Not? Well... If somebody lost few times in raw because of it, then she or he will stop using stacking, it is not obvious for you?
You presented wishful thinking in this case and I could say like you said it before:
Only live is is realistic and historical, stop being little child which dream about meet Napoelon nearly Waterloo in 1815.
But who knows what and when somebody will or will not doing? Will or will not stop using stacking formation. In that case, fact is that stacking formations exist in theses games.
Think that could be somebody which lost few times in raw because of it, AND then she or her will NOT stop using stacking. This way I could say that your pervious implication is not true. And you are not resolve this stacking problem that way.
I wrote it finally resolve problem? I wrote that it is temporarily resolve problem until someone find it.
Bla, bla, bla I quoted you precisely and then put my opinion. Of course you can disagree with me, but it does not change this fact - stacking formations exist in these games.
... Every game are unrealistic and nonhistorical.
I does not mean that I can not say that stacking formations are bad in C2 or AC.
Overinterpretation of speech. Daddio rather thought about types of units like pandur, janissary or hussar, not half-baked aspects of game and game engine by authors.
Maybe you are right, but I can not read in his mind, and what is more, I always thought this is thread about comparing engines and not about “historical based” units.
poppen"] i read in a book on the american revolution and tactics in the 18th century that when muskets are in rank, they would sometimes merge 2 companys into 1 line so they could have more units puttiing out fire
But this soldiers were not stacked. Merge companies do not mean stack companies.
And if I remember well companies in battalions line stayed one near the next one. This way all companies can fired in order. If companies had not enough men then it can be merged, but it was not stacking.