How many men to a unit?

[johnmcd]

How many men in a unit makes for the best gameplay. My box can happily run 120 at the highest resolutions so that is not an issue, but is it more fun to use 60 and is the answer different on campaign and multiplay games?

[theforce]

I like playing with 60 men units man

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://www.darksideshogunclan.cjb.net
Enter the Darkside...

[Link(Micke)San]

Hi....
The game is made for the 120 at first and if your computer cant handle that you go down to 100, 80 or 60....
120 gives it more tactic ways for the game. not luck as in 60 size.(in 1v1)
I allways go with 120 in 1v1, in 2v2 100 or 80 and 3v3 or 4v4 60 size.

------------------
May the honour be with you all....
-LinkSan

[This message has been edited by Link(Micke)San (edited 01-03-2001).]

[Erado San]

But many players feel that the maps are a bit too small for proper manouvers. Playing with 60 per unit is then a bit better than 120 per unit.

[Magyar Khan]

i think i do not agree with u san. imo 60 gives more tactics than 120, but i think 80 or 100 is beter. furthermore i do not think the game is designed for 120 men/unit. 120 is a fine number cause it is easy to divide it for fine squares which look even better on advertisments pics. 100 seems for me hystorical better (when playing mongols, romans, i dunno know for japanese armies). but these 100 men/units consists merely 80-100 men then always 100 men.

since the maps are small, too small spears deployed at the flanks in a verywide formation will prevent effective horseflanks.

60 men/unit is less epic, but units are higher manouvrable. u did refer the luck factor. i think it is less noticable in a game as the way u stated this here.

80 men is a good compromise, maybe i will use 80 or 100 in the 3rd Quest

[Link(Micke)San]

Hi khan..
I said 120 for 1v1 games....in those game the map isnt to small....not on my screen anyway!!!

------------------
May the honour be with you all....
-LinkSan

[barocca]

I must agree with Magyar Khan,
60 men per unit is more manouverable,
more fun, more challenge,

MUST disagree with Link(Micke)San,
AFTER testing your theory :-
the map remains the same relative size even on a 36" screen,
the men stand on same ground,
use the same space!
just the ugly buggers are bigger is all...

and luck? what is this luck factor?
I have seen 120 men units break at 100 men surviving, and 60 men units hold till only 5 men surviving...

[BanzaiZAP]

I'm usually at 80 men, both because of a slow machine, and it's a little easier to deal with. 120-man units can get kinda cumbersome, especially when dealing with things like a line of archers stretched out into two ranks. I concentrate a lot on accurate unit placement, so I like to keep unit size down. 120 certainly looks much more epic, but I'm there to kill people, not look at them. Perhaps if the camera could zoom farther out, or more effective Group management, that would help.

-- B)

[Magyar Khan]

i cant believe 120 man use the same space as 60 man per unit is that true?

[BakaGaijin]

I, too favour 60-man units for the micromanagement aspect. It's far easier to conform 60-man formations to take advantage of terrain than to attempt squishing 120 men per unit onto the already-small Shogun battlefields.

[johnmcd]

Maygar, It think that was a joke...

What about in the campaign game though, not just the tactical battles, does the faster rate of production of smaller units change the game materially?

[theforce]

We were playing a 2v2 on Aki. Units 120 men each. Well 120 men units are best for campers. They were both together on a high hill and they were covering it all with all those men. 60 men are so much better i think.

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://www.darksideshogunclan.cjb.net
Enter the Darkside...

For me 60/120-----practically the same.

I like 60 because my machine is poor and I have to use it! Also. it is standard unit size, maps are a bit too small for 120 and I simply like it more

But in 120, more kills, more blood!

Whatever....

P.S.

Maggy, 120 men take much more space and the unit is actually larger...

[This message has been edited by Terazawa Tokugawa (edited 01-04-2001).]

[Soapyface]

In SP I think increasing the unit size makes it much harder at the start of the campaign. With the size at 60 your production is way more flexible allowing you to create small, cheap, but tactically flexible armies (one of my faves is 2SA, 2YS, 2YA in the early game). With bigger units the game is more difficult as you buy soldiers in bigger and more expensive batches - but its also more impressive with more men on the screen. I'm currently playing as Imagawa with 80 size units, it's tough but I like the challenge.

[Nelson]

For scope and grandure you have to go with 120! Don't we all want 100,000 men in the game one day? I do!
The closer we get to one man = one man, the better.
Tactically you do have to be more careful with bigger units but hey, what are generals for? I think the maps are plenty big enough as is for 120 man units but again, bigger would be better here too.