Unit sizes & effectiveness

[Ranges]

Hey All,

I recently started a game with the english using the largest unit sizes. That means:
spears / peasants = 200 men
archers / swords / etc = 120 men
cav = 80 men

Now, i noticed the following interesting facts:
1) archers start killing seriously now. Even vanilla archers against units with a shield (spearmen, for example) start killing about 15 - 20 enemies per shot. That would translate to 7.5 - 10 per volley in normal unit size..

2) Swords tend to survive longer

3) spears still rout fairly quickly

4) cavalry bunches up, so that the extra unit size is often just more bodies, instead of more combat power. Also, if you spread them wide, they lose maneuverability.


Did anybody notice something similar?
Oh, and does anybody else play with huge unit sizes?

Greets,
-Ranges

[katank]

tried it a bit but went back.

note that BGs are now halfed in their power due to fixed unit size and also that troops take two years to train.

retraining is still one year so keeping fragments and retraining is far better than combining.

[Tozama]

I tried it once but didn't play long.
I found the double time to build each unit was way too much for my playing style.
I'd rather get a unit in 1 year when I need him than wait 2 years for a double size.
Also the garrison needed for loyalty is doubled so you start with lower loyalty in every province and then wait 2 years instead of one to get on peasant built to counter that. I really didn't enjoy anything about the huge size option.

[Ranges]

*nods*

I noticed that too, yes.
I also noticed that byz heirs get 80() men in their BG units.. Talk about a force to stay away from in early

As for you, Katank, playing with the largest unit size might just stop you from quickly overrunning the entire world. Especially if you stay away from mercs.. :) Might be worth a try for a blitzer like you :)

[mfberg]

Blitz still works on huge unit size.
The problem I have is that income & building costs stay the same, while unit costs (except for ships) double. This makes the full stacks much more expensive and give the AI endless trouble with cash flow. Training units in 2-3 provinces for armor/valor/weapons is much more profitable, but of course the AI has no clue, and gets left behind much more quickly.

mfberg

[katank]

it actually makes instant blitz easier.

if you invade on regular size, then the AI will have 1 unit up on you due to you having to attack and not getting the unit that pops out of the castle whereas the AI on defense gets the unit that got built that year to fight with.

if you invade on odd turns, the AI will only have half a unit out and hence you'll no longer be disadvantaged.

it usually doesn't matter much anyhow but it's worth a shot.

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (katank @ July 23 2004,14:15)]note that BGs are now halfed in their power due to fixed unit size and also that troops take two years to train.
I prefer huge unit size, and those are two of the biggest effects.

A few royal bodyguard knights don't rule the battelfield any more.

It annoyed me to no end that half my army wasn't on the battlefield. It still does in large battles.

[ah_dut]

like doug i prefer large unit sizes. this lets me kick the lights out of BGs. and since i play the byz a lot... 80 men jedi units... wave https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif to ur army... https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
to me manuverability is just as important as melee power, in most situations, my use of javs and bows means i need it. by the time i need to charge, the army should have had it's back snapped anyway

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Tozama @ July 23 2004,21:35)]Also the garrison needed for loyalty is doubled so you start with lower loyalty in every province and then wait 2 years instead of one to get on peasant built to counter that. I really didn't enjoy anything about the huge size option.
Are you sure about that. I switched to huge in my third campaign and I found loyalty easier to manage.

Huge unitsizes make charging and flanking less effective because formations are thicker. Also, units become unwieldier. This is especially annoying with units that depend on maneuvwrability for their job (flankers, cavalry and HA).

[Yoko Kono]

i thot flanking and charging were far more effective on huge sizes due to the increase of men involved in the charge tho i do agree the larger unit sizes make the troops harder to manouver into effective flanking positions
overall i find huge to be a helluva lot easier particularly on the harder difficulty levels due to the fact the ai seems to have great difficulty managing its finances effectcively
it seem to be that the game was definately balanced for normal sized units
but heh they just dont look as good

[hoom]

I use large almost exclusively.
Retraining is more important/actually useful.
Units effective morale is higher because loss of 20 people (eg from a RK charge) from a 60 strong unit is 1/3 losses, while 20 lost from 120 is only 1/6 losses.
Battles go for longer.
It's harder to get decent armies.
A decent army need not consist of several stacks.
A single 120 unit is sufficient for garrison where 2 60s would otherwise be needed.
It makes camping on a hill harder because suddenly hills are effectively half their size.
Missile units kill more. Its so fun to see the effect of 6 units of arbs against attackers, especially on river defense https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[Colovion]

I've never actually switched from the stock sizes - it's always worked well for me I guess. I'll change to large sizes when I try another campaign - the Polish or Bulgarians maybe

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Yoko Kono @ July 25 2004,22:36)]i thot flanking and charging were far more effective on huge sizes due to the increase of men involved in the charge
Remember that only the front line gets the charge bonus (except if the first man is killed in the charge, but that is a minor effect): at huge unitsize, units are thicker so less soldiers obtain a charge bonus and less soldiers actually get charged.
Units are thicker because 1) units with max frontage are very unwieldy at huge, forcing you to decrease unit frontage and 2) the game only allows for a max frontage of 60 men, so you can't spread out your units to the max.

[Si GeeNa]

Well geographical features like knolls can take less units now. I used to be able to pack 4-5 units on a knoll. Its an awful squeezy now. Forest cannot take as many hiding units as well.

But great fun! especially for the battles against GH. Truly epic.

[spmetla]

Instead of using the standard way of adjusting sizes I just went into the PROD files and tripled the size of all the units. It allows me to have those huge armies I love and still pump out units each turn and it makes my armies a bit harder to control because of their massive size.

I usually also make all units except royals the same size that way cavalry is worth getting.