Does anyone deliberately keep units understrength?

[Tuidjy]

I have found myself deliberately keeping heavy cavalry units understrength.
When the units is only 15-20 people strong, it maneuvers much more easily.
It wheels, it forms up for a charge, it slips between enemy units much better.

I use cavalry for taking out siege engines, disrupting missile units, charging
engaged units in the back, chasing routers and tying up enemy cavalry.
Except for the last one, 15 men do about as well as 40. The added
maneuverability is so great that it makes you feel as if you are controlling
a different class of units alltogether, the smaller unit size seem to protect
against archers, and of course, with fewer men, units level much faster.

Of course, there are times where higher numbers are desirable. So I just keep
a few full strength units, and after battle I merge units in a manner than
allows me to end up with a few 15-20 men squads.

This got me to wonder. How do people who play with higher unit sizes deal
with their 60-80 rider units? Those must be Hell to control, form and maneuver.

[Dearmad]

I don't do it for tactical reasons... but for strategic ones... if I have a unit of about 1-4 guys I will send them off to man a Fort as the minimum watch garrison- CHEAP and they have as good an ability to spot and slow down an invading army for 1 turn as a larger group.

[dismal]

Not me.

Lower strength = that much closer to routing.

There are morale penalties for being below full unit size, I believe. Plus, flanks are more exposed to wrapping.

[PaulTa]

I like the understrength cavalry units too, but mostly because I get the same devestating charge for half the upkeep.

Sometimes I like to have one little crappy understrength unit to throw on the bridge to slow the enemy down so I can shoot them with my arrows more.

[katank]

@ dismal, the morale penalty seems to apply only relative to strength at the beginning of the battle.

Thus, say 70% casualties is necessary to get a particular unit to rout (completely random made up statistic). Then a 20 man unit takes 14 casualties and routs while everyone in 10 2 man units will fight to the death. This means strictly better, no? There is of course the drawback of unit slots being taken up for understrength units.

[dismal]

@ dismal, the morale penalty seems to apply only relative to strength at the beginning of the battle.

Thus, say 70% casualties is necessary to get a particular unit to rout (completely random made up statistic). Then a 20 man unit takes 14 casualties and routs while everyone in 10 2 man units will fight to the death. This means strictly better, no? There is of course the drawback of unit slots being taken up for understrength units.

What you describe sounds like "taking casualties".

There is also one for "being outnumbered", I think.

[Tuidjy]

Lower strength = that much closer to routing. There are morale penalties for being below full unit size, I believe. Plus, flanks are more exposed to wrapping.

This is true, but it only applies when your cavalry is actually staying into a fight.
I think I did say that in that case, numbers matter. But I usually do not leave
heavy cavalry engaged with the enemy. Charge, decimate, disrupt, and pull
out as soon as the enemy unit organizes itself.

In my French campaign I must have about 50 units of hospitaliers numbering
between 12 and 20. I mostly build them at 1-3 silver chevrons, and they
usually come out at armour 19-20. They do not lose many men at once unless
you let the enemy regroup, and I think that in the last twenty turns I have had
them routing only once, when two understrength units and a newbie general
were caught by a 800 men strong stack led by a dread general. And even then,
they ran only after killing more than 100 enemies.

I find it ironic that with the French, with are supposed to have the best
heavy cavalry in the game, 80% of my knights are vanilla hospitaliers.