View Full Version : 60 men or 200 ??
I ve tried to play some battles ( of the demo mods ) with 200 men for unit and with the classic STW 60 men for each unit ...
well the battles with 60 men/unit are much more tactic and interesting , the 200 men/units turn the field in a mess and even if i dont know if realistic or not i dont like it , units go one over the other , they hit enemies while turning a really cahotic and not that funny game .
I think 60/100 men/unit is perfect for the size of maps and computer AI .
Battles of this period often had huge snarls of men pressing in each other's way, riding through one another, etc. It WAS a mess out there. Avoiding and dealing with the hassles is a challenge I enjoy. I believe we as players already enjoy more control than any commander could have so I prefer more men to fewer. Surgical precision didn't exist. Large armies also look more awesome and grandiose.
Game wise, it is a matter of taste of course. For me, machine capacity is the only limitation I'm willing to concede regarding army size.
------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO
Stephen Hummell
08-12-2002, 20:10
Yeah, Having 200 men is a mess but it's realistic to how Medieval warfare was.
personally i'm not overly interested in historical accuracy when it comes at the cost of playability,
personally the game is more interesting with 60 to 80 men,
100 plus is too unweildy.
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
some of the custom battles created for the demo have units sizes as low as 40,
a few even as low as 20,
PLUS varying the unit size can change the importance of some units within a custom battle,
some custom battless have different sizes for diferent types, especially peasants - large unwieldy mobs of men... whereas other 'elite' units will be small in size...
------------------
Clan Doragons Medieval Website
Mods, Unit Descriptions and more
DoragonBarocca of Clan Doragon (http://doragon.cjb.net)
Personally I enjoy about 100. I find it givees me the right balance so that I have at least some control over my men. Maybe this is why I lose all the time! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
------------------
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
—Samuel Johnson
------------------
"Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense"
-Order of the Garter Motto
DarknScaly
08-12-2002, 21:15
They've added a new size now also: "Small" - with units of 20-30-50 in size (Thus mounted units of 40 on default are now 20 and 100man spear units are 50)
I've tried this and its surprisingly different in feel and how it plays out - probably something ideal for those on lower-spec systems also....
It wasnt fully balancced on my version though so hard to fully access it (indeed none of the size changes were balanced other than in units costs and production queues - so castle garrison sizes, starting units sizes etc etc all needed doing still)
Edit: So unit sizes are now: Small, (Default), big, large, huge (or similar names). As I understand it only the largest size incurs a build-penalty on construction lengths (where a 1 year production becomes 2 years) - all the others are balanced by unit support costs and cost to build.
[This message has been edited by DarknScaly (edited 08-12-2002).]
In this case, I vote for small size thus better command control.
One can always imagine that one man on the battle field actually represents 10 if one really wants to feel "awesome and grandiose".
I came from a country where some battles were fought with more than a million soldiers from both sides (don't get me wrong, I am not proud of that). So even if you set the setting to 200 men, it still doesn't impress me.
------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://www.grahamday.dial.pipex.com/rose-knight1.gif
Happily we all get to choose. If I need to upgrade my processor to use the largest unit sizes with a good frame rate, I will do it.
Quantity has a quality all its' own.
------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO
ShadesWolf
08-12-2002, 23:34
My thoughts on the subject are:
Unit size will depend on the players spec of machine and how many people will play in the game.(i.e) 4v4v16v200 is a lot of men on the field. How many Pc's can handle this. - Probably not many and then there is bandwidth.
To me it is more realistic in play/ balancing to have large amounts of peasants and smaller amounts of elite units. I mean 200 gothic knights v 200 peasants - whats the fun in that.
I hope for the online - multi-player games will have a number of gaming rooms, like in other games. ie Friendly, park bench, competitive, historic battles etc.
Papewaio
08-13-2002, 05:38
In STW having 120 man units creates an interesting challenge. Not only does it make it harder to fine tune and micromanage your forces but it makes it harder to wheel and out flank neatly.
Also it makes the Ronin far more powerful in some of the campaigns (1530 & 1550) as they cover most of the map and when rebellions occur twice as many troops appear (you still have the same amount of income) so this makes them twice as deadly.
So for higher degree of difficulty I play with 120 man units.
Right, Pape, plus the units take twice as long to raise which also adds to the planning challenge.
------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO
I'm going to go with 60. Fewer kinda loses the appeal of large epic battles while larger is going to drop my frame rate to less than a frame per second. That and I like huge kill ratios even when playing on expery. That's why I usually play Takeda since I can use yari cavalry to kill archers and chase down retreating enemies.
Emp. Conralius
08-13-2002, 10:24
well, i have a pretty descent PC, so I'll go with the largest scale possible: 16 x 200= 3,200 men.
ShadesWolf
08-13-2002, 11:08
*** emp ***
What od you class as a good spec PC ?
Papewaio
08-13-2002, 11:35
Be interesting if there was an option like dismounting where you could split your units to smaller sizes before the battle.
Or vice a versa congeal units.
Idea to maximise the 16 unit spread without having to rely on reinforcements as much.
For instance if you fielded 320 men you could split them into 20 man units.
Or attacking a river province with 4800 men you could field 300 men units.
As long as unit leaders kept integrity after the battle it could work very nicely.
Quote Originally posted by Papewaio:
Be interesting if there was an option like dismounting where you could split your units to smaller sizes before the battle.
Or vice a versa congeal units.
Idea to maximise the 16 unit spread without having to rely on reinforcements as much.
For instance if you fielded 320 men you could split them into 20 man units.
Or attacking a river province with 4800 men you could field 300 men units.
As long as unit leaders kept integrity after the battle it could work very nicely.[/QUOTE]
This was something I have been thinking about that the game needs for it's next release. A real problem with cavalry(less so with infantry) charges is trying to get all your unit to hit the right spot. If you use wedge then only the first few men get the advantage of the charge before your unit is slowed.
If you string out your unit to 2 rows only the middle bit hits home, with the rest trying to get into the action by coming across to the middle engage point rather than doing a full wrap around.
And what was more annoying than having a unit in the middle of 2 enemy archer units. If you engage one you couldn't attack the other and it would be free to keep firing on you. Definetely should be able to split and engage both. This will be even more of a problem in MTW where units rout away from you rather than in same direction. It was possible to do sheep herding tatics to rout multiple units with 1 unit, but now this will be so much more difficult and require greater micromanagement.
I think with the group functionality the best way to implement this is to have say 10 man units and be able to field say 100 units or more. You could then group whatever number you needed and even mix troop types to come up with some great formations.
Interface wise you would need a scrolling unit selection but it should be fairly easy to do and to use.
As an addition to the great battle changes that 10 man units would allow, there is also the great strategic options.
You could say choose to build 3 10 man spear units 2 10 man Archer units and 1 10 man cavalry unit in one province in one turn. i.e. a 60 men.
This would be more realistic and give some interesting choices to the player.
Again the real problem would be.. could the AI cope both strategically and on the battlefield?
This is the thing that holds back many ideas like this, great for human players though.
The Sultan
08-13-2002, 18:00
I think 60 man units are easier to control, and 200 man units are more fun to watch. I suspect smaller units eg 10-30 are more likely to rout when put in battle - I've noticed this in the demo when most of your guys are wiped out you can rally, but then they run away again pretty quickly... question is can you blame them?
yes.....yes you can
------------------
What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know.
The difference ive noticed between playng with 60 men or 200 is not related to computer power ( and i hope no one will play 200 men/unit just to see how much powerful his computer is !!! ) but to the pleasure to develop tactics during the battle , with 200 men/units you have less control on what happen ( maybe more realistic , dont know ivent saw a medieval battle live ! , but more messy too).
This is my list of good and bad things with the 2 options ...
60 Men/units
+ you have more room to manouver and so to make tactics (or ambushes )
+ formations have more impact on the battle
+or- you can win even if outnumbered
+ battles last more ( when you are routed by an horde it will pursue you to the end but maybe this can be more realistic too)
200 Men/Units
+ the AI is less disadvantaged
+ the battles are more spectacular
- somethimes its ridicolous to see enormous formations making absurd evoloutions on the field or worse touching the enemy while moving
- soon its an horde fighting
- archers have less impact beause they are soon involved in mass fighting
+or- you have to get advantage from group orders
that is of course a my personal opinion
Wavesword
08-14-2002, 04:40
Best of both worlds if units which are more manoevurable have fewer men in them, while larger units get to be all mobby.
Hirosito
08-14-2002, 15:27
and that's how it seems cA done it.. powerful knight units are 40 or something men strong whilst peasents come in bigger groups.
or have i been playing to many mods to know right from modded
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Hirosito the Baptist of the Babbiest Babe Thread.
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
GAH!
Vanya's definition of a "good spec PC":
One you bought within the last week of the time the question is posed, and amounts to the "top of the line" variant. If it costs more than $2000, it likely meets the criteria.
GAH!
The LITMUS test of a "good spec PC"...
Price alone means diddley-squat. How do you know that your purchase meets the standards set forth by the Horseman millenia ago? Easy! Play the latest TW game. If you have no problems, then it meets the standard.
NOTE: Playing any other game will not suffice to make this judgement. There is no game but TW. All else is heresy.
GAH!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.