http://totalwardev.blogspot.com/
Enjoy :2thumbsup:
Printable View
http://totalwardev.blogspot.com/
Enjoy :2thumbsup:
oo thanks
interesting, a lot of secrets revealed about multiplayer there, much more balanced, host has control so no more max 6 unit type or whatever, i also like the look of those scenario's
Blobbing officially defined!
:2thumbsup:Quote:
For those that responded to the last blog and were a little confused about blobbing definitions, the only issue I see with blobbing is that currently you can place one of your units on top of another of your units for combat advantage. We have done all we can to ensure that when a number of units are located on top of one another they are penalized and fight poorly. This is done through mechanics not combat modifiers and looks and feels very realistic and more importantly, balanced. Unit’s will be able to move on top of each other to ensure they can move through tight squeezes but they won’t be able to fight effectively when they do so.
"We have done all we can to ensure that when a number of units are located on top of one another they are penalized and fight poorly."
Interesting
Well, according to my reading of the blog, blobbing seems to have two definitions - stacking one unit on-top of another to make a blob with no disadvantages; and massing cavalry together in a group (blob) to throw against the enemy. Neither apparently is going to pay off in M2TW, which is good news and progress over RTW.
I've never tried multiplayer, but some of the changes from RTW mentioned sound welcome from a single player perspective: e.g. making cavalry dependent on the charge, increasing their vulnerability to missiles and nerfing the Cantabrian circle a little.
It sounds great. That's an interesting solution to the gamespeed issue that retains the fast gameplay for those that want it. If the fatigue and morale levels are well chosen, I would expect many former multiplayers to return to online play.
Not only a solution but a realistic one! Excellent, this is hopeful news.Quote:
This is done through mechanics not combat modifiers...
Goods news, i wont get my hopes up though need to try it first.
Crikey, I don't want to rain on your parade when you are making a rare upbeat post, but are you sure there is a solution to the gamespeed issue in the blog? I totally missed it on the first reading, read your post and went back - all I can find is a reference to four unit size settings, with the larger ones taking longer to play. But it's by no means obvious that a larger a unit size will be associated with slower movement speeds or kill rates. A larger unit size will lead to a longer game just because there is more to kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Or am I missing something here?
Anxious.. TOo damn anxious..
Though, am worried about the unit size thing..
Well, they certainly have worked and thought more about MP for M2TW so that is good. The added max unit stuff is something I dont like though as its not needed for the 10K that they have balanced the game for.
With the unit sizes I have seen in screenshots, large and huge setting is gonna be off limit for 4v4 games anyway: huge will be impossible and large only for uber high end pc's.
CBR
The added amx unit stuff is good though to prevent people who like to spam certain units that are very powerful if money isn't an issue
Yes but if money isnt the issue the game isnt going to be balanced anyway. Some faction will always have the most powerful unit, leaving the other factions with upgrading weaker units. Max 4 did not save MTW from being unbalanced because of that. Having no max just makes the unbalance more obvious but its still there.
CBR
happy days :2thumbsup:
Can anyone help me out, and explain to me what the difference between mechanics and modifiers is, and why this is a good thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamur
Guillaume
I guess he means that by modifier its done in an artificial way by giving units a a negative combat modifier. By mechanic its done by say making soldiers move out and not fight at all or something similar. The modifier is a direct (but more abstract) way of doing it and the mechanic is an indirect way trying to achieve the same result and in this case he sees the mechanic as the best way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guillaume le Batard
CBR
Elephants for Timurids look good.
Peasants/Serfs can't beat knights in any situation in open battle (except if is not in marche).Quote:
Cavalry Balance: No longer is there a need to cap cavalry, they kill on the charge but when they stop they are easy targets. Like infantry they cannot be selected and moved as an indestructible mass ”blob”. If you find your cavalry surrounded by enemy units and try and get out of there - bad luck, you are just too big to be missed, even peasants will thrust at your mount. Best of all missiles love cavalry, such big juicy targets, how can you miss.
Yes, it's hard to interpret what that paragraph means. Actually, I'm rather concerned that it says the "RTW speed" will be in there at all - because the standard RTW speed is a farce in my view. And if the only thing that is there to give you more time to react is more soldiers to kill, this sounds like very bad news indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
And even if combat *is* slower with larger unit sizes - which seems doubtful when I think about it - then it's still no consolation for people with lower spec machines who can't play using the bigger unit sizes.
Atrocious punctuation from CA. "era's" indeed.
That said, I'm optimistic about most of the things.
I remember one CA dev (in early RTW days) telling people just to use larger unit size if they thought killing speed was too high. I guess that opinion has not changed. ~:)
CBR
i agree, it said that something like the small size was a bit larger than RTW's medium, in which case it's not necessarily small and i cant imagine what these huge will be like.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
If half of this stuff is true, it will be worth coming back to multiplayer :).
I miss they don't tell anything about max. number of players (6/8), nor if we can play against same faction (French Vs French).
I will wait for those fatigue and morale modifiers, but overall they are very good news.
I am sure the the lone knight surrounded by a 100 or so angry peasants with pitch forks would not be too quick to agree with you there...Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
I think it would be only right that the best unit used poorly would/should be vunerable to even the worst unit used correctly...
A standing horse is easy to kill as well...
I'm afraid you're right. After all the hype, it sounds from this blog as though they have well and truly abandoned their original fanbase in favour of the RTS paradigm.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
I hope that's not the case, but that's what this sounds like to me.
Which means that once again we would have to rely on the modders to try and find kludgy fixes to the ridiculous game speed. If that's how things turn out, I may finally have to part company with the TW series.
Dam, I was thinking I'd get this on mid range settings, but I now I know small unit size is same as normal on rome, I guess that just dropped to low :/
Apart from that, this blog has made my day. Especially info abou maknig the annoying game unbalancing upgrades less useful.
I think the kill speed will have slowed down, at least a little. Otherwise there would be no time to complete those fancy new animations and kill moves... :laugh4:
just need the demo to see how the battles play out....
did they mention anything about the lobby and being able to make sense of the chat, both in game and in the lobby.
i think a few more old timers would have stuck around if chat was more userfriendly in rtw...
I think old timers would work out how to press t for chat mate ;)
I think it was more the game they where put off by, not the chat system ;)
I'm not usually one to blather on and on about what I hope they will do with the game,but if they are going to make cavalry virtually defenceless when they're not charging, then I hope they also include a command for charging and immediately withdrawing (from that fight, not the battle). I guess another option would be to make cavalry strong enough to charge straight through several ranks of infantry, killing some and just running past others. Even in MTW single player, you could get into trouble if you let your cavalry charge a flank, and then didn't stick around to micromanage it back out of there. You could give it an order to run to another spot on the battlefield, but as soon as a unit took a swing at them, your cavalry would stop and fight.
Sounds like they've also gotten away from the rock, paper, scissors thing. There's no reason I can think of that armored men on armored horses weilding swords and/or lances shouldn't be able to fight a stand-up battle against armored men on the ground weilding swords, or clubs, or axes, or pitchforks, etc.
Of course a horde of peasants should be able to deal with a single knight, but no way should a unit or two of peasants be able to deal with a unit of knights, even if it is a prolonged static battle.
the 3v2 seige game sounds like ace fun!
Hearing that from Puzz3D. Never thought it could happen...Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I really like the stuff he's talking about and for the first time I might really go into the TW Multiplayer experience big time. With M:TW I didn't have a connection to the internet, with R:TW the gameplay bugged me off.
M2:TW seems to be progressing well. Only problem I have now is to get a computer that will let me play it online without lags due to the bad performance of my system. :dizzy2:
Cheers!
Ituralde
We'll see...
Sure it's better news that if they had done nothing to fix all that, but it's still not going to make me buy it on release. I'll need to hear from Yuuki, Mordred and CBR once the game is out before I consider buying it.
A lot of that shall have been done a long time ago :embarassed:
Louis,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
I interpreted "game speed" to be both movement and fighting speed. The adjustable speed setting affects everything including momement, and all CA has to do is link the unit size selected to a speed setting. I'm assuming here that they have made reasonable walk/run speed ratios.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Even if it isn't the case, we know the movement speeds have been slowed to some extent from the reports and brief video of the preview in Germany. It's also clear that the unit size doesn't change by a factor of 2 on each step as it did in RTW because small is larger than RTW normal and normal is similar to MTW normal. In RTW, going from normal (40) to large (80) skipped over MTW's normal (60). So I'm thinking that M2TW large will be around 80.
Palamedes has played MTW online. I don't see how he can say large unit size will be a "tactical extravaganza" if it doesn't approach that of MTW. He was supposedly hired by CA to help them bring back the tactical gameplay that was lost in RTW. Since they are addressing things such as overlapping units and worrying about upgrades unbalancing the game, I can't imagine them sabotaging that effort by not providing a game speed that allows for substantial tactical thinking during a battle.
Well, Puzz3D, no disrespect, but the world has turned upside down when you are more optimistic about M2TW than I. But in the text you quote there is no clear reference to their being settings for game speed - the main text only talks about adjusting unit size. I agree that an "adjustable speed setting" would be the easy and obvious solution to the debate about whether RTW was too fast (let the players pick the speed they are prefer). But do you have any information such a setting is in the game? What you quote does not convince me it is.
I am more open to the idea that M2TW will play slower anyway, without an adjustable setting, but I'd need to play the demo to be sure.
There was a big difference between normal and huge init size in RTW. GilJaysmith suggesed playing on huge in answer to players saying the gameplay was too fast. It didn't work. It was still too fast. Palamedes knows this. How can he be claiming that battles with large unit size in M2TW are a tactical extravaganza? His paragraph indicates that both types of players will be satisfied, by choosing the appropriate unit size. I think there has to be something to this other than simply larger unit size because that solution didn't work in RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I can see a gamespeed setting in the pictures. So, there is a gamespeed setting. I suspect it cannot be set below 1.0 by the player, but the game could do it based on the unit size selected. Palamedes is using the term "gamespeed". I hope he isn't making a new definition for this term for his blog.
If one sets the standards low enough, even slower killing/routing will mean wonders to tactics ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I really doubt its something advanced as different movement setting, just because of different unit size. I think its pretty simple: the more men per unit the more ranks and the longer it takes before a units gets killed off. And that certainly works in RTW and was IIRC what GilJaysmith was thinking about when he recommended increasing unit size.
Some of us hardcore people thinks in terms of movement rate AND kill rate, but I guess some people just put that together into one term like battlespeed, gamespeed or whatever.
CBR
Strangely, I find myself agreeing with Puzz (I say "strangely" because I've not been terribly optimistic person in regards to the game either). I also took Palamedes to mean that the actual battle speeds has been reduced, and not that the pace would be slower simply because units are larger. Were it otherwise, I'm quite certain Palamedes would've said so.
As econ and others have pointed out, however, playing the demo should give us a pretty good idea one way or the other.
Well overall seems like terrific news! I am estastic with the news of their efforts to solve some of the issues surrounding MP! I will remain optimistic and hope for the best! :cool:
we can judge by the demo when it is out
Yea i tried to argue that once but these people need something to do between now and Oct 14-30. So they like to speculate and juggle :juggle2:
Great news, great news indeed. I played a scarce few games in MTW online, but the ones I do I remember and cherish. I remember having a classical battle in a 3v3, in which my opponent and I dueled out with skirmishers and Pavise's for a bit when our fellow teammates launched massive attacks at each other from the start. Suffice to say, I came out on top, just barely, and mopped up the battlefield with my intact army. My allies and enemies across the field had all but annihilated each other in the melee.
In RTW, my only memories are people spamming 15 Egyptian pharaoh cavalry and 5 Egyptian royal archers, and never being able to beat the vicious blobs or cheap tactics that ruled.
This news on the return to the MTW kind of multiplayer is heartening, and I hope that it will play out more like MTW, and not RTW.
And guys, how about instead of speculating about combat speeds and such and tearing into each other's opinions, we wait for the next Blog? He has clearly stated that the next blog will be about morale and fatigue. And considering they most likely know most people the frequent a developer blog are hardcore fans, his statement that we'll love the upcoming news seems like a good sign to me.
I honestly think you guys are kidding yourselves. I cannot see CA taking the time to create different game speeds for different unit sizes. They've already told us a dozen times that kill speeds and so on are synchronized to soldier animations. How could they program different kill speeds in such circumstances? It would be a nightmare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Nope. This is just about larger unit sizes taking longer to defeat in my opinion. And I'm sceptical that this will lead to a "tactical extravaganza" for the simple reason that while there are more soldiers to kill, there also more soldiers to do the killing. So I can't see that larger unit sizes will have that much of an effect on the game.
Which means in turn that the game is still going to be much too fast for the average tactical gamer. Naturally I'm hoping this is not the case, but it seems to be the logical conclusion from what's been said in this blog.
Anyhow, as others have said, the demo will clear up a lot of these questions one way or another. Hopefully it's not too far away now...
The reason that huge size will result in slower gameplay and that it allows you to think over your tactics is simple: the games will lag as hell! :wink:
Larger unit size is nothing more than larger unit size. Don't get your hopes up that it introduces some extra modifiers to speed or morale. If it does then I can't understand why those modifiers aren't being seperated from unit size setting.
They already have different gamespeeds, and it slows down or speeds up everything including animations. If they don't offer a slower speed setting, it's because they don't want to. How can Palamedes use a term like "tactical extravaganza" if the gameplay is going to remain like RTW? RTW wasn't a tactical extravaganza with huge units, and Palamedes knows it.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
The demo has no multiplayer, no campaign, unfinished AI, unfinished battle mechanics, jacked up units and scripted battles. I played the RTW demo, and it did not prepare me for the absolutely abysmal RTW multiplayer.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Took the words out of my mouth. The tactical extravaganza will be trying to control the curserQuote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
........Orda
Yeah but that sort of gamespeed change just speeds up everything across the board. If they had a mode that was actually slower than x1, that would mean units would be moving, firing and attacking in slow motion. Is that a viable solution for the speed problem? Doesn't sound like much of one to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Technically you may be correct, but experientially, I found little difference between the RTW demo and the game when it was first released. So the demo certainly gave me an adequate sample of what the game itself would be like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Multiplayer is obviously a different kettle of fish, but you MP guys soon found the battles to be too fast just as the SP crowd did. So it's not as though you are going to learn nothing from the demo. Indeed I suspect you'll be just as keen to get hold of your copy of the demo as the rest of us Puzz ~;)
Well at least it can't be worse than RTW MP. If a 0.1b mod can improve on the original game, you know something is seriously wrong with it. Hopefully some people got their knuckles wracked.
What a bunch of cynics! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
Since x1 is fast and furious, x0.7 would not be slow motion. If they don't provide that, they are clearly not interested in attracting the type of player to which the game originally appealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I'm not going to base my decision to purchase the game on the demo.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Well yes, I guess that is a possibility. I'd certainly love to see something like that, I just don't want to get my hopes up until I've heard something definite I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Me either. I'll be waiting to hear what your opinion is ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Well said!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrine_Tergiversate
This blog was interesting, thanks for bringing it up.
Well, just let you guys know (as it seems it is not obvious) that it is one of the most skilled and experienced MP players doing the game balancing (and wrote this blog). Not me ... ~;p (which is a big change compared to rtw)
So have faith, as I have, that MTW2 will be much different than rtw or bi, I hope even better than MTW.
so Simurgh you can preorder your copy, you too CBR and Yuuki ~;)
Also tell Marco to visit the RTK forums more often, you can come too ~D
but what if the talk was only for the sake of good publicity
haha I on other hand already love the game and long as demo isn't horrible I'll buy it. I mean your only other option is wait for mods, or go back to older games. Not like there's a flood of Total War games.
I'm personally very happy. I see some new features and better testing. So huzzah to CA :2thumbsup:
I'm pleased with this. It seems the developers have addressed most of not all of the main issues that MP fans found wrong with RTW. They look to be taking our concerns seriously.
People are getting too fired up about the unit speed issue its already been perviously stated that the standard unit speeds have been lowered. If you play STW or MTW on small units in multiplayer that will be pretty fast and furious too i bet.
No way I preorder it... I'll wait a couple of months before looking at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
There were enough argument about what good balance was in MTW among the vets from those days that I would not trust any of them to achieve a balance that would get a large approval :dizzy2:
I would trust none of the MTW MP players to balance MTW2 on his own.
Not to mention, I was not aware there were any skilled and experienced players within RTK :inquisitive: ...
(well, if you still have contact with them, send my greetings to Aelwyn, Lamorak and Marco... and I remember a few games with Gareth and Goedfrey too; let's hope we'll all meet soon again on a battlefield)
Louis,
Then you will be waiting for too long ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
Of course, I dont want to force you to preorder anything, it is just a statement that I am lot more optimistic than most of you guys. ~;)
This is fair enough. However, I assume any of those proposed solution to MTW were better than the rtw gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
I did not hear this part ... ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
Aelwyn is still in RTK though inactive, Lamorak visited a few month ago, Marco, hm ask CBR or Yuuki ... I have not heard much about Garteh and Goedfrey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
I too hope to meet you soon on the battlefield and if you install the NTW2 mod for rtw then we can do it even today ~D (provided you have rtw at all ~;p ). It is a very good mod, completely different game from rtw or even from bi, maps are beautiful and functional, terrain is important again ... well I could go on praising this mod for a few more paragraps but you really need to try it. It is a shooting game of course, so somewhat similar to shogun but still different enough. All credit to the Lordz ofc ~;)
We just dont know how much its lowered. They could do a 5% reduction and claim they have listened to the community but that is not gonna make me run out and buy the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by buujin
CBR
gareth and goedfry are still alive and well... gareth still plays ntw occasionally, and goedfry is busy filling the ranks of his castle with babies, ready to carry on his father's name :)
Official statement from the SEGA site:
"Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever."
In light of this, I would now interpret Palamedes', "On small you will have a unit size slightly bigger than RTW’s normal that will play very similar, fast and furious.", to mean faster than RTW.
Hmmm. Conflicting stuff...
Quicker pace might means faster combat animations. In RTW most modders had to decrease the delay between strikes because they found it slow and not realistic or eye candy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Just an idea.
I never played multi.player
Don't forget that SEGA will exert pressure on CA to change the game to how SEGA thinks it should be. Activision did the same thing and got changes, and they didn't even own CA. Some of the changes that Activision insisted on in MTW were removed by CA in a patch. Despite what Palamedes says and what the demo shows, the game could be changed due to pressure from SEGA, and it's clear that they want it to play faster than RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtibero Mordred
How is it "clear"?
Official SEGA site
Features:
* Bigger and better battles. Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever.
I lost my faith when playing RTW demo and nothing since then has given me a reason to change my mind. The M2TW demo did not show me any real improvement. New improved uber graphics just doesnt sucker me into buying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
CBR
"Quicker pace" could mean anything though, from less provinces to conquer, less turns to play, better micromanagement tools, faster unit response to orders and so on. It could also be nothing more than a bit of empty marketing spiel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
hey ppl i got a petition link for a ME 2 multiplayer campaign,
http://www.petitiononline.com/2908jt01/petition.html, please sign it and spread
the word.
Multiplayer campaign, how would you implement such a thing...what everyone would just sit theirt whilst two guys fought battles, whilst people took their turns.
Don't think so mate. CA have heard this all before too.
I say the same thing here about the petition that I've said everywhere else you've spammed this around the forums:
I wonder if you 'petitioners' for a mulitplayer campaign have actually really thought about how it would work? 'Cos TW campaigns can last quite a long time, even taking a single turn for a single player can go upwards of an hour when his empire gets large. So, given that players aren't going to be online playing for several weeks continuously you're going to have to compromise on something. If you want to keep the camp map and not too bothered about the battles then we have a pretty servicable RTW multiplayer campaign mod already. If you want to keep the battles and are prepared to accept a more stylised campaign map then the Lordz are testing an online multiplayer campaign run through a website.
"Multiplayer campaign, how would you implement such a thing...what everyone would just sit theirt whilst two guys fought battles, whilst people took their turns"
Funny, there are lots of turn based strategy games with multiplayer. I guess it *is* possible to just sit there while the other guy is making his move.
Granted this won't have a particularly wide audience, and will be a huge time investment (an ongoing campaign would, I estimate, take weeks to complete rather than a quick field battle taking an evening) but that can be said of other games. (Civ, for example).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Gah, I got all excited with the demo and so.. Though, screwtype has covered it I guess..Quote:
"Quicker pace" could mean anything though, from less provinces to conquer, less turns to play, better micromanagement tools, faster unit response to orders and so on. It could also be nothing more than a bit of empty marketing spiel.
Ok I won’t blog this as it seems more of an issue for you guys than a concern for the general public,
The larger a unit is the more ranks deep the unit is when used. If you don’t believe me, and don’t worry you won’t be the first, play with the different unit sizes and check it out for yourself. This occurs due to the playable area staying the same size, no matter what unit size you use you will position the camera in the same position and the surrounding objects will remain the same size. This means when players drag and drop lines of units or move units around objects or through breaches the units end up thicker (more ranks) and thicker units means slower combat. Why slower; because a smaller percentage of the unit is involved in combat at any given time.
In addition game physics don’t change, these include: the size of a soldier; the speed it travels; and most importantly collision mass. If two small units with the same collision mass collide they inflict a larger proportion of casualties on first contact than if they were bigger units.
This is why the unit size counts. When units are larger combat speed is slowed and the influence of first contact is reduced, in my opinion it is the most important factor in establishing game pace. Start up RTW and play the same custom battle on both small unit size and huge. Try your best to make the huge game play as fast as the small. If you know how to enable PR camera you will get halfway there by raising the camera to the heavens and dragging thinner lines.
Competitive MP players look for a unit size that ensures the game runs fast and achieves the correct game pace. In my opinion RTW normal was too small (faster pace) and large was too large (slower pace) and small, well might as well Ctrl-A double click and toss a coin. In addition to RTW players using smaller unit sizes, the individual soldiers did not maintaining personal space allowing blobbing which resulted in an increased effect when colliding. The game became one of blobs with players ensuring they had enough mass for the first contact to try and cause mass casualties and chain routes.
Anyway I hope this gives you an insight into what was meant. Mechanics like blobbing have been fixed, collision masses have been reduced, combat stats have been scaled down, and most importantly you will have 4 unit sizes that allow for all types of game pace.
Jason
Thanks for the explanation and insights, Jason. :bow:
Shouldn't palamedes now appear in "CA Staff" group? :D
PS. Thanks for the info mate :)
Thanks for the clarification Palamedes. STW Total War multiplayer used to play fine with 60 man units. The fastest combat resolution was about 30 seconds (no-dachi vs no-dachi), and the slowest about 2.5 minutes (naginata vs naginata). Part of this was because in multiplayer you bought the units at honor = 2 which gave +4 morale to every unit. With MTW, units were purchased at valor = 0 and the +4 morale was lost resulting in easy routing. I had expected the +4 morale of STW to be included in the valor = 0 units of MTW. The only way to regain the lost morale in MTW was with upgrading. With VI, +2 morale was added, but multiplayer really needed the full +4 morale.
The 60 man unit size retains good maneuverability. Huge unit size (2x normal) reduces maneuverability considerably, and of course it means slower framerate. So, it would be nice if normal unit size gave a kind of gameplay where 2 weak units could defeat a unit 2x stronger by one of them engaging frontally in hold formation while the other executed a flanking maneuver to attack the rear of the strong unit. Of course, the cavalry units are smaller than the infantry and will retain good maneuverability even with infantry unit size larger than 60.
Interesting logical account Palamedes-san, as a player who doesn't use mods or plays online, I'm still very much concerned with battles being so quick that it resembles a shooter more then even a click fest RTS. I guess it is my old age (33).
I have gravitated to huge units for three reasons, after doing a metagamming min/max campaign with the Greeks.
1) It seemed like better gameplay. It 'felt' better and although I lost manouverability (which too me felt more realistic) I gained a slower pace of play in which my actions and reactions had an impact. When playing huge I feel like I am indeed a general and that my units are reacting to my commands (slowly just as if they had to be given via drums, horns and flags) and that my input was actually part of the gameplay rather then click and hope.
2) With phalanx armies larger units look so much better and wheel so slowly that they have that grandeur of mass, much like seeing a large ship comming into port.
3) On a strategic level larger units made it easier to manage cities. Lots of peasants/town watch guarding cities and sheer numbers helped.
4) Metagaming/cheating/population exodus. Playing the Greeks I really, really, absolutely wanted Spartans as soon as possible. Put the settings on huge units, made peasant units in all my non-critical cities ,with fertility temples (particularly rebellious ones), and marched the peasant units to Sparta where they were disbanded. Sparta had a population growth each turn of one to two thousand. This netted myself the Spartan warriors very early and caused the revelations of points 1 to 3.