Why are spear units 100 strong; other foot 60?

[econ21]

Anyone know why spear units can have 100 men and most other foot have only 60?

I can see why horse units are only 40 strong, as horse units are more expensive in real life. However, I can't see why spears would be cheaper than other foot units.

The game seems to be implicitly assume Medieval warfare was dominated by larger numbers of cheaper "line" spearmen, with smaller contingents of cavalry and more "elite" shock infantry. However, I don't think there is much historical basis for this. As far as I can gather foot troops used a variety of weapons, with the spear (lance) being common amongst even knights and other heavily armed warriors when fighting on foot. The spear later gave way to pikes and polearms, which serve similar functions but arguably do it better.

I'm thinking of modding the game so the only 100 sized units are distinctly inferior ones that represent general levies of untrained troops like peasants and maybe unreliable spearmen (not chivalric sergeant types with mail or well disciplined pikemen).

If there is a playbalance issue (eg 60 spears as is would be far too weak relative to 60 swords) that could be handled by tweaking the stats and cost.

Anyone pondered the issue of unit sizes and made sense of it? Have CA ever explained their design on this point? Anyone got any reactions to the above? Thanks for any views.

[DemonArchangel]

just a short while ago simon, you were bitching because it was standardized, now this??

[USMCNJ]

cause spear men can fight 2 people behind. so 100 make more sence.

[econ21]

Demonarchangel - "bitching", what an ugly word. Usually it denotes a complaint, which this thread is not. I love this game; I'm just trying to understand the game and medieval warfare. I just genuinely don't get the basis of the 100 vs 60 unit distinction; and it really matters given the 16 unit limit.

[A.Saturnus]

In medieval times there were no standards at all. It would be correcter if units had irregular size, but since this is a bit difficult to balance, we have fixed sizes for different units. I`m quiet satisfied with how it is now. Spearmen just need a broad and deep line to stop charges, so it makes sense to put more men in one unit. Units with short weapons do not need a stable formation to be effective, so smaller units make them more flexible.
It`s also not quiet historically uncorrect. Medieval battles were dominated by heavy cav and inf were only support. The inf was usually equiped with simple weapons that were more or less effective against horses. Short weapons like swords were rather uncommon as main weapon.

[econ21]

Thanks, A Saturnus - that's an interesting and compelling answer. I can see 60 size spear units being a little tricky to handle; ditto 100 size archers or flankers. We can think of 100 size units as being "core" infantry - the most common kind, often spears as you note. That would rationalise the 100 size spear units and also 100 size Byzantine sword units (although I have some doubts the latter existed...). It would also be a prima facie case for 100 size billmen and Gothic sergeants, but given the English army was often outnumbered and plate is so expensive they could be legitimate exceptions.

BTW, I've come to think standardising unit weaponry is a good way of opening interesting tactical choices (rock-scissors-paste gameplay). If it is an abstraction from history, well that's all part of modelling.

[hoom]

Argh back to 'reality' vs rock/scisors/paper http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Byz inf would seem to me to have the best claim of all of them to a 100 unit size.
Roman Centurians were called that for good reason and the Byzantine Empire was the tail end of the Roman Empire so it seems a good possibility that they would use 100 unit size infantry...

[econ21]

Arrse - just out of interest, are you sure there were legion type soldiers in the Byzantine army in this period? From my reading about medieval warfare (not focussing on the Byzantines yet), my impression is that the Byzantines seem to have relied on "Frankish" knights and archers, with some spears. I'm not finding the kats and massed heavy swordsmen that distinguish the Byzantines in this game.

[hoom]

Well my book on the Byzantines show them as being mostly roman in nature.
But its not really a good reference.

Well at some point they must have been using legion type troops.

I guess its quite likely they weren't still using them by the period of the game.

Its still a nice excuse though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Brutal DLX]

How about modding the files to enable two sizes of each unit (or at least the most basic ones) be built? The normal and maybe double of that, for the wealthier monarchs. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I would like to have 120 MAA or similar. (of course the upkeep cost gest doubled too).

[Odyssey of War]

Wood (for spears) is much cheaper than metal (for swords).

Also I think it has to do with the better usage of spears in line formations.

[Galestrum]

Regarding the Byzantines, it really matters which time period you are referring too. By the time of the crusades, and incrasingly so thereafter, the Romans (Byzantines) were more dependent upon (a) foriegn troops and (b) mercenaries, in Large measure due to the loss at Manzikert and the territorial losses that resulted from it. The prime "recruiting" lands for troops were in game terms: The Armenias, Rum & Anatolia, and without those lands the Empire had trouble obtaining the necessary numbers of men to field the massive armies of the past.

Couple this with the frequent internal strife of the empire, and you can see why they relied more and more on foreigners. On the one hand they had to and on the other, outsiders could be more dependable.

I am currently making my own mod for 1087 & 1205 and have changed alot of stuff regarding the Romans. There is a nice book on 1205 and on Byzantine Armies, The Late Byzantine Army by Bartusis. On a side note, it is very hard historically to tell what the Roman army was like, not much survives from this period of time in Roman history sadly, much comes from small fragments that we have pieced together, and assumptions based on that.

For instance in my mod(s), the Romans can build the following units: Alan Merc Cav, Turcopoles, Mounted Sgts, Chiv/Feud Sgts & Man At Arms, Vikings (in Crimea and Const), all Militia upgrades, Armenian Heavy Cav, in addition to those they can normally build. Allowing this, reflects the true nature of the later Roman armies, being a diverse group of peoples/cultures that lived & served the empire.

[Husar]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Feb. 17 2003,06:18)]How about modding the files to enable two sizes of each unit (or at least the most basic ones) be built? The normal and maybe double of that, for the wealthier monarchs. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I would like to have 120 MAA or similar. (of course the upkeep cost gest doubled too).
Just set the unit size to "maximum" in the options menu and voilla... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[hoom]

and learn the importance of retraining...
because the units take 2 turns to build.

[BDC]

Are there any mods out there which allow max unit sizes with only 1 turn production? I really want huge battles but two turns means the game is so much slower.

[Galestrum]

you can set unit size and production time in the crusader 11 file, for instance, in my mod i switched crusade build time to 2 years jihad to 1 varangian guard to 1 and ships to 2 and so on, its really simple. you could probably just put any numer you want in and it would take 1 year

[TheDuck]

arrrse,

As to Byzantine formations... don't know..

But regarding the Romans:

Roman centurians commanded groups that varied between 60 and 80 men (depending on when you are talking about in Roman history).

There is some evidence that later legions implemented a 'heavy century' formation in the center cohort for a legion that was made up of centuries of 120 men.

100 simply was not the standard. The number most quoted is 80, which is what I normally go by...

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Husar @ Feb. 17 2003,18:55)]Just set the unit size to "maximum" in the options menu and voilla... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Hi, I know that. But that isn't what I was suggesting...
thanks anyway.

[Elmo]

My guess is CA picked the sizes to provide variety and to allow reasonable sized armies. Too big an individual unit size and you'll hit the max men in an army too quickly. Too small a unit size and you hit the 16 unit limit before you get an army of any size.

Given the built in limits on armies, if my guess is correct then it is one of the very few areas where I'd rather see game play take precedence over good history. Armies with little variety or armies that are very small would be a bad thing IMO.

[A.Saturnus]

BDC, I suggest taking the large-units-setting. You have still quiet epic battles (about 1600 men per stack) but building times are still default.

[econ21]

Yes, the current system does seem to encourage varied armies. I suspect most SP players field armies with a nice mix of cav, spears, shock and missiles because each arm has a useful role and no one is overpowering (although the MPers currently seem to think cavalry is). That makes for fun SP play (I'm not focusing on MP here) and is quite nicely balanced.

I am wondering if the reality for the Catholic factions was more simple: that there were two kinds of basic troops, melee oriented troops and missile troops. Some - most archers and the less well equipped infantry - would fight solely on foot, others such as knights and the better equipped men-at-arms would be rather like "dragoons" with the option to do either. There may be differences in particular weapons, armour, training and morale but these would be ones of degree rather than fundamental (as opposed to the fundamental offensive shock vs defensive spear distinction in the game).

Basically, I was wondering about getting rid of the "spear/shock" distinction and allowing for larger units of men-at-arms/knights that can fight on foot or mounted. This might match up more with what I understand of history, but give less varied gameplay (no swords vs spears face-offs) and be harder to balance (rich players may max out on large units of dismountable "knight" types).

I understand the historical battles have uniform units of 100 strong - anyone tried them out? How do they compare with the normal campaign battles?