Comparing troop numbers to historical accuracy

[Merciless_Doge]

Hi all,

First off, I'm just curious as to how you all feel troop numbers in MTW:2 compare to those reported by historical accounts. For example, it was not uncommon for nations to pit 40,000 to 80,000 against each other long, pitted battles. It is obvious that MTW:2 could not handle these sorts of numbers in any real-time battle, unless perhaps you were running an NSA supercomputer with quad-SLI. With "Large" or "Huge" troop size options set, it is more common to see roughly 3,000 - 4,000 troops on the field at a time. How do you all feel these numbers should be scaled if we were to make assumptions on how large a *real* battle would be, based upon our own? Multiply by 10? Just a thought.

For example, as one of the more powerful Christian nations in my current campaign game (I am playing as Spain), I was required by the Pope to send my faction leader into a Crusade to recapture Jerusalem from the Mongols.

My king's (who had 6 command stars) first battle against a large force of Mongols south of Jerusalem was defended by a general of equal command value.

Prior to the battle, the troop estimates were 1,500+ (Spain) vs. 1,300+ (Mongols).

It was a truly glorious battle. After maneuvoring my troops to counteract the Mongol's uphill defensive position, I was able to cut-off their artillery. I then succeeded to send my cavalry to each side of their defensive position (which were ultimately lost due to the Mongols' horde of Heavy Horse Archers), so as to protect my middle attack of Dismounted Chivarlic Knights, Almugarhters, and pikemen. After recapturing the main hill defensive position, the Mongols launched attack after attack, and were repelled each time. My pikemen, and esp. Almugarhters, were of utmost importance. Then I would send in my Dis. Chiv. Knights to finish off the struggling Mongols.

It was an extremely long battle (prob. one hour, 30 minutes ) and I was ultimately able to kill the Mongol general. My own king played a pivotal role in the victory, leaving the battle heavily scarred. I received a new retinue after this battle, that of a "Dread Knight" (+1 command, +2 dread) - which I had never seen before. I licked my wounds, rallied some mercenaries, and moved my king's force a way's south to wait for reinforcements.

Anyways, I hope this was of some interest to you all - I'm sure the troop comparison has been discussed before; just interested in your thoughts.

[King Bob VI]

For example, it was not uncommon for nations to pit 40,000 to 80,000 against each other long, pitted battles.

Um, yes it was uncommon, actually.

[pike master]

i agree most battles were on small scale with only a few hundred or a few thousand . the major ones are the ones we always hear about. generally though it comes in two eras the first began at the beginning of the greek and persian wars and ended at the start of the dark ages. during that period there were many world changing battles involving large numbers of troops.

during much of the early middle ages there were only a few massive battles with most being smaller but as civilization reemerged by the end of the rennaisance you are seeing huge conscript armies of 100k +. so it depends but regardless total war is probably about as close to the experience one can get right now despite its bugs and inaccuracies i cant think of any game that comes as close to depicting medieval warfare.

[Ulstan]

For example, it was not uncommon for nations to pit 40,000 to 80,000 against each other long, pitted battles.

It was very uncommon to have that many soldiers on a side.

I don't think Crecy, Poitiers, or Agincourt came near to that many soldiers. Most battles in medieval times were fairly small - often smaller than 'ancient' battles and smaller than industrialized Europe battles.

[Lorenzo_H]

Its just a representative figure - of course it can't always be as realistic as we can imagine. Just like the time scale. 2 years for a turn is too long for real times - it didn't take 2 and a half years to cross the Atlantic! But who cares? If that kind of thing bothers you, then give me your copy of M2TW and watch a documentary on the Middle Ages instead.

No offense intended to those who whine about realism.

Just to let you know, Agincourt was fought by 5,900 English vs 14,400 French.

[Marquis of Roland]

For MTW2 I usually multiply troop numbers by 5 in my head. For RTW it was by 10.