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.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

What you spoke about shuffling Basileus is exactly why stacked units attacking together can be so devastating. If you stack 4 hoplites on top of each other and throw them at a point in a line, some will shuffle to the sides, others backwards, but others forwards. And these shuffling forwards will simply push enemies out of the way, especially since units like hoplites have high mass. Congrats, you've created a gap in your opponents line!

[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).

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

Why not? After all there is plenty of what if left within the constraints of the historical parameters.

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).

Why? We do not actually know how it all happened, there are plenty of questions left. So the best we can do is to replicate the boundary conditions as far as we know them, and proposee a theory or vision if you will that accounts for the variables which are beyond us.

[Nightmare]

Why not? After all there is plenty of what if left within the constraints of the historical parameters.

Sure, I agree. For instance, what were the actual numbers of troops involved in X battle between Y faction and Z faction, and actual unit compositions?

There are also plenty of non-"what ifs." For instance, it's a non-what if that Rome ended up conquering everyone else, so you can't play any game where that didn't happen, meaning if you are playing Carthage, you must force yourself to lose to Rome. Or if you are playing Saka, and the AI-controlled Rome loses to Carthage or the Gauls or whoever, you have to restart the game and curse the modders for creating something which allows historical inaccuracy.

I could go on and on with more scenarios like the above, with every faction in the game. You really believe the modders created this mod with this in mind? One of us (I'm not sure who, maybe it's me) is confused here.

EDIT: See this thread, and tell the guy he is not allowed to win as Carthage (apparently he just needs a city in Syria).

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ory-conditions

In fact. he's already done quite a lot of ahistorical things (conquering Italy, etc). Tell him he shoudn't have done any of that.

Actually, it's worse than that. The modders of this game actually created victory conditions for Carthage (and every other faction in the game) which are severely ahistorical. You should call them out for this on the forum.

You see where I'm going with this?

[Andres]

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

If you have good sources to back up that statement, then I'm sure, the EB team members will be more than glad to look at them.

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).

The EB team members can correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but I always thought that modding the game to make it as historically accurate as possible, is more or less the purpose of this mod.

[Andres]

Sure, I agree. For instance, what were the actual numbers of troops involved in X battle between Y faction and Z faction, and actual unit compositions?

There are also plenty of non-"what ifs." For instance, it's a non-what if that Rome ended up conquering everyone else, so you can't play any game where that didn't happen, meaning if you are playing Carthage, you must force yourself to lose to Rome. Or if you are playing Saka, and the AI-controlled Rome loses to Carthage or the Gauls or whoever, you have to restart the game and curse the modders for creating something which allows historical inaccuracy.

I could go on and on with more scenarios like the above, with every faction in the game. You really believe the modders created this mod with this in mind? One of us (I'm not sure who, maybe it's me) is confused here.

Well, it still remains a game. It would no longer be a game if it would be entirely scripted until the end

But the emphasis is more on history than anything else. It are the modders themselves, obviously, who decide how they mod the game

I'm sure they appreciate feedback on bugs or on historical inaccuracies you spotted, but there's not much point in wanting the modders to change the starting points and goals of their project. If they would go for balance and not pay too much attention to history for instance, then this would be a completely different mod, no longer EB

[Stark]

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).

EB was made to emulate ancient warfare and politics. Doing something that engine allows but wasn't possible in real life is an exploit, not a feature.

When will understand that most people play EB for it's historical background and roleplaying, not for powergaming like you? Play as you like, but please stop pushing your opinions down other people throats.

[Sylon]

As I understand it, what moonburn referred to was the occasional EB multiplayer tournaments, which are played with strict historical rules regarding the composition of armies by faction and what moves are not allowed. For example, non-steppe factions are limited in the number of archers they can field, for the sake of balance, and only Carthage is allowed to have more than five units of mercenaries in their armies (Or something along those lines). Also, actions such as phalanx stacking and charging your horses/elephants through the back of your own lines are considered illegal moves. Of course, these only apply to the specific tournaments, and not to general MP play, in which people are free to play as they wish.

[Andres]

EB was made to emulate ancient warfare and politics. Doing something that engine allows but wasn't possible in real life is an exploit, not a feature.

When will understand that most people play EB for it's historical background and roleplaying, not for powergaming like you? Play as you like, but please stop pushing your opinions down other people throats.

Everybody is entitled to his opinion

That said, Nightmare, it's ok to have criticism on a modding project, as long as it is constructive criticism.

As Stark says, the EB modification is all about historical (as accurate as possible) background end trying to relive history. Of course, you can do things in the game that didn't happen in real history, because, well, it's a game.

I can understand that this is not to your liking and that you prefer more balance, even if that means less historical accuracy. That's fair enough, but if you put that opinion forward as criticism on the mod, then you're criticism is pointless and thus, no longer constructive.

Constructive criticism is criticism that helps the modders to improve their mod, in the framework of their objectives, desires, viewpoints, opinions etc. If, however, your criticsm comes down to "I want another mod", then that's no longer criticism, let alone constructive criticism, but just an opinion.

Coming here and constantly posting posts that basically come down to "I don't like this mod at all" is not only pointless, it's also a bit disrespectful to the people who dedicate their free time on a voluntary basis to create work that they then make available for everyone, free of charge.

If you don't like this mod, then perhaps you should try another one. If none of the modifications of a TW game out there are to your liking, then you have only two options : 1) accept that; 2) try to form your own team to make your own mod. I'm sure you'll find people here who can show you where to find guides, tutorials etc. on modding. Maybe some might even want work with you on your mod.

But please, be aware that constantly posting messages that basically say "this mod sucks" will be considered disrespectful by the people creating the mod. I'm not saying that that is your intention, but you need to be aware that is how it comes across.

[athanaric]

I believe there's a misunderstanding here regarding the meaning(s) of the term historical accuracy: Nightmare tends to view it as "historical accuracy as in chain of events that actually happened" whereas others see it as "historical accuracy as in realistic social/natural environment for the time period and realistic, plausible possibilities of development after 272 BC". For instance, the Persian reforms of the Hai faction never happened in real life because Armenia got caught up between Arsacid Parthia and Rome and ended up being a semi-autonomous kingdom ruled by an offshoot of the Arsacids. But if things had gone differently (say, a power vacuum that makes it possible for Armenians to conquer Iranian core regions), the "reform" might actually have happened because of existing dynastic and cultural ties, not to mention geograpic proximity. Seeing as the human player starts the campaign in 272 BC, he or she can avoid the mistakes made by historical characters and thereby build a prosperous empire.
By the way, both EB I and II only include factions that had a disposition to and a realistic chance of becoming a bigger power of sorts.

[d'Arthez]

< deleted / removed >

[Nightmare]

Well, it still remains a game. It would no longer be a game if it would be entirely scripted until the end

I think that's essentially my point, so it seems you and I agree. The mod is **obviously a game first, with historical accuracy and what not coming second. It has to be that way, or, as you and I point out, it would cease to be a game and would merely be a scripted "movie" so to speak.

On the usage of the term **obviously above - each campaign contains victory conditions. Many, if not most, are ahistorical. For instance, Carthage victory conditions include taking all of Italy. This never happened. If ahistorical play was frowned upon, the victory conditions would be "lose to Rome." Epeiros victory conditions include taking all the lands of the Arche Seluke and going all the way to India.

The point is, none of this stuff ever happened, yet the designers of this mod are saying you must do it anyway. They are saying "to win with this particular faction YOU MUST PLAY AHISTORICALLY."

Therefore, I claim it's "obvious" that this is a 1) game first, which is 2) historically-flavored second, designed that way by the modders themselves. I claim it is not some attempt to maximize historical accuracy, with ahistorical play being verbotten or frowned upon. In fact, for most if not all campaigns, ahistorical play is absolutely required in order to win.

I will gladly reverse my statement and stance if someone can somehow refute the fact that the modders created ahistorical victory conditions for the factions.

I'm sure they appreciate feedback on bugs or on historical inaccuracies you spotted, but there's not much point in wanting the modders to change the starting points and goals of their project.

No no no no no! You've got me all wrong here! I'm not asking modders to change starting points and goals! I'm simply stating what those starting points and goals appear to be! :-)

Others seem to have erroneous ideas about what those starting points and goals are (from my perspective at least). I'm either trying to 1) correct the record for them, or 2) have my own record corrected - one of the two. If someone says the world is flat and I say it is round (or vice-versa), I'd like to lay out my arguments, have them lay out their arguments, and optimally have one of us reverse his position.

...or on historical inaccuracies you spotted...

*sigh* :-(

I mentioned (and continue to mention) historical inaccuracies not because I am criticizing the game by any means. Nor do I want these historical inaccuracies changed. I mention them to simply make the point that the game is a game, not a scripted movie. You can do this amazing thing called "change history" - something far more interesting than simply "watch history." My point is simply that "changing history" is by definition "ahistorical."

There seems to be this notion that what I just said is a "criticism" of the game. My God, it's applause. I applaud the designers for this choice. I stand up and scream and rejoice and shout to the high heavens.

If they would go for balance and not pay too much attention to history for instance, then this would be a completely different mod, no longer EB

Gotcha.

I don't think anyone has brought up balance here, unless you count "unit stacking" as a balance concern. I was just responding to someone who said "such and such is ahistorical, therefore shouldn't be allowed in the game." My point is that the game, by consequence of it being a game, is forced to be ahistorical, so we should stop kidding ourselves. You seem to agree with your statement at the very top. I don't think I'm saying much different than what you said. I'm just saying it in a hell of a lot more words :-)

As I understand it, what moonburn referred to was the occasional EB multiplayer tournaments, which are played with strict historical rules regarding the composition of armies by faction and what moves are not allowed.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for trying to clarify. If that is the case, then we can just move on if everyone wants (perhaps I'm talking apples while he's talking oranges). However, he did say that such-and-such shouldn't be allowed because of ahistorical reasons "even in mp games" which seems to say that he wasn't talking exclusively about special mp tournaments. Or perhaps there is a language barrier? Is he a native speaker?

There may be additional miscommunication here, and if so I will accept the blame. The title and topic of this thread is unit stacking and whether it is considered an exploit or not. I asked the question. People were free to give whatever answers. They did. And I accepted all of those answers with no bone of contention or comment whatsoever. If people considered it an exploit, that was fine with me. If people didn't, that was fine too. I just wanted to hear people's opinions on it, that's all. There was never any challenge by me on any of that.

What I was actually "challenging" (in a friendly way) in moonburn's statement WASN'T whether or not stacking such-and-such unit with a phalanx was considered an exploit, verbotten, etc. - again, I ASKED THE QUESTION, I GOT ANSWERS, I ACCEPTED THEM, 'NUFF SAID. What I challeneged was whether something in the game should not be allowed on the basis of historical accuracy, because to me, as I've said, the game by it's very nature is ahistorical so that's never a reason to reject something - that's all.

In short, I said "hate unit stacking all you want, make all the comments you want against it because I posed the question and wanted answers, I just view with suspicion the rationale of 'ahistorical,' that's all." I think a much better argument is that unit stacking is simply impossible to do in real life and violates physics, and simply appears to be an exploit.

That said, Nightmare, it's ok to have criticism on a modding project, as long as it is constructive criticism.

Gotcha.

No criticism here from me. If you can find it please cut and paste it or quote it so I can see it. Or perhaps there is some miscommunication? Perhaps you or others feel it's criticism to say the game is a game first which happens to have historical flavor second? That wasn't intended as criticism at all. In fact, while I said it and meant it as a flat, neutral, objective statement, if I had to go one way or other I'd put it in the "compliment" camp, not "criticism" camp. I think the game is much better as the actual "game" that it is vs. a scripted movie you can only watch.

I can understand that this is not to your liking and that you prefer more balance, even if that means less historical accuracy. That's fair enough, but if you put that opinion forward as criticism on the mod, then you're criticism is pointless and thus, no longer constructive.

Understood.

I don't think I've said anything about balance here, nor have I said I prefer less historical accuracy. I've just stated that this appears to be a game first and foremost, with the historical flavor coming second. That isn't a preference I'm citing (whether I have such a preference or not). I'm just looking at the game (see above about campaign victory conditions, about the fact that this isn't just a scripted movie that plays noninteractively, etc) and making that observation. I'm happy to have the observation corrected. In fact, if I'm wrong about this, I WANT to have it corrected. If the world is round and I think it's flat, I'd like to have someone tell me it's round.

Constructive criticism is criticism that helps the modders to improve their mod, in the framework of their objectives, desires, viewpoints, opinions etc. If, however, your criticsm comes down to "I want another mod", then that's no longer criticism, let alone constructive criticism, but just an opinion.

Message received.

I don't think I implied, or stated "I want another mod" here. I think I've just tried to describe what this mod actually is, from the best observation I've been able to make, that's all. There was not a "criticism" component to anything I've said, or hell, not even a preference I've voiced. I've just said "this appears to be such-and-such, and doesn't appear to be something else."

I'm saying "the color here appears to be blue, not black." That's an objective observation, and I'm making no value judgement with it. But if you must know, I like the color blue just fine.

You might be confusing my posts here with some posts I've made in other threads. These are these posts. Those are those posts. These posts != those posts.

Coming here and constantly posting posts that basically come down to "I don't like this mod at all" is not only pointless, it's also a bit disrespectful to the people who dedicate their free time on a voluntary basis to create work that they then make available for everyone, free of charge.

Roger.

Not sure who's posts you are reading in this thread, but they don't appear to be mine.

...try to form your own team to make your own mod. I'm sure you'll find people here who can show you where to find guides, tutorials etc. on modding. Maybe some might even want work with you on your mod.

Already beat you to it :-) A few weeks ago I obtained some EBO_MP_EDU mod from some guy (can't remember his name but all the MP folks around seem to use his mod) and I wrote a custom program to merge his MP stuff with the vanilla SP stuff, then I further modified that to create my own mod which I'm playing. I'm happy to announce that the cost-effectiveness of elite units is much improved, plus Casse chariots are now good units. Hell, I'm even using the Alexander engine now, and having great success with it. But again, I wasn't being critical of standard EB here in this thread.

I believe there's a misunderstanding here regarding the meaning(s) of the term historical accuracy: Nightmare tends to view it as "historical accuracy as in chain of events that actually happened" whereas others see it as "historical accuracy as in realistic social/natural environment for the time period and realistic, plausible possibilities of development after 272 BC".

Thanks, athanaric. Perhaps we are using different definitions of historical accuracy.

[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.

[XSamatan]

EB is about how-historical-accurate-can-you-get-within-RTW-engine, please don't forget that. The team tries to recreate the situation of 272BC and lets the players make their own decisions.

about EB's victory conditions:
They are not what the factions achieved in real history, but what they wanted to achieve (or if we don't have sources, an interpretation of these goals).
I think some of your animadversion on the used system comes from this.

about historical/unhistorical tactics (both on campaign and battle map):
It is every player's own choice if he uses loopholes in the game engine or not, don't forget, it's a game.

I hope this clarifies a bit the intendencies of the team.

XSamatan

[Ca Putt]

Oh not again! D:

edit: meh skip that, should read befor I post, even if posts get outrageously long without any scolastic discussions about recent finds floating around^^, my bad.

[Nightmare]

The team tries to recreate the situation of 272BC and lets the players make their own decisions.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Of course, since I misread what moonburn said, it was just blowing a lot of hot air for no reason, as nobody here said or implied that it DIDN'T work that way.

Fwiw, I *have* encountered people on the forum who say it doesn't work the way you just said above. That's what I'm used to encountering and responding to. It may have contributed to why I misread his statement. In other words, I'm used to seeing it said the other way.

about EB's victory conditions:
They are not what the factions achieved in real history, but what they wanted to achieve (or if we don't have sources, an interpretation of these goals). I think some of your animadversion on the used system comes from this.

Again, no animadversion here. In other threads relating to other topics? Yes. Here? No. In fact, I agree perfectly with how you say this was done above. Were I to have designed this mod, I would have done it the same way.

about historical/unhistorical tactics (both on campaign and battle map):
It is every player's own choice if he uses loopholes in the game engine or not, don't forget, it's a game.

Again, I agree 100%. And I have not been critical of players using such loopholes. I simply asked what other players' opinions were, that's all.

I hope this clarifies a bit the intendencies of the team.

Seems crystal clear to me. I only keep responding here to clarify things myself. People (you this time, it seems) keep thinking I'm being critical of the game in this thread. And I keep saying "I'm not being critical! I haven't levied any criticisms! I think it works the way you just said it does!"

You speak as if you are part of the EB mod team. Are you?

[XSamatan]

You speak as if you are part of the EB mod team. Are you?

You can discern team members by their signature banners which display "Member" or "EB Team Member" (thus tbh, not all). Some team members also have their position/personal task displayed below the name.

I think there is an outdated list somewhere on the forum, but not sure where.

Regards,
XSamatan

[Nightmare]

You can discern team members by their signature banners which display "Member" or "EB Team Member"...

Well... that's interesting. I had no idea EB team members were around the forum. I thought they were all monks living on some mountaintop somewhere, privately slaving away on EB2.

I'm not sure, but this might explain some of the responses I was getting in another thread about overpriced elite units. I haven't gone back to check, but I could have been speaking with EB teammembers themselves in some instances who felt they were being insulted or attacked to their faces, and who thus struck back with personal attacks.

While I won't hold out any hope, it would be nice to think that this was the explanation for the reactions I was getting. At least it would somewhat explain things. I had almost come to the conclusion that I was dealing with some isolated hippie commune that had no dealings with the outside world, or perhaps a bunch of homeschooled kids or something.

[Lysimachos]

Are you sure you want to warm up that? Be the grown up and let it go. I suggest you edit out the last part of that post, because it resembles pouring gasoline over glowing ashes.

[Nightmare]

Are you sure you want to warm up that? Be the grown up and let it go. I suggest you edit out the last part of that post, because it resembles pouring gasoline over glowing ashes.

What? Why do you think that?

At any rate, in case you misinterpreted or misread, I was trying to say that XSamatan's info that EB team members do hang out here on the forum on occasion might help explain some of the reactions I was getting, that's all. Now, maybe it doesn't explain it (I haven't gone back to check any banners or signatures of who was involved). But maybe it does explain it. At least I'd like to think or hope it does.

As an example of what I was trying to say, pretend for a moment that you are a conneseur of runway models who likes to attend modeling events. As you are standing in the audience (or hell, perhaps you are even a judge on a panel), you see one particular model come out, twirl around, then leave the runway. It would be one thing to remark to your friend in the audience, or to your colleague on the panel "I noticed a little unsightly lower back flab as she was walking away. Perhaps she needs to wear clothes that don't expose the flaw, or she needs to do more exercise or something." But it would be another thing entirely to approach her, to her face, and say something to the effect of "you suck." The first is entirely appropriate and acceptable. The second isn't, because it is personal.

I was saying that if I inadvertently did the second thing without knowing it (because I didn't know team members hung out here, didn't know the meaning of signatures and banners and what not), that would certainly explain things that were, up until now, inexplicable to me. That's all I was saying.

I'm not sure exactly what the problem is here, but this is at least the 10th time I've had to write a bunch of stuff to explain something that I said previously. Not sure why that's the case, because I made straight As in such things as english, writing, communication, essay, technical writing, etc. Said another way, my communication skills aren't bad. At any rate, I think the discussion on unit stacking seems to be over, and the thread has derailed to other things, so discussion should probably come to a close unless someone else pops in with something to say.

Regards.

[Lysimachos]

What? Why do you think that?

I had almost come to the conclusion that I was dealing with some isolated hippie commune that had no dealings with the outside world, or perhaps a bunch of homeschooled kids or something.

Because I would not discard the possibility that some of the people that disagreed with your opinions might find offense with the insinuations of above highlighted statements from you and react accordingly.

Of course it's your call, I just wanted to point out the impression I got and I certainly don't want to start an argument about it.