Unit size question

[Ancyrean]

Hi everyone,

Going through the forums, I get the impression that many veteran players of EB prefer to use the large unit setting in their campaigns (I'm referring to the setting where, say, a Camillan principes unit is of size 160, instead of the regular 80. I hope I remember the terminology right ). I want to try this unit setting but before I do, I have a few questions:

- What is the best unit size that one should play EB? Is there such a recommendation?
- Does playing on the large unit setting have any effect on gameplay balance? For example, since the unit size is doubled, population depletes in the recruiting city faster, retarding city growth early in the game, etc?
- And finally, does playing on the large unit setting have any effect on unit performance in battle? I would think it shouldn't, but just to confirm...

Cheers!

[Swordmaster]

Actually, the 'normal' size of your principes (bar the two officers) is 40, whereas small halves that, large doubles it, and huge quadruples it. I always play on normal for my meagre computer's sake, but looking at the screenshots of various AARs, I'd say huge is more realistic in terms of numbers on the battlefield and visual pleasure. If you've got a decent machine, I recommend large or huge setting. OTOH, units who rely on coherence in order to function well (read: phalanxes) have a harder time when they're bigger, and during city assaults, you'll probably have to keep a closer look at your units so that they properly manoeuvre through the streets.

Campaign-wise, it's indeed a big difference in terms of you cities' populations. I've never had any shortages due to said normal size I play on, but I figure you have that on large/huge, especially in the beginning or in crises when you need to levy many units in short succession from the same towns.

[The Errant]

Most people who have a computer that can handle play with Huge unit size. It makes the game feel more epic. Battles in antiquity where often very large affairs and Huge unit size comes the closest to depicting those epic battles.

There is no official recommendation on the size of units. Suffice to say use whatever size your computer can handle with a decent level of performance. I use huge and only get problems during bridge battles when the fps goes waaaay down.

On Large unit size there are few problems if you upgrade your cities infrastructure. On Huge you may have problems finding enough troops to recruit. Especially in the early game when you have to crank your taxes up high. The AI dosen't have this problems as they get scripted population assistance whenever they recruit a unit. Different amount depending on what unit size is chosen.

There is no difference in battle performance. The only difference is that on Huge settings the battles sometimes last longer. The only thing affecting battle performance when changing unit size is that some formation minimods are specifically designed for a certain size setting. And using a different one can have weird results for the AI deployment.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Large is the recommended unit size. It comes with a few advantages and disadvantages:

Pro:
1) The stat system will work better, since it appears to be designed with large in mind
2) You'll find that Phalanx and Missile units have more effect. Especially good for Phalanx units as it gets somewhat harder to outflank them.
3) You'll have more of a 'real' army - due to increased numbers.
4) You just don't win by virtue of heavy cavalry generals' bodyguards - generals have comparatively less combat power in battles. (Doesn't make a bit of difference when you use autocalc, though.) So you will have to include some real cavalry to tip the balance in the more serious battles. (That is, if we compare Large to Small unit settings. For example the difference between Hughe and Large isn't that great.)
5) Units will be relatively cheaper: unit size doesn't effect upkeep cost, or recruitment cost.

Pro or Con depending on preferences:
1) You'll find it probably a lot harder to assault cities - though it gets equally easier to defend them. This is because especially the larger units & cavalry will experience more pathfinding issues due to limitted space. Defending cities will be much easier due to the increased effect of missile units (larger targets means less missiles miss the mark) and the fact you can now literraly block a street with just one unit of decent (phalanx) infantry.

Con:
1) Most likely, you will regard large settings as a setback when fighting in the streets due to increased pathfinding issues.
2) The difference between size of your generals' bodyguards and those of your enemies' widens considerably. People have complained about that, but I find it not that much of a serious disadvantage. Even so, I just mention it in case you do.
3) You'll deplete your cities of population much faster. Again that really doesn't count in my opinion. If you wait a little longer you'll see that the absolute population growth (number of people added, not the percentage) a turn exceeds the size of the largest units you could possibly train. But if you prefer to blitz, it's a bit of a setback - since you'll exhaust your population relatively quickly.
4) It will demand more of your PC in terms of hardware muscle...

Btw: you were talking about Hughe settings. (With large units, the triarii come in units of 80; with hughe, that will become 160 men a unit.). In that case, effects of pathfinding issues, phalanx strength, and missile effectiveness is increased even more.

[Redmeth]

Huge unit settings are fun for custom battles, trying out factions in short campaigns etc but playing a campaign on huge and trying to achieve your VCs is not a good idea IMO, unit balancing issues aside the longer lasting battles though great will eat up a bit too much of your time and can produce "burnout" with a faction faster especially if the faction doesn't have a very diversified unit roster.

If you have a new powerful computer that runs the game very smooth and loads battles very quickly even if there are ~10000 units involved then you may view things differently of course.

[Casaladow]

Well this is my first post here, and before anything else, I would like to give congratulation to the eb team for this fantastic mod.

I played with both large and huge setting, and got to agree with Tellos Athenaios, large seams to be the best.

My first campaign with eb was with the roman and the huge setting, the battle where impressive, but quite too slow for my pc, also I noticed both the general's bodyguard power and the effect of the missiles on the huge setting.

The campaigns that I played after where with the large setting (80 in triarii) and I find that to be good setting, I never had the problem of the exaustion of population while the game run well and keep the epic look.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I always play on Huge. The battles are more epic and closer to (though still far from) realistic numbers.

Plus, I like depleting my cities. I have never had a problem with running out of people in my cities.

Unit size can be the biggest drain on speed in a battle.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I always play on Huge. The battles are more epic and closer to (though still far from) realistic numbers.

True. If your computer can handle it, play on huge.