"Huge" unit setting

**Sun Tzui** · 11-23-2005, 01:08

Yeap! Huge is the way to go for me!

The battles are just so amazing that way!!!

**Saracen_Warrior** · 11-24-2005, 03:53

Just like to say, even thought the battles are awesome and seem epic on huge, a real ancient battle would easily dwarf these ones. Can't wait till a game of true proportions comes out. Until then ill stick with the puny 3000 person battles. Just kidding, these are a huge leap from medieval(graphics wise at least).

**pezhetairoi** · 11-25-2005, 06:45

Yup, warbands on 360... Works for me. If you want truly epic stuff, play the Alexander game. It's much more limited, but the scale is more remarkable :)

**Rilder** · 11-25-2005, 09:33

Hmmm immagine 60,000 some per army.... man that would rock

**Celt Centurion** · 11-27-2005, 00:28

Originally Posted by Patricius

Do larger unit settings improve the effect of units on city order/sentiment?

I have never been certain on that point, though it likely has an effect.

I prefer the "large" units where infantry are 80 for the simple reason that a Roman Century was 80 men, and if I remember correctly, a Roman Cavalry unit was 30.

Maybe a small improvement could be made if we could arrange it so that we could have six centuries of 80 making a cohort, and ten cohorts to make a legion. Of course, that would use a lot more unit cards (60 I believe), so that is probably why it isn't done in that manner.

If I remember it correctly, Greek infantry units were also 80 men.

Just seems like 80 is the right number to go with.

Strength and Honor,

Celt Centurion

**Mouzafphaerre** · 11-27-2005, 01:28

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I have modded the game so that I have an Extra-Large setting, with 100 men as the basis. It is lovely. Not as uncontrollable and Huge, but more epic than Large, not as destructive as Huge (population depletetion) but longer lasting than Large. And it is hardly lagging which can be a problem on Huge.

I urge you to try it.

.
Done!

It's fun and challenging in which you have to think twice before exterminating a settlement if you want to garrison it immediately.

.

**Mouzafphaerre** · 11-27-2005, 01:43

.

Originally Posted by Celt Centurion

I prefer the "large" units where infantry are 80 for the simple reason that a Roman Century was 80 men, and if I remember correctly, a Roman Cavalry unit was 30.

If I remember it correctly, Greek infantry units were also 80 men.

Just seems like 80 is the right number to go with.

How many was a unit of Screeching Women or Head Hurlers back then?

Not to forget Head Hunting Maidens of course.

.

**Atilius** · 12-01-2005, 15:17

I also play on "huge" and wouldn't consider playing the game on a lower setting. I have the benefit of a fast processor and lots of memory, so the only difficulties I encounter are with skirmishers and cavalry in towns - these units just don't fit very well into the restricted space inside the walls. The skirmishers are much more likely to blunder into melee, and the cavalry tends to get strung out in very long columns. This is a pain to deal with but probably also fairly realistic. I just avoid using these unit types when storming a town.

Question for pezhetairoi:

Yup, warbands on 360... Works for me.

I've also modded most infantry units up to 240 men per unit by changing the appropriate number in export_descr_unit.txt for each unit. What I don't understand is how you have jacked the number of men in a warband up to 360. I see no way to do this for a campaign - any number in export_descr_unit.txt larger than 60 causes a show_err and any change to the preferences file for UNIT_SIZE larger than 160 acts as 160. For custom battles, changing the preferences number only appears to work on the unit selection menu. As professorspatula said earlier, it has no effect on the actual number of men per unit on the battle map.

Am I missing something here?

**Celt Centurion** · 12-07-2005, 00:14

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.

How many was a unit of Screeching Women or Head Hurlers back then?

Not to forget Head Hunting Maidens of course.

.

One screeching German woman was too many for me when I was married to one many years ago, so I couldn't tell you. Probably however many they could round up.

Head hurlers? I think it's kind of funny that they have heads to hurl even when battle hasn't been engaged yet. Probably one head per friendly casualty divided by the number that one head hurler could carry (about 6 or 7?)

Head hunting maidens, you would probably find the answer to that by counting the students of a Law School for women.

Probably the same ratio as male head hurlers? But they are not maidens.

Please don't take any of that too seriously. I tried to answer in the same context that I read the question, jokingly.

Strength and Honor Mouzafphaerre!

Celt Centurion

**Celt Centurion** · 12-07-2005, 00:16

I left an answer for you Mouzafphaerre. Hopefully you will get a chuckle out of it as well.

Strength and Honor

Celt Centurion

**Mouzafphaerre** · 12-07-2005, 00:51

Originally Posted by Celt Centurion

One screeching German woman was too many for me when I was married to one many years ago, so I couldn't tell you. Probably however many they could round up.

Head hurlers? I think it's kind of funny that they have heads to hurl even when battle hasn't been engaged yet. Probably one head per friendly casualty divided by the number that one head hurler could carry (about 6 or 7?)

Head hunting maidens, you would probably find the answer to that by counting the students of a Law School for women.

Probably the same ratio as male head hurlers? But they are not maidens.

Please don't take any of that too seriously. I tried to answer in the same context that I read the question, jokingly.

Strength and Honor Mouzafphaerre!

Celt Centurion

.