Overstacking might actually be good.

As I understand it, when more than 10 units are stacked, only the 10 most effective units can give damage. All of them recieve damage, and fairly evenly if they're the same armour class. "Overstacking" or stacking beyond the optimum state-based damage efficiency, is generally frowned upon.

However, wouldn't stacking multiple units be effective? If I stack 10 anti-tank, 10 anti-air, and 10 infantry, it's nigh invulnerable to infantry, tanks, and planes each, as the maximum number of counter-units for each of those is present. Granted it'll affect the speed but sometimes that's not important.

Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
โ€” Marshal Foch
A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
โ€” Lord Kitchener, on tanks

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

22 Replies

I absolutely don't frown on overstacking, and I often do it myself, up to 15-20 units, exactly for the reasons you mentioned: versatility of the stack and damage output against various types of opponents increases. This goes for individual combats as well; for example, when you are attacking a stack of both armor and soft targets with planes, using something like 7-7 tacs and AB's will get you significantly better results than 5-5 while return AA fire is the same.

^ exactly

Some of my most common overstacking is when I want my artillery barrage to take advantage of the full 10-unit limit while also being protected from attack, so 10 artillery + 3 AA + 3 AT + an armored car or two bringing me up to ~18 units.

I have had a superstack of 7 Arty 5 Rocket Arty, 3 AC, 10 LT, 5 AT, 1 Heavy, 17 Meds, 5 TD and 10 AA, it was practically undefeatable, the Light Tanks were used to advance but joined the group before an attack.

Lord Crayfish wrote:

As I understand it, when more than 10 units are stacked, only the 10 most effective units can give damage. All of them recieve damage, and fairly evenly if they're the same armour class. "Overstacking" or stacking beyond the optimum state-based damage efficiency, is generally frowned upon.

However, wouldn't stacking multiple units be effective? If I stack 10 anti-tank, 10 anti-air, and 10 infantry, it's nigh invulnerable to infantry, tanks, and planes each, as the maximum number of counter-units for each of those is present. Granted it'll affect the speed but sometimes that's not important.

yes exactly thatโ€™s what I do, 10 heavy tank with 10 anti air and 10 rocket artillery, other stack is 10 armoured car, other stack is 5 Militia with 5 anti tanks
็Ÿฅๅทฑ็Ÿฅๅฝผ๏ผŒ็™พๆˆ˜ไธๆฎ†

K.Rokossovski wrote:

I absolutely don't frown on overstacking, and I often do it myself, up to 15-20 units, exactly for the reasons you mentioned: versatility of the stack and damage output against various types of opponents increases. This goes for individual combats as well; for example, when you are attacking a stack of both armor and soft targets with planes, using something like 7-7 tacs and AB's will get you significantly better results than 5-5 while return AA fire is the same.
Is it true that it affects the speed? They seem to go very slow but maybe that's because all their terrain bonuses are different.
Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
โ€” Marshal Foch
A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
โ€” Lord Kitchener, on tanks

The whole stack moves at the speed of the slowest unit, so keep that in mind when crafting stacks. Otherwise the size of the stack doesn't matter to speed.

jubjub bird wrote:

The whole stack moves at the speed of the slowest unit, so keep that in mind when crafting stacks. Otherwise the size of the stack doesn't matter to speed.
But if the stack is big enough to destroy anything that attacks it, it doesn't matter how slow its still OP.

That's true but there are always tradeoffs. Speed has value, and concentrating all your units into giant stacks reduces the ground you can cover or defend. Every strategy has a weakness, some of those weaknesses are just smaller or more difficult to exploit than others.

jubjub bird wrote:

That's true but there are always tradeoffs. Speed has value, and concentrating all your units into giant stacks reduces the ground you can cover or defend. Every strategy has a weakness, some of those weaknesses are just smaller or more difficult to exploit than others.
Hence why i use 10 stacks of LT to prevent flanking or overrunning, preventing them from producing, etc.

Until you meet medium tanks or bombers

jubjub bird wrote:

Until you meet medium tanks or bombers
Thats why i keep the LT's in the big stack until needed, read what i wrote :)

I guess against an unthinking player who just throws their bombers at your death stack you'd be fine. Seems like a suboptimal use of resources to me, but to each their own.

jubjub bird wrote:

I guess against an unthinking player who just throws their bombers at your death stack you'd be fine. Seems like a suboptimal use of resources to me, but to each their own.
I never fight more than AI at the end so it always works for me.

When you're fighting AI, you don't need doom stacks. Dividing your army in task forces of a bit of artillery and a small shield force works just fine and will conquer ground much faster.

Fox-Company wrote:

jubjub bird wrote:

I guess against an unthinking player who just throws their bombers at your death stack you'd be fine. Seems like a suboptimal use of resources to me, but to each their own.
I never fight more than AI at the end so it always works for me.
cuz you never played America Homefront maps
็Ÿฅๅทฑ็Ÿฅๅฝผ๏ผŒ็™พๆˆ˜ไธๆฎ†

once I joined a clash of nations and the third day everyone went AI and I retired and got the gold. WON ON THE THIRD DAY!

็Ÿฅๅทฑ็Ÿฅๅฝผ๏ผŒ็™พๆˆ˜ไธๆฎ†

Destructo the Great wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

jubjub bird wrote:

I guess against an unthinking player who just throws their bombers at your death stack you'd be fine. Seems like a suboptimal use of resources to me, but to each their own.
I never fight more than AI at the end so it always works for me.
cuz you never played America Homefront maps
i played one, once....never again...

Lol I think America Homefront is my favorite map, maybe 2nd to WaW, though it kinda sucks having so few non-Allies options. Just wrapped up an AH game yesterday, actually. Five active players made it to end game, with four of us in a coalition to win at day 15.

jubjub bird wrote:

Lol I think America Homefront is my favorite map, maybe 2nd to WaW, though it kinda sucks having so few non-Allies options. Just wrapped up an AH game yesterday, actually. Five active players made it to end game, with four of us in a coalition to win at day 15.
That's kinda sad, ive been on a RTW with more players than that all the way to end game.

It didn't help that we took out most of the active players along the way lol

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Questions and Answers
Quick Launch