RTW unit size

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

The Viking/Dark Age era brings a nice bag of new units and faction. Good.

In there, we can see some 'experiments' from CA, with more 100 size sword troops (celtic warrior, slav warrior...) and some oddities; 40 size spears (a failure IMO... not the staying power you expect from spears.. maybe I have not found yet how to use them), 60 size hashashin (welsh bandit are pretty cool)...

What do we want to see in RTW? Is it going to be 100 'hords' sword units vs 60 size legions (a little like say irish vs mercia in VI?)? Or even bigger discripancy (yeh, go for 200 size units)?

More important, what do you want? Going back to uniform size? Big non regular vs small regular? CBR kind of unit size management?

Louis,

[Stormer]

barabiarians in groups of 400 would be nice say legions coem in groups of 300

[Skomatth]

Different unit sizes are okay for sp which doesnt need to be balanced as well as mp. For the love of god tho, I hope mp units are equal sizes for the sake of balance.

[Leet Eriksson]

i thought unit size did not affect game balance or did it?i recently tested a 100 man hashishin against a unit of kats and the kills and losses were the same as the 12 man hashishin against the kats.I only charged the kats and did not flank them.I made sure i tested it 4 times and results were the same(not exactly tho,probably a few more losses sometimes and sometimes a few more kills,overall the hash still lost)

[Skomatth]

Of course unit size affects balance, if they are different. 100 byz inf are powerful even tho their stats are about the same as 60 maa. 40 man cav unit stats are pumped because they are so small, thus making them too powerful. Shogun was nice and balanced for the most part because every unit was 60 men. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Shahed]

I would like 1 man unit size for the sake of balance. So each unit just has one man. I would also like all the units to be the same, so only legions please.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Shahed]

PS:

Talking about balance, last night I participated in an online test for Byzantine Infantry.

1 unit of Byzantine Infantry @ Valor 4 beat 1 unit Swiss Armored Pikemen @ Valor 2, despite costing about half the price. The test was repeated 4 times, to almost the same result: overwhelming victory for Byzantine Infantry.

Personally I find the "balance" discussion mundane and unrealistic. I apologise for my sarcasm earlier.
I'm just tired of the "balance" issues.

We must somehow learn to play using the advantages and techniques we have. If we are really as good players as we think we are, we can overcome "balance" issues, surely. MTW is great becuase of the imbalances, which force even so called "elite" players to modify their tactics.

As far as Spain, and Byzantine are concerned, I have no problems with that. Those factions should not get so much for so little but if they do, I find a counter. As always there is one.

Any balance should be historically based, that ensures that everyone is content. So my request would be to please base unit sizes in RTW, on sizes that represent those historically used. If RTW follows this logic, it will have only acceptable "imbalances" etc..

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[RisingSun]

Seljuk is right. People cr out for historical accuracy, and yet the same people say the game needs balance. IT DOESNT WORK BOTH WAYS. History was not balanced, so if its historically accurate, you will need t adjust tactics depending on the situation to win, because it isnt balanced If it balanced, then you will yell about historical accuracy.

[CBR]

Different unitsizes works fine. As I already have said in other tread(s), a lot of the balance problems is because of historical mistakes and "fixes" that doesnt improve it.

And of course you can have historical accuracy and balance the same time. There are 2 types of balance: unit and faction balance and both can be done.

Units have advantages and disadvantages and a cost too. It just takes some work to get it done. But IMO its not that hard to do.

We see lots of "unit balance" in history. Knights alone couldnt win. Pikes alone couldnt win. Archers alone couldnt win etc etc. We dont see a lot of "faction balance" in history but thats not the point in MP anyway as we play with equal money for both sides.

And if people dont like even small differences between factions they can just have battles using only one faction. And then we are back to STW which some people still talk so much about http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Oh.. back to unit sizes. Yes it would be great if we can buy units in several sizes and if we could get that limited minimap/line of sight too...yum. If CA keeps up the good work with more columns in the unit file just for MP its not a problem to expand number of units just with different sizes/costs. Even better, buy units in groups of 40 foot and 20 cav...something like that. It looks like we have very big units in RTW so it can be done.

CBR

[RisingSun]

Unit sizes look bigger than ever. I posted a link to a pic somewhere... som of those units look like theyre a hell of a lot more than 100 guys...

[CBR]

Yes I think I saw 300...I could be mistaken...there were just so many of them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

CBR

[RisingSun]

Not to mention that he formation continues off-screen. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Shahed]

Did you guys read the review of the "demo" on E3:

Catiline posted this, thx http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif :

E3 Preview Type thing (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=19;t=6977)

Fortunately CA are thinking more deeply about things, than we may expect.

[CBR]

Yes they have done lots of research and some of the unit descriptions are interesting too. But there is still a long way http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

CBR

[Skomatth]

Quote[/b] ]I would like 1 man unit size for the sake of balance. So each unit just has one man. I would also like all the units to be the same, so only legions please

AOE is calling you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



Quote[/b] ]We must somehow learn to play using the advantages and techniques we have. If we are really as good players as we think we are, we can overcome "balance" issues, surely. MTW is great becuase of the imbalances, which force even so called "elite" players to modify their tactics.


Ok...so? Balance makes things fun If stuff is unbalanced u (the "elite" player you seem to despise so much) wont take it or will take to much of it It reduces the desire to have variety in my opinion. So cav were more powerful in mtw than shoggy...so people adopted their play style. But spears could at least be worth a darn If the multiplayer game is balanced the jousting field would turn dead. And that I wouldnt mind because people would be playing more than complaining.


Quote[/b] ]People cr out for historical accuracy, and yet the same people say the game needs balance. IT DOESNT WORK BOTH WAYS.
Not me... I despise accuracy.

CBR- when u do different unit sizes they work fine. CA should hire u for consultant.

I just hate seeing really good players get frustrated and leaving b.c. imbalances

[Skomatth]

btw there shouldnt be patches, the game should work right the first time

[Shahed]

.
Quote[/b] ]Ok...so? Balance makes things fun If stuff is unbalanced u (the "elite" player you seem to despise so much) wont take it or will take to much of it It reduces the desire to have variety in my opinion. So cav were more powerful in mtw than shoggy...so people adopted their play style. But spears could at least be worth a darn If the multiplayer game is balanced the jousting field would turn dead. And that I wouldnt mind because people would be playing more than complaining.


Let me just make clear that I do not despise anyone. I have some disdain for ego glorification, but that's a personal matter.

Other than that I can't really comment because I do not understand any points in this statement, whatsoever.

All I attempted to note is, there must be imbalances between factions and units, that's the making of a good game. If you care to follow the link to the E3 preview, you will notice that is exactly what the game will be like. There will be faction specific unit and they probably will be different unit sizes. Faction specific units will have special abilities exclusive to them.

For those who want a balanced game, chess would suit better than MTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif Maybe not because the bishops, can move somewhat differently than the other pieces. Then again so can the castles...hmmmm. I guess chess is not that balanced after all, or is it ?. In any case it's better balanced than MTW.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Shahed]

Actually, let me just rephrase myself: there will be different unit sizes in RTW. That is clear from the screenshots, and from the previews.

Sounds good to me.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Skomatth]

Yeah I was talking on the phone that prolly was confusing.

What I mean is...

If all the unit are balanced relatively well, there will more variety seen. this is because the people who like taking "fun" armies will have more chance to win. people who like to win will have more options. People who take all cav will have a challenge, but that challenge will be fun.

by imbalances what I'm talking about is a particular unit being stronger than all other units of its type. (like lancers).

Understand what im saying?

[Shahed]

Yes. I understand.

Please use these:
Try a valor 0 JHI
Try a valor 0 Gothic Knight

There are many combinations to counter Lancers, and every other faction specific unit in the game.

If lancers are the strongest attack cavalry, so what. I don't care.
If my opponent needs 6-8 Lancers to defeat me, then I already won in any case.

There are many units which are stronger than others in this game, and that is what makes it great, that is what makes it fun, for me.

Back to RTW:
There should always be faction specific units with particular strengths unavailable to other factions. There should be different unit sizes, more so the player in RTW should have the possibility of training units of different sizes. Lastly Single Player and Multi Player game modes should be convergent and not divergent.

[theKyl]

The unit sizes can be kept IMO, because if we had 400 and 200 men units then my comp would prolly break down or I had to upgrade it (what I'll have to do anyways...).

[Nowake]

So it's a good thing, after all ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Shahed]

LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

well if you look at the screenies mate, you are looking at 200 man units (at least) in some of those screenshot.
Could be that the screenies are taken on "huge unit" size for maximum impact.

[hoom]

Quote[/b] ]There are many combinations to counter Lancers, and every other faction specific unit in the game.

If lancers are the strongest attack cavalry, so what. I don't care.
If my opponent needs 6-8 Lancers to defeat me, then I already won in any case.

There are many units which are stronger than others in this game, and that is what makes it great, that is what makes it fun, for me.
What he said http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Not that I think anyone would require 6 lancers to defeat me...

I hope those screens are not on huge unit size, since I normally play on that & am looking forward to getting twice as many per unit as is in those screens http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Being fairly familiar with seeing 200 strong units, I'm quite sure those must be 300.

Actually, in the one with the blue romans formed up outside the city, there are 280. I just counted. (32 wide *9 deep) - (2*4 missing from the back row) = 280

That would give units of 140 for 'normal' size.
But hopefully I'll be getting 560 instead http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Nowake]

Now keep it down, man ... after 2 days someone will say 1120 ...

[Nelson]

Quote[/b] (arrrse @ May 20 2003,07:35)]
Quote[/b] ]There are many combinations to counter Lancers, and every other faction specific unit in the game.

If lancers are the strongest attack cavalry, so what. I don't care.
If my opponent needs 6-8 Lancers to defeat me, then I already won in any case.

There are many units which are stronger than others in this game, and that is what makes it great, that is what makes it fun, for me.
What he said http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Not that I think anyone would require 6 lancers to defeat me...

I hope those screens are not on huge unit size, since I normally play on that & am looking forward to getting twice as many per unit as is in those screens http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Being fairly familiar with seeing 200 strong units, I'm quite sure those must be 300.

Actually, in the one with the blue romans formed up outside the city, there are 280. I just counted. (32 wide *9 deep) - (2*4 missing from the back row) = 280

That would give units of 140 for 'normal' size.
But hopefully I'll be getting 560 instead http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
I agree with all of this

The larger the units the better the look and feel of the game.

[hoom]

Quote[/b] ]Now keep it down, man ... after 2 days someone will say 1120 ... Uh, that would be me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I wanna 1120 strong unit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif

[some_totalwar_dude]

*slaps arrrse* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

no that will be to freaking big

does anybody around here knows the sizes of a cohort?
I know centuries where 80-120, depends on the period.
(slap me if I'm wrong)

[Rosacrux]

*slaps some_totalwar_dude hard* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif


Contubernium 8-10
Company (centuria) 80-100
Cohort 480-600
Legion 4800-6000


*slaps some_totalwar_dude once more, for the heck of it* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[some_totalwar_dude]

thanks Rosacrux http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

now let's make unitsizes 480-600 men

*slaps Rosacrux back*

*SLAP WAR* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

*slaps himself to calmdown*

[Kocmoc]

the most problems with inbalance is about the different unitsize, especially if u look at the outnumber effect http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
so focourse i cant agree with player who say...this isnt a problem.

its 1 of the bigger problem why we never can balance this system for a more widespreaded florinamount, or why we just can play at 15k in vi now? ...lets say its balanced for 15k.

if u go to 10k the cav becoms stronger and the spears weaker..... if u go higher other units become stronger as compaered to the cav in 10k....thats all about the unitsize.

koc

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Kocmoc @ May 22 2003,15:44)]if u go to 10k the cav becoms stronger and the spears weaker..... if u go higher other units become stronger as compaered to the cav in 10k....thats all about the unitsize.
or differences in what units that gets upgrades.

Play at 5k then you wont have many upgrades and not much cav. If morale feels too low then add 2 morale to all units. If thats not enough add 4 instead.

If some units starts to fight to the death in situations you feel they shouldnt its most likely caused by their elite status so remove that.

In Mpwars there are even bigger differences in unitsizes compared to MTW and size is not a problem there. Its more about the stats, costs and silly upgrades that is the problem.

IMO a game has to be balanced at a certain amount of money. Otherwise you will end up with too many super units and/or too many upgrades.

CBR

[Sir Robin]

I really don't care what unit sizes are used. I think it would be neat to have 80, or was it a hundred, man centuries so I could try to form an actual legion on the field. I would enjoy that.

What I am most looking forward to is having a Total War game placed in the era of the Roman Republic.

I hope that we still have the options for smaller unit sizes than what the screenshots show.

If I recall correctly the screenshots for MTW were with huge unit sizes. Since they have probably done the same for RTW the default size may be no different than MTW.

With such great graphics I wouldn't mind.

[ChaosShade]

I personally would hate to have 500+ man units even if I had the best machine available 5 YEARS IN THE FUTURE
why you may ask?

I find that larger unit sizes lead to looser control over my armies. if we had 2000 man units and each of those 2000 men were rendered that would take up a lot of space on the screen unless the guys were absolutely tiny. If they get tiny like that everything else does and that takes away from the experience of carnage and control. a 2000 man unit would spread out as much as a current full army does

if unit sizes go more than slightly larger than what huge is now we start to lose control by having to move over a larger area to control our troops. and even larger battlefields would be required. In a real time strategy game there just isnt time to move all over the place and still have control of what's going on....well without going warcraft with keyboard shortcuts to everything for you so you can hammer away at list of key commands to win (yay) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[some_totalwar_dude]

I agree, I wasn't realy serious a few posts back. I'm already fine with unit sizes of 200 men, the upper limit for me is maby 300 men.
It would indeed be hard to have a good overvieuw with units much larger than that.

I think Sir Robins idee is quite nice, although it would be alot of units to control (60+ maby auxiluar and cavalarie?)
for that we would need some good group functions so you could controle an unit as one like many people outhere already sugested.

[scsscsfanfan]

I think the current MTV unit size is fine. What I really want is actually more units - around 40 or more on a much larger battle map. Of course, more than 20 units would be hard to control, esp for beginers, but as you all can see in custom battle, the AI can manage 1 human player + 7 AI players. It would be nice to be able to asign a few units to each reliabel AI generals under your command - give a few general orders to these guys - like attack/ hold/ etc, you can still change each unit's orders if necessary, but they should be able to run on their own ok otherwise. Something along this line would be good. Then one can hope more things like the command level of the AI generals will affact their battle field performence, delay of order down the command line, camera angle on particular sub-army... etc.
But probabbly this is too late for RTW. I don't think this can be done this time. May be Total war 4.

[Kocmoc]

agreed CBR, but why we need 100 men units?

if i can follow ur words i dont see any need for it.
elite units are nice for SP but they are bad for MP.

i just see that 100 men units can outnumber, make longer 2 lines....and have 50 men till they reach the moralpenalty (60 men jsut 30 men...). but apart from this whats the difference?

a 60 men unit can do the same and its much more easy to balance this units, u dont need to higher the moral or any other change. just 60 men units and the spears need some better stats, thats all. go back and make it easy.
the current mecanics are too complex to balance it.

If we focus on the alltermprobs in MTW/VI, we noticed that we lost control at all. all the new "improvements" are nice, if u look at the single idea. But if u look at this all together, we got a massiv controllloss

for SP it maybe nice.
but for MP it sux big time.

elite units are very bad, as they spoil the moralidea.
different unitsizes spoil the outnumbereffect, i dont speak about smaller untis like 40 cavs, thats ok. but 100 men units....
alldirectionrouting, well this is the mainprob for all this chaos on the fields....ur units get stuck all the time and u never know where ur units is, or if this units move to the point u did order.
cav and fstmoving-charge, nothing to say...just stupid
charge if impatious, lol stupid
128 diff units, its never to balance, i did said this in MI times already
too many upgrades too much money.
we need hard rules, at least for a ladder....so all would get used to it.

we need special units, units wich do theyr job.
something to counter very expensiv units, shooter who can hit something...

just a few points....


koc

[Captain Fishpants]

Given that we have unit sizes for the original realworld prototypes of Roman units (cohorts, ala, etc), we thought it was a good idea to use them as a basis for calculating unit sizes in the game. That way, at least, the proportional number of men in different formations would look right in battle.

The scaling used to interpret those 'base counts' will depend on machine speed to some degree, of course.

Other units can be sized to look right from the basic collection of Roman units.

MikeB ~ CA

[Sir Robin]

Yeah http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I like to have the option of different base unit sizes.

It will make it easier for my "senior citizen" pc to run RTW.

[hoom]

Quote[/b] ]I like to have the option of different base unit sizes.We always had that. I use max: base size =120. Normal base size is 60.


Quote[/b] ]the most problems with inbalance is about the different unitsize Actually the problem is that there is cost, stats and unit size.
It would be easier to ballance unit size/stats for a fixed cost or stats/cost for a fixed size but getting perfect ballance with vairable size/stats/cost is hard.
But then, getting a full balance was not really intended.

Perhaps you'd prefer playing chequers? without the deballancing kings?



Quote[/b] ]a 2000 man unit would spread out as much as a current full army does
Yes. A hill that seems like a solid defensive position to a normal size MTW army looks like a bump in the line of my max sized armies.
I want 2000 man units so that I can do stuff like monolithic phalanxes and vast barbarian hordes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I have no issue with keeping small units for cultures who historically did have them, but there should be the option for those that had huge 'units' to have them too.


Quote[/b] ]It would be nice to be able to asign a few units to each reliabel AI generals under your command - give a few general orders to these guysYeah Commands like 'flank left' or 'hold the right' dunno whether it should be orders before the battle only or changeable during the battle?

[some_totalwar_dude]

2000 man units.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

that would be challenging.

ever turned a 2000 man army 90 degrees?

If so, you'll understand what I mean with challenging
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[JANOSIK007]

I would go with 5 barbarians to 1 roman.
1000 to 200 sounds about fair. I'm not joking BTW.

[hoom]

Quote[/b] ]ever turned a 2000 man army 90 degrees? That being entirely the point.

I don't know a massive amount about Roman history, but we've got a book that briefly describes the battle between Romans and Macedonians at Cynoscephalae in 197BC.
About 26000 on each side.

The Macedonians had two big phalanxes with 21 foot spears & at least 16 deep.

The first Macedonian phalanx attacked the Roman left while the Roman right led by war elephants advanced, cut off & defeated the second Macedonian phalanx.

An enterprising Roman Tribune looked back from the right to see the Roman left in trouble and sent off a small force to attack the rear of the Macedonian phalanx which was unable to turn to fight them.

8000 dead Macedonians
700 dead Romans

Like I said, I want proper monolithic phalanxes & barbarian hordes because organised unit based armies were rare until much more recently.
The Romans of course had significant structure to their army & small definite units so I don't want to see huge Roman units (unless they used phalanxes about then too?).

[Cobra]

The biggest units are 200.
Most are 60-80, but barbarian hordes are bigger, or the double strength cohorts.

[Odinn]

The size of barbaric armies are mythical.
They were no where near the size of the Roman armies. Just think, the empire had somewhere around 50 million innhabitants around the start of Christian time counting. What do you think Germania had? Around 1 million.
The Roman professional army was at 300,000 by the way... There would be alot of drafting in the forests of germany yeh?

[Cobra]

Yeah, I suppose, barbarians still came out in big crazed hordes, but I don't know to much about ancient germanic warefare.

[hoom]

So how did Barbarians sack Rome at least twice then?

My understanding is that far off in the East, the early version of the Mongols (forget the name) moved West & displaced whole nations of people who moved West away from them then the people to the West of them were forced to move West to get away & so it cascaded along & Imperial Rome got hit by 2-3 huge waves of people migrating from the East.

So rather than a standing army from a static population like Rome, these were more like all the men from an entire nation kind of thing...