Decide once and for all: 60,80,100,120

[Foonslice]

I've been playing shogun for a very long time now and I was wondering what other people like to set their options to. Is it 60,80,100 or 120 men per unit. I was also wondering if anyone feels there is any tactical advantage to picking any of these selections. Personally I set mine to 120 because I think an army of 1920 looks more impressive than an army of 960.

Oh yes and when 3840 men are fighting each other on the battlefield it really is a sight to behold!

[clink]

Agree...lots of murder and mayhem.
Some people like smaller units cause there more manageable than larger units.
An army of 1920 does look impressive marching off to battle in formation.
Now what game gives you that?

[celtiberoijontychi]

In single player i play with with 120 men units just to increase difficulty, but sometimes I found they were too big for the old STW maps, river crossings and the like.
A full 1960 men army takes almost the whole map i set up in a single row. Now with the new large maps things may become different.

[Khan7]

Hmm.. I will have to playtest it a bit, but it would SEEM to me that having 120 or thereabouts units would accentuate the difficulty of STW requiring EVERYONE to form a PERFECTLY straight line, thus being unable to form along geographical features that curve..

Matt

[BSM_Skkzarg]

I must be in the minority here - I prefer 60 men units. The reasons are many, but here is a short run down. First, my machine - gameplay is much better with lower men per unit. If you have a screamer, use it. I don't - nuff said. Second, I don't care for the larger sizes as the do make my army more "Spread Out". Not to mention, having a larger army decreases the effect of moral, as it is based on percentages of damage taken, percentage of men fallen etc, at each morale check. Thus, with more men, you have units staying in battle longer - which correct me if I am wrong - but lots of people have been screaming bloody murder over the morale issue already - why use larger units that skew it more?

Those are my 3 MAIN reasons.


------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

[Didz]

I always use 120 men per unit.

Just because it makes the units look more realistic and impressive. However, I suspect it causes more problems for skirmishing units that frequently get cut up when they change facing due to their extended frontage.

It also makes it harder to fit some units into the smaller woods and hilltop area's.

[jomni]

although a large armay may be impressive to watch i use only 60 to make more room for tactical maneuvering.

[The_battlefield_geisha]

60, though I like 100 as it is easy to gauge unit strength and seems like a natural figure. Have stopped using 100 though as its just easier to wheel around with 60 man units.

Might go back to 100 though as it does increase difficulty imo.

[Catiline]

60

[TosaInu]

60

[johnmcd]

I raised this a while ago (ten months maybe) and then the consensus was 60 as otherwise the maps are just too small for much in the way of tactics. Also, you are afforded greater flexiblity in your army as units cost half as much and build faster meaning you can have more varied and more interesting battles earlier. You are not reduced to slamming a few large units into each other.

60 is better.

[Pussiecat]

60 and 60 only - if a game has more than this i wont join.
A few reasons really, 1st is that the first game i played at 120 units - i just didnt have a clue and it took me so long organising my troops what with moving camera from one end of map to ther that i wasnt just destroyed, i was humiliated. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

next up is the manuverability - like i said, moving the cam from one flank to the other takes time, and i like real instant control over all my units. Although double clicking on a unit to move the cam over it is all well and good, sometimes you dont know which unit is where, so you just have to scroll the cam, which takes time. Also 60 men - half as wide so flanking is more of an option as an army isnt from one end of the map to another, so it takes 1/2 as long for you to reorganise if need be.

and Lastly, and most important for me - i like to be able to see more than one unit on my 9" monitor! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[DragonCat]

On online play - 60 - no argument. Gotta be able to scoot and move and reform positions quickly.

Single player I set to 100, easier to do the math for reforming units ;-)

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

[solypsist]

Yeah I'm a 60 man unit person myself, purely because I don't like waiting two season just for one unit.
Any word on whether 120 man unit setting results in a bigger unit of battlefield ninja?

[Whitey]

60 man units is what the game was intended for, thats what it started at, the units are more manouverable, but I have never really paid any attemtion to the sizes really, in online play I have never cared what size units my opponent had - I just played the game, its a different expierence but personally I don't care in MP, in SP however I always use 60 1. because I like units every turn 2. because the game runs quicker 3. because Kensai are less useful at that setting and 4. it messes the train vs build question around choosing 80 or 100

[Shiro]

60

That's the way it goes. Mostly for my computer. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[Khan7]

Well, one thing larger units WON'T do is make Kensai less effective. Perhaps Kensai still come one per pop, but they still only cost 600koku and only take 4 seasons to build, whereas all other units, though doubled in size, cost twice as much and take twice as long to build.. u see?

I just don't like the large units because it accentuates many of the inflexibilities in the Shogun engine that are more manageable with 60-man units.

Matt

[JAG]

60 for online and for single player!

------------------

Watch out for that. . . . . Dam too late!. . . the story of my life!

WarlordWarrior

[Shoko]

60 also http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[KumaRatta Yamamoto]

60

[kain]

80 :P
haha! didn't see that coming did you?

[Hosakawa Tito]

60 for all the previously stated reasons.

[Pod]

60

[The_battlefield_geisha]

At 100 unit size the battlefield ninja come at size 12 but you can reform them (mix two stacks) and make a size 16 unit. Im not sure if this increases with 120 sized armies.

[Gothmog]

60.

Maybe this is because I am a perfectionist. I don't like losing total control of my units simply because there is not enough room on the map, or because the units are spread out too broadly.

And imagine those huge battles where multi-clan armies clashing agaisnt each other... It'll be a huge mess with 120 men setting.

[Gothmog]

Also about the "realistic" thing.

1000 men, 2000 men, which one is more realistic? Neither.

Even in a small country such as Japan, historical campaigns were fought on a much larger scale than that.

BTW, about the koku thing. You control half of the Japan, and you can't even collect 10,000 koku in one year? In "reality", that's hardly enough to cover the expense of a tiny FRACTION of one single province.

[jomni]

I agree with the previous post. Historically battles are fought by 50,000 to 100,000 troops per side... even more.

[celtiberoijontychi]

I like the 120 in SP cos they add dificulty: you have to wait 2 seasons and they cost a lot of money, while the AI can compensate this with its finantial advantages, so it's harder to win the campaign.
In MP 60 is the choice: better tactics, flexibility and LESS LAG.

[Koga No Goshi]

I have to confess, I'm a fan of 80 too. When I was a total newbie and only played SP, 80 men seemed to come as the default unit size for some reason, yet when I'd start a new campaign all the pre-set units on the map were 60. So then all the new units popping out were 80. I always found that strange but went with it and got used to 80. For online, definitely 60.



------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Hokusai"
Now as a spirit
I shall roam
the summer fields.

[Pachinko]

I like the 80 too.

Your right Gothmog BTW the Uesugi Clan was 1200 koku and the Takagawa Ieyuasu 2500 Koku for I Daimyo!!!!! In time was Sekiahara.

P.

[This message has been edited by Pachinko (edited 09-10-2001).]

[Koga No Goshi]

yeah, I think the total assessed koku income of Japan at the time of Sekigahara was around 17 million koku, and after Sekigahara, Tokugawa personally had like 5 million as his income.

Individual provinces were usually in the range of hundreds of thousands of koku each.



------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Hokusai"
Now as a spirit
I shall roam
the summer fields.

[Forward Observer]

Actually I got pretty good with 31 man units. In the original STW I always started with 60 men but always ended up with exactly 31. Every unit always seemed to loose exactly 29 men in battle. I tried to get an extra man killed so I could combine units, but they just wouldn't cooperate. I began to think that 31 was the default number after battle.
I don't know how many freaking battles I fought with 16 units of 31 men.

Thank goodness that the Warlord Edition has solved my problem by allowing unlimited combining of similar troops. Of course the one and two man units left over are really great for beer and pizza runs, so everybody is happy now.

Cheers

------------------
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.



[This message has been edited by Forward Observer (edited 09-11-2001).]

[Grim]

60. It is easier to Maneuver around patches of forest (or units) and for the 1 unit/turn reason.

------------------
"Je vous repondrai par la bouche de mes canons"
-Frontenac
(I will answer you with the blast of my canons)
-Trad. libre

[jomni]

I'd like to comment on some messages talking about koku. KOKU is a measure estimating the amount of rice (or other produce) needed to sustain an average japanese family for a year. Having a few hundred koku as income per province means that there are only a few hundred families. = )

[Chiyonofuji]

I'm a 60 man, for all the reasons previously mentioned. But it's nice to change it throughout a campaign if you require a larger number of a particular unit against particular enemys forces.

[Nelson]

120 always

It looks MUCH better while conveying the ponderous nature of maneuvering large numbers of men.

[Pedders]

Forget the morale issue. If you are using 120 men per unit then so is the enemy.

The most unrealistic feature of this (and any similar) game is the battlefield omnipotence.
You can see all your units, pass orders instantly, and have them carried out instantly. Anything that makes moving bodies of men more awkward, increases decision making stress and therefore fun.

[Anssi Hakkinen]

I originally switched to 120 before even playing the game, simply because it was in the performance options, and I wanted to set everything to max to show off my computer. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

But 120 is indeed more impressive - after all, the *really big* armies are what STW as all about. Furthermore, 120 man archer/gun/x-bow units are tremendously devastating.

[celtiberoijontychi]

Quote Originally posted by jomni:
KOKU is a measure estimating the amount of rice (or other produce) needed to sustain an average japanese family for a year. Having a few hundred koku as income per province means that there are only a few hundred families. = )[/QUOTE]
Nope. Having a few hundred koku as income per province is your tax revenue, not the economic output of the province. BTW I thought 1 koku was the amount needed for one person, not one familiy.
But you're right: even this way the province would have only a few thousands of inhabitants.

[Khan7]

Well, one thing that deserves saying is that actually the sizes of armies in STW aren't entirely unrealistic. You'd be surprised at how small the Sengoku Jidai armies were in many cases. If the movie Ran is any indication, engagements involving 1000 men or less per side would not have been unusual.

I'm not a Japanese history buff, but I believe that you only started seeing particularly large armies nearer the end of the period when things were more consolidated, and even then you're looking at armies of about 10,000 to 30,000 tops.

If you want to get into realism, I would just have to say that the entire way in which STW handles the raising, equipping, and maintainence of troops is entirely wrong, which is linked to the additional problem of it handling the construction, maintainence, and effect of buildings entirely wrong. I'd say any major discrepancies you see between the game and reality are primarily due to the two big above-mentioned factors.

Again, I'd have to say that I like 60-man units, not because I have more control, but because it mitigates some of the problems caused by the inflexibility of the unit behavior algorithms in STW.

Matt

[candidgamera]

80 man units:

*much easier to recombine it seems, more staying power.
*still only costs 1 season to build, 100 costs 2.
*biggers also seems to be more unwieldy over
available terrain.

(comments based on still playing old STW.)

[Mercia]

80 in SP campain; only one season to build.
120 in SP custom battle; large armies are more impressive.

[NOLA_Jay]

60 anything larger tends to be way to tought to control, but it does look great when you use larger armies.