Remember when you asked me about lethality and ap and how these are supposed to work? Well, unit size is similar. We currently have a system in which unit size correlates with the professionalism of the unit more often than not (most of the time, actually). So the 90 man unit would usually perform better than the 100 man unit. Does that answer your question?
I feel I have to seriously address this matter. It isn't an "assumption" that all armies that players bring to the games should be filled to the brim with 20 units. It's a matter of balance. In vanilla RTW, you could beat an army several hundred men stronger due to upgrades especially. Because we are "limiting" (I use this word with reservation) our upgrade to the relatively expensive (single) chevron, we enforce to some extent relatively equally sized armies, with a margin of a couple hundred maximally (and rarely any more). There is good reason as to why we do this. This is EB and not vanilla RTW. Therefore, even though we are playing a competitive game, there is a reason our units were made with their descriptions, their names, their histories, and statted the way they were (and the way they are). It would be far too easy to forsake the histories behind the units by statting in such a way where numbers weren't as significant as perfecting the right combination of upgrades and unit choice. This would be disastrous to the multiplayer, to be frank. Romans can be fixed. They need not be limited to under-20 armies (and we do not want under-20 Roman armies). There have been different ideas on how to do this. I'm starting to think cheapening auxiliary units for Marian and onward sounds good primarily since it would encourage the use of auxiliary corps.
Bookmarks