Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

  1. #1

    Default Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Well, it is quite easy: Always 2x as much as before:

    Hastatii e.g.:
    Small - 20 men
    Normal - 40 men
    Large - 80 men
    Huge - 160 men

    Please take in mind that especially HUGE unit size settings of video options influence your campaign. Your upkeep e.g. will be much higher.

    I personally agree with another poster that LARGE is usually a fine choice, and saving a bit performance, too.

  2. #2
    I need to change my armor Member Sir Robin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    549

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    I never realized I was playing with Large units.

    Every now and then it would help if I actually paid attention to what I am doing.
    Sir Robin the Not-quite-so-brave-as-Sir-Lancelot,
    who had nearly fought the Dragon of Agnor,
    who had nearly stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol,
    and who had personally wet himself at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  3. #3
    Dux Nova Scotia Member lars573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Halifax NewScotland Canada
    Posts
    4,114

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Also some spear units like macedonian style pikemen and eastern infantry come in 240 man units on huge much like peasants. As well druids come in a unit of 64 on huge.
    If you havin' skyrim problems I feel bad for you son.. I dodged 99 arrows but my knee took one.

    VENI, VIDI, NATES CALCE CONCIDI

    I came, I saw, I kicked ass

  4. #4
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Talking Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by Longasc
    Hastatii e.g.:
    Small - 20 men
    Normal - 40 men
    Large - 80 men
    Huge - 160 men
    What? No more classic 60-man units? Given that Hastati have the normal unitsize.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  5. #5
    AKA Leif 3000 TURBO Senior Member Leet Eriksson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    n0rg3
    Posts
    3,510

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    I thought normal was 60... also i didn't realise i played on Large unit sizes until now...
    Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
    SFTS = The rest =


  6. #6
    Ricardus Insanusaum Member Bob the Insane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,911

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Anyone got an opinion on what is best??

    I normally used normal sized units in MTW because with Huge you could rapidly run out of room on the battle maps and have no room to move...

    Als the small point that all starting units where normal sized no matter what size you chose...

    Anyone running out of room to move in large battles of huge units???

    Also I have read that the AI factions have difficulty dealing with huge units in that they tend to depopulate themselves.???

  7. #7
    Dux Nova Scotia Member lars573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Halifax NewScotland Canada
    Posts
    4,114

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    60 is the normal size for phalanxes and peasants and eastern infantry.
    for most infantry the size progression is
    Small- 20
    Normal- 40
    Large- 80
    Huge-160
    For peasants and phalanxes it's
    Small- 30
    Normal- 60
    Large- 120
    Huge- 240
    If you havin' skyrim problems I feel bad for you son.. I dodged 99 arrows but my knee took one.

    VENI, VIDI, NATES CALCE CONCIDI

    I came, I saw, I kicked ass

  8. #8
    Member Member d6veteran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bainbridge Island, WA.
    Posts
    140

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Maybe it is a bug, but all the sudden I'm producing Hastatii at 130 or something. Previously all my Hastatii were 80 strong.
    Jacta alea est!

  9. #9

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Well, if you want some advice:

    I would suggest: GO LARGE!

    1.) The Huge setting might drain population really quickly, units would cost more and you would probably have fewer large troops instead of many smaller ones.

    2.) 80 is quite close to 100, a century...

    3.) You still have room for maneuver. With Huge units, you have no room in cities. And in the open a size 3-4 line can span whole gaps between trees or hills.

  10. #10
    Member Member Spartiate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    On the site of the Battle of the Boyne
    Posts
    422

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    There were only 80 fighting men in a Roman Century.The other 20 were involved with the logistics side of things.Every Roman unit was self-sufficient.Clever b%$£*&ds the Romans.
    "Go tell the Spartans,stranger passing by that here,obedient to their laws we lie."

  11. #11
    Member Member Praylak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Ont, Canada
    Posts
    243

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by Longasc
    Well, if you want some advice:

    I would suggest: GO LARGE!

    1.) The Huge setting might drain population really quickly, units would cost more and you would probably have fewer large troops instead of many smaller ones.

    2.) 80 is quite close to 100, a century...

    3.) You still have room for maneuver. With Huge units, you have no room in cities. And in the open a size 3-4 line can span whole gaps between trees or hills.
    Those are some very valid points. Support costs for some units are pretty high. Large seems to be a nice balance of things.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    You are right. It was commonly 80 - even according to Wikipedia. :)

    add:
    4.) Spartiate and me agree that this is the correct size for a Roman Century.

    I just wonder if the "logistics" men were not soldiers as the others, too. I think all soldiers would chop wood and help built fortifications, anyone could be assigned to that task.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion

    This is all Wikipedia has on Legions -> I am sure some people here could add some lines to that. But make sure to have some sources/evidence, there are often many contrary claims in such manners.

  13. #13
    Typing from the Saddle Senior Member Doug-Thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    2,455

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Somebody should mention that the game won't give you "large" or "huge" options if your computer can't handle it. Mine can't -- yet. Upgrade time.

    Edited P.S.: That post was wrong. I was looking in the wrong menu.
    Last edited by Doug-Thompson; 09-29-2004 at 02:54. Reason: Correction
    "In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns."

  14. #14
    robotica erotica Member Colovion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Posts
    2,295

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    I use Large - I think it's the best setting. Even when I get my new computer setup I won't change it, I'll just play more MP.
    robotica erotica

  15. #15
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Just out of interest, anyone know the sizes for cavalry units at the different settings? Are cavalry all the same size or are there some wierd cases like those 60 Druzhina?

  16. #16
    Dux Nova Scotia Member lars573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Halifax NewScotland Canada
    Posts
    4,114

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
    Just out of interest, anyone know the sizes for cavalry units at the different settings? Are cavalry all the same size or are there some wierd cases like those 60 Druzhina?
    With the exception of elephants and generals cav they are all the same size as far as I can tell. Figure out the unit sizes isn't difficult it's just a matter of math.
    foot horse
    small-20 18
    normal-40 36
    large-80 72
    huge-160 108
    If you havin' skyrim problems I feel bad for you son.. I dodged 99 arrows but my knee took one.

    VENI, VIDI, NATES CALCE CONCIDI

    I came, I saw, I kicked ass

  17. #17
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    As Carthage, my shield cav. are all 54 men on default. Numidians and the like are also 54.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  18. #18
    Typing from the Saddle Senior Member Doug-Thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    2,455

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Larger units should make it easier to get conquered cities under control. Bigger units = bigger garrison in same amount of time.
    "In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns."

  19. #19
    Member Member Alexander the Pretty Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    4,979

    Default Re: Unit Size Setting - Comparison Chart

    Played MTW on huge... no problem.

    Can't wait to see if I can play huge in RTW... in terms of "best" size AND my woeful computing power.

    I need RTW.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO