"Huge" unit setting

Does anyone actually play the campaign on "huge"? I have tried a few campaigns in "huge" and a few in "large" and in my experience "huge" is great in field battles, the sense of scale is amazing and especially when reinforcements come along to save the day you end up with some really epic battles....however in assaults (especially when the AI is assaulting) the game can become annoyingly jerky for me due to what I think must be the AI pathing. Add to that that the pathing seems to be broken on "huge" for assaults, it can take forever to get a few units through a gate, and try to maneouvre a unit of cavalry on "huge" around and over a town square....it can be very frustrating, not to mention when you try to flank a unit with cavalry the cavalry can run straight into that unit instead sometimes or seem to be annoyingly "attracted" to that unit which can lead to frustration.

It just seems to me like the game is too buggy to really enjoy in "huge" overall. I really enjoy the field battles I play in "huge" but when it comes to assaults "huge" really sucks.

Anyone here actually get a smooth gameplay experience on huge with full stacks in assaults? Is it just my computer? I noticed that when I pause it it suddenly becomes smooth as silk, so it's not the graphics that are slowing things down.

I wish I could play in huge - I like the economic challeges it adds. Do I go for this unit, or that one? I can only afford one...

But my lappy can't handle that...

:bigcry:

Errrm, units don't cost more on huge (If I'm not horribly mistaken here) they only pull more poeple from the cites. (Obviously)

EDIT: Can't spell

I thought they cost more, since cost is determined by a soldier basis.

They do cost more upkeep and draw more people.

I always play Large, the middle way.

I like the 80 man , infantry units.

I could play Huge, computer spec. wise, but I still prefer to play large.

:balloon2:

I love huge. It makes a big difference with things like population management (you'll have to avoid training infantry in slow-growing cities). Infantry lines work better in field battles because the line is much longer, meaning that it takes some time to move even fastest units from one end of the line to another. This is especially useful if you play with phalanxes.

i would play on huge but my computer can only handle large and that still is laggy.... if only i could

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch_guy

I always play Large, the middle way.

I like the 80 man , infantry units.

I could play Huge, computer spec. wise, but I still prefer to play large.

:balloon2:

---

Agree ~:cheers:

I can play with huge without problems, but the navigation on the battlefield is painful, and having population problems isn`t really a wanted challenge. Probably not good for the AI either.

I have modded the game so that I have an Extra-Large setting, with 100 men as the basis. It is lovely. Not as uncontrollable and Huge, but more epic than Large, not as destructive as Huge (population depletetion) but longer lasting than Large. And it is hardly lagging which can be a problem on Huge.

I urge you to try it.

That sounds good Kraxis, but what would I have to mod to make it work.

I have little modding skills, so If it takes to much work, I'll let it pass .

:balloon2:

Not much work at all...

Just change the numbers in the preference file.

You will find a line where the unitscale is mentioned and a number of your current size, change that number and start a new campaign (haven't tested with old saves). Just beware that you don't change your setting inside the game, it might cause a fallback to the old setting (which the game will still show as being in effect, but don't worry).

The bigger the better!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

The bigger the better!

---

AMEN!!

Hellenes

I typically use 80 men setting, although I've had a couple of campaigns with 120 men. That's 120 and 180 sized units. I've also played a lot of custom battles with 100 men setting too. I personally call 120 men size as 'Extra-Large', and 100 men as 'Larger'. If you can't handle huge, but large ain't big enough, edit the preferences file yourself as Kraxis has said.

I used to use normal/regular unit sizes, but when I upgraded my PC earlier this year I changed to Huge to see how it would run, and when it ran acceptably I kept that setting. It has it's share of problems (notably in siege battles) and obviously there's a lag issue to some extent, but personally I find the visual appeal and the (highly subjective, admittedly) realism/immersion factor of Huge units outweighs the other issues.

I've pretty much gotten used to it now, actually. Getting units through gates and up siege towers is still a bit of a pain, but otherwise I no longer notice any kind of economic or population penalty in the campaign or anything like that.

Antagonist

Do different unit sizes cause problems for the AI, for instance in sieges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

The bigger the better!

---

Bah, it's not the size that matters but how you use it.

I just changed my setting as advised above to 100. Works a treat - oh and I checked. Unlike Vanilla Rome (I think) this DOES raise the cost of troops :/

On huge the AI has great problems expanding it's cities, meaning that not only is the AI poor die to lack of taxpayers but also is chronically short of troops.

That's true and it makes the game less challenging because the AI has got weak troops and you've got strong

Huge units are great. The only draw back is that you'll get the 'reinforcements delayed' message more often than not on the battlemap.

That won't happen if you replace this line in the preferences file
UNLIMITED_MEN_ON_BATTLEFIELD:FALSE
with
UNLIMITED_MEN_ON_BATTLEFIELD:TRUE

True, but I don't think my computer handle more than 5000 men in one battle at the same time.. degraded performance and all that.

Reinforcements only come when sufficient numbers of either army start to rout.

If you mod that line to TRUE, is it guaranteed that you will *always* get reinforcements, or is there still a certain randomness that sometimes you will, sometimes you won't?

The issue for me is that I like it to be a little random either way - I don't want to know for sure whether my reinforcements will arrive or not. The way it is now, it seems a bit silly that my reinforcements will ONLY arrive when the number of men on the battlefield allows it. But if this changes it so they'll definitely arrive 100% of the time, I'd rather not make the change...

@ Garvanko: Yes your computer can, the only problem is that you can't have more than 20 units on the battlefield so you'll have to wait for one of your units to rout or die

@ CountMRVHS: Your forces will always arrive so you'd better not change it ;) I didn't change it too because it makes the battle more challenging if your reinforcements are coming too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreatEmperor

@ Garvanko: Yes your computer can, the only problem is that you can't have more than 20 units on the battlefield so you'll have to wait for one of your units to rout or die.

---

Sorry, I should clarify, Great Emp..

When you control the reinforcements or they are controlled by the AI, the issue of delayed reinforcements is still the same. Indeed, if you get the reinforcements delayed message, the reinforcements won't show up at all on the map until they arrive (which in this case means, until significant parts of your main army or the enemy rout). And in my experience, that always happens when there are too many men that would take part in the battle for the PC to handle without degradation or significant slowdown.

I play on huge. It's as close as I can get to the realistic scale of ancient battles. I've modded base unit numbers from 40 up to 60 so that in Huge, hastati number 240 and warbands number 360 :-D very satisfying also since it more or less preserves the balance of units (i.e. cavalry now becomes rather less effective, as it should be.) Of course, my compute lags, but who cares. It's more realistic.

Are you sure warbands reach 360? The game limits units to 240 men (with a couple of officers or more allowed also). Even if you set the units to be 360 sized, in a battle the numbers will be just 240.

I only play on huge. Anything else doesn't feel like a real battle.

i use large but i may do that prefrence editing to get to 100 ... since i got BI 1.2 seems exceptionaly smooth playing so i may up the units to 100 :)

Do larger unit settings improve the effect of units on city order/sentiment?

I have never been certain on that point, though it likely has an effect.

Yeap! Huge is the way to go for me!

The battles are just so amazing that way!!!

~:cheers:

Just like to say, even thought the battles are awesome and seem epic on huge, a real ancient battle would easily dwarf these ones. Can't wait till a game of true proportions comes out. Until then ill stick with the puny 3000 person battles. Just kidding, these are a huge leap from medieval(graphics wise at least).

Yup, warbands on 360... Works for me. If you want truly epic stuff, play the Alexander game. It's much more limited, but the scale is more remarkable :)

Hmmm immagine 60,000 some per army.... man that would rock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patricius

Do larger unit settings improve the effect of units on city order/sentiment?

I have never been certain on that point, though it likely has an effect.

---

I prefer the "large" units where infantry are 80 for the simple reason that a Roman Century was 80 men, and if I remember correctly, a Roman Cavalry unit was 30.

Maybe a small improvement could be made if we could arrange it so that we could have six centuries of 80 making a cohort, and ten cohorts to make a legion. Of course, that would use a lot more unit cards (60 I believe), so that is probably why it isn't done in that manner.

If I remember it correctly, Greek infantry units were also 80 men.

Just seems like 80 is the right number to go with.

Strength and Honor,

Celt Centurion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I have modded the game so that I have an Extra-Large setting, with 100 men as the basis. It is lovely. Not as uncontrollable and Huge, but more epic than Large, not as destructive as Huge (population depletetion) but longer lasting than Large. And it is hardly lagging which can be a problem on Huge.

I urge you to try it.

---

.
Done! ~:) It's fun and challenging in which you have to think twice before exterminating a settlement if you want to garrison it immediately. ~;)
.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celt Centurion

I prefer the "large" units where infantry are 80 for the simple reason that a Roman Century was 80 men, and if I remember correctly, a Roman Cavalry unit was 30.

If I remember it correctly, Greek infantry units were also 80 men.

Just seems like 80 is the right number to go with.

---

How many was a unit of Screeching Women or Head Hurlers back then? ~:) Not to forget Head Hunting Maidens of course. ~;)
.

I also play on "huge" and wouldn't consider playing the game on a lower setting. I have the benefit of a fast processor and lots of memory, so the only difficulties I encounter are with skirmishers and cavalry in towns - these units just don't fit very well into the restricted space inside the walls. The skirmishers are much more likely to blunder into melee, and the cavalry tends to get strung out in very long columns. This is a pain to deal with but probably also fairly realistic. I just avoid using these unit types when storming a town.

Question for pezhetairoi:

Quote:

---

Yup, warbands on 360... Works for me.

---

I've also modded most infantry units up to 240 men per unit by changing the appropriate number in export_descr_unit.txt for each unit. What I don't understand is how you have jacked the number of men in a warband up to 360. I see no way to do this for a campaign - any number in export_descr_unit.txt larger than 60 causes a show_err and any change to the preferences file for UNIT_SIZE larger than 160 acts as 160. For custom battles, changing the preferences number only appears to work on the unit selection menu. As professorspatula said earlier, it has no effect on the actual number of men per unit on the battle map.

Am I missing something here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.

How many was a unit of Screeching Women or Head Hurlers back then? ~:) Not to forget Head Hunting Maidens of course. ~;)
.

---

One screeching German woman was too many for me when I was married to one many years ago, so I couldn't tell you. Probably however many they could round up.

Head hurlers? I think it's kind of funny that they have heads to hurl even when battle hasn't been engaged yet. Probably one head per friendly casualty divided by the number that one head hurler could carry (about 6 or 7?)

Head hunting maidens, you would probably find the answer to that by counting the students of a Law School for women.

Probably the same ratio as male head hurlers? But they are not maidens.

Please don't take any of that too seriously. I tried to answer in the same context that I read the question, jokingly.

Strength and Honor Mouzafphaerre!

Celt Centurion

I left an answer for you Mouzafphaerre. Hopefully you will get a chuckle out of it as well.

Strength and Honor

Celt Centurion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celt Centurion

One screeching German woman was too many for me when I was married to one many years ago, so I couldn't tell you. Probably however many they could round up.

Head hurlers? I think it's kind of funny that they have heads to hurl even when battle hasn't been engaged yet. Probably one head per friendly casualty divided by the number that one head hurler could carry (about 6 or 7?)

Head hunting maidens, you would probably find the answer to that by counting the students of a Law School for women.

Probably the same ratio as male head hurlers? But they are not maidens.

Please don't take any of that too seriously. I tried to answer in the same context that I read the question, jokingly.

Strength and Honor Mouzafphaerre!

Celt Centurion

---

.
~:joker: :medievalcheers: ~:thumb:
.