smaller general units.

[Woreczko]

Thank you, Woreczko, for the information, good to know that!

And what about my other suggestion to reduce the number of regular cavalry
- "medium" to 80 on huge
- "heavy" to 60 on huge
??? ???

I play with such unit sizes (on huge):
- cavalry 36 men, 3 rows (they have 2hp)
- slingers 48/2
- bowmen 72/3 (72 bowmen take roughly as much place, as 48 slingers)
- javelin skirmishers, roman legionaries, samnites, elite infantry 120. 4 rows if close order (<1.0), 5 otherwise.
- post marian romans, "drilled infantry" (thureophoroi, srakir martikner, neitos etc.), iberian and getai "ambusher" infantry 160/6
- Falanxes 240/10
- Close order (<1.0) infantry 240/8
- Other "non drilled", non close order infantry 200/8

What does it achieve?
- Cavalry is more manuvreable in small numbers, easier to coordinate. It`s also cheaper (they cost as if there were 72 men/unit) = more units on the field = more flexibility and variety possible. On the other hand individual cavalry units aren`t such a morale killers and are unlikely to cause rout all by themselves. Cavalry itself is more afraid of big infantry blocks.

- archers come in smaller numbers - this is to limit their impact on the battle without changing their stats. RTW does not have a proper LOS system, so you can have literally thousands of archers firing at the single target, while on flat ground. All archers armies are quite powerful because of this. Also, it`s best to deploy archers in a square-like formation, which is stupid IMHO. Small missile units are easier to manage, do not promote "square formations", pack less punch and easily rout in face of "proper" infantry. They are more of an auxilary troops, than battle-deciders now.

- javelin skirmishers are much easier to manage in 120 size, than 240....

- Infantry. My main goal was to simulate the difference between flexible roman legions and clumsy greek phalanxes. So... I simply made legions 2 times smaller, than hoplites and phalanxes. Actually 120 size for pre-marian and 160 for post-Marian maniples is historically correct. Romans are going to have multiple weak units, which grants much flexibility (whether to flank or keep reserves), while greeks few powerful ones, who pack a lot of punch, however are too few to form a viable flankers/reserves. Greeks of course still have their thureophoroi, who use similar tactics to romans - small, multiple units. This distinction helps also to diverge the role of thureophoroi and classical hoplites on the battlefield.