Org Mobile Site
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.
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.
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.
Every now and then it would help if I actually paid attention to what I am doing.
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.
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. Hastatii e.g.:
Small - 20 men
Normal - 40 men
Large - 80 men
Huge - 160 men
I thought normal was 60... also i didn't realise i played on Large unit sizes until now...
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.???
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.???
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
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
Maybe it is a bug, but all the sudden I'm producing Hastatii at 130 or something. Previously all my Hastatii were 80 strong.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Edited P.S.: That post was wrong. I was looking in the wrong menu.
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.
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?
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.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?
foot horse
small-20 18
normal-40 36
large-80 72
huge-160 108
As Carthage, my shield cav. are all 54 men on default. Numidians and the like are also 54.
Larger units should make it easier to get conquered cities under control. Bigger units = bigger garrison in same amount of time.
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.
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO