Discussion of unit size and support costs

Hello,

I've been busy torturing poor Paladin's 1092 mod by changing a bunch of things. One of the things I've done is make all units, except for napthas, siege equipment and hashashins 60 men.

The problem, if there is one, is that any of the heavy cav now cost hideous amounts of florins to support, espcially royal knights and Ghulam Bodyguards, since those are tripple their normal size. Do y'all feel this is how it should stay?

I might have reduced their support costs some when doing the mod, but from what I've seen here and in the file it's not a simple thing at all. I'd really like some imput about this subject.

As an example, early royal knights cost 187 to support.

Thanks for responding,
V'ger gone

[Soapyfrog]

So now peasants and other low-quality troops are EVEN MORE useless!

I'd say the extremely high maintenance is a good counterbalance to the now much cheaper per unit cost.

What is the overall objective of changing all unit sizes to 60 men?

Hi,

Well, it's mainly so that all the units are on the same footing. There's been so much discussion about spears being too powerful, cav not being strong enough, I thought that if they're all the same size, then there can be a true comparison.

I don't believe this makes poor units like peasants useless, you just need more of them. I did debate on keeping the peasant classes at 100 ... I would have left peasants, muslim peasants and fanatics at 100, but decided not to, for now, to see how this goes.

Nicto?
V'ger gone

[Lord Krazy]

do you understand the idea of a base strength
modified by the numbers in the unit
and so on.This you must come to terms with first.The base strength of 40 XX men is 80
the base strength of 40 vv men is 40
so if you make the base 80 80
for both you are making a dramatic change
cost, weapon bonus,moral all these things have to taken into account
the game is based on stats been modified
so if you don't use a macro of some sort
you better be some kind of jenius.

LK

[Hakonarson]

Knights SHOULD cost a fortune compared to equal numbers of "lesser" troops.

[Soapyfrog]

V'ger: Becuase max army size is 16 and all the important abtles are fought with 16+ units you cannot have "more of them" so in order to be usefull they have to be relatively large.

Lord Krazy: what is this base strength you are talking about?

Can you explain better? e.g. Trebuchet has a base strength of 1000, other units have base strength of 1 or 80 or whatever, it does not seem to follow any logical system. I just assumed they were deprecated values.

If not I would like an explanation of what they do!

[Lord Krazy]

It's like I said it is the base strength
which is modified by other factors
such as armour piercing ability
defence bonous charge bonus
weather the unit is armoured or not
it is also modified by moral.

These are standard rules to wargaming
I can not explain this in an easy
way.

I have seen posts on stats but don't
know what they explain.

I will try to organise a tutorial if no
one else is up for it.
I don't know what the moddifiers for MTW yet neither.It's a lot of work.
CA may help on this issue if they have not already.But you must understand this
if you want to make a balanced change
even the dev team wuold have problems
with this one I reckon.

LK

[scsscsfanfan]

yes yes please LK, give us a tut!

[Soapyfrog]

Yeah, I have NO idea what the unit base strength is, really.

Now that I am told it has significance I am desperate to know!

Hi,

LK, being a wargamer from the Dark Ages (Poultron Press, nee SPI), I understand the concept. I'm not sure what the unit strength number means to the game. That's one of the reasons why I was reluctant to change the support costs (and didn't).

So far in a game I started as the Sicilians everything is going fine, I just use fewer heavy cav. Since cav is larger, though, the overall ratio ends up about the same.

What I MAY be seeing is a resurgence of cavalry and spear units being more properly related to other infantry. I stress the word may.

Vaya con gusto,
V'ger gone