missile troops, a dense block of troops is an awfully tempting target, you're bound to hit something.

That said, there are times when it's useful. and some units like pikes(phalanxes) like stacking pretty well.

[seleucid empire]

long line in the sand?

[Intranetusa]

Due to the sarissa phalanx's poor melee skills, I like to stack line infantry with sarissa-phalanxes so the infantry protects the phalangites in case the enemy gets past the wall of spears. (at least in single player)

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

MP rules ban stacking of guard-moded units, but if you want to charge 2-3 units to the same point in an attack to try to break through a defensive line, that is by all means acceptable.

Also, no stacking of phalanx.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

Stacking isn't as great as it seems. In RTW, each model is calculated in terms of moving, hitting and defending. The cramming actually hinders the performance of each individual, even in phalanx mode, as each model tries to find space (ie shifting, shuffling) to make their attack (or defend themselves). Therefore, it is a case of diminishing returns you'll be having. In fact, less dense attacking units may even have the advantage of being able to land a more consistent number of hits on your guys (think longswords, drugs/nudity/nobility(?) and Waaagh!!!). Also being so densely packed, your stack essentially become missle food, even in front. The javelins that normally would miss their mark will now hit something (hopefully squishy).

I'm not speaking against packing them up though, just listing the cons of it. It is a matter of throwing all your eggs in one basket. Dense packs of units are wonderful in defending key points from brute force attacks. Think 300 (that horrid graphic novel and movie). It is no surprise that hoplitai works so well in this role.

Somewhat off topic, if you want to achieve a similar effect without stacking units, you may want to consider changing certain unit's spacing in the EDU. that way you may still retain your tactical flexibility. However, the cons I have listed still applies to the dense, modified units. They'll have far shorter narrow frontage, and will need strong support on the flanks.

[moonburn]

Due to the sarissa phalanx's poor melee skills, I like to stack line infantry with sarissa-phalanxes so the infantry protects the phalangites in case the enemy gets past the wall of spears. (at least in single player)

considering that phyrru used this tactic against the romanoi that particular tactic of putting lighter more melee oriented infantry (peltastai comes in mind) in the midle of a phalanx can´t be historically inacurate and therefore should be allowed even in mp games

[Arjos]

Pyrros armed some Tarantinoi with pikes, they wore lighter armour, but they were ad hoc equipped phalangitai with white shields...
Between taxeis, strategoi put whatever they liked (even a pair of elephants at Magnesia), but within the formation of phalanxes they didn't...

Archaic "hoplite" phalanxes may have had archers behind the first lines of spearmen...
Later in the roman armies there are episodes of a similar tactic, with javelineers, archers and slingers, but they always stood behind the frontline and its shields...

But with pike formations, the only result would be the weakening of the formation itself...
As people said, stacking is an exploit of the game's engine...

[Nightmare]

...can´t be historically inacurate and therefore should be allowed even in mp games

You really believe that, or are you joking (I can't tell)?

Historical accuracy can't be viewed as anything except "background" or "flavor" for the game, otherwise you might as well make the game a simple script that runs like a movie, showing you all the events that occurred until Rome took over all of Europe, with no interaction allowed by the player at all (therefore, no ability to change any event that occurred).

[Nightmare]

considering that phyrru used this tactic against the romanoi that particular tactic of putting lighter more melee oriented infantry (peltastai comes in mind) in the midle of a phalanx can´t be historically inacurate and therefore should be allowed even in mp games

Jesus!!!! **FACEPALM**

I totally misread this, and it appears others here did too.

I thought he said "can´t be historically ACCURATE and therefore SHOULDN'T be allowed even in mp games."

But he said "can´t be historically INACCURATE and therefore SHOULD be allowed even in mp games."

Moonburn, please accept my most sincere public apologies for misreading what you said, and then misrepresenting it on the forums!! What was this, a severe attack of dyslexia on my part or something?

Edit: @Andres, if my misreading of moonburn's statement is what caused you to misunderstand and misconstrue everything I was trying to say, my apologies as well.

Same goes for anyone else it applies to.