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.

[helenos aiakides]

Once you start playing huge you will find it impossible to go back to small because huge is addictive

[Redmeth]

Around 20 battles on huge in roughly the same places (Romans vs Sweboz stretching to Gava-Alanna) will get you thinking about large.
Not to mention bridge battles...

[mcantu]

Also, on Huge the AI will completely drain its cities of population. Its very common to the Maks with cities under 400

[jhhowell]

Also, on Huge the AI will completely drain its cities of population. Its very common to the Maks with cities under 400

This is a problem with the AI, and is also precisely why Huge is the optimal unit size for me. Players should have to think hard about whether they want to raise more troops or let their cities grow. I know Rome had manpower problems from time to time throughout most of the EB time period, for example. If each unit is 40 men, that's trivial, almost any city will grow more than that each turn; at 160 men, large cities will still grow slowly while recruiting, but most cities will shrink. Obviously the AI doesn't have the slightest clue that this is a problem, unfortunately. I've seen the same problem in other mods, so there's probably not much people can do about it...

Anyway, I think it's important to have some form of manpower constraint on myself, and am willing to put up with the AI draining its own population. Players who find the latter especially bothersome no doubt will chose other unit sizes; ultimately it's about what makes the game most fun and interesting to you...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The AI gets population replaced when they recruit units, in EB. And the system is scaled for different unit sizes.

[Starforge]

Only comment I'll make regarding unit sizes is that it's too easy to "move" population from your homeland to outlying provinces to upgrade cities quickly when running on Huge.

Would be nice if the population numbers scaled as well as the unit sizes but ah well :).

[The Internet]

Huge battles are amazing and just can't get used to anything smaller, it just doesn't feel right to me.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The AI gets population replaced when they recruit units, in EB. And the system is scaled for different unit sizes.

Yep but it gets all messed up when people start to make changes to the garissons of certain cities in descr_strat... Also, based on unit class (mounted or infantry) the script determines the number of population to add to the town the recruits come from. However, the difference between a 160 men unit or a 240 men one is significant, and that's not accounted for. (There's apparently no way to check for the actual size of the unit.)

So if the AI keeps recruiting Pantodapoi, for instance, which many AI factions do, you'll see the population shrinking. However if they kept elite units, the population would actually grow more because of the amount of people restored by script.

[jhhowell]

Empirically, I can say that Epirus spent decades with a total civilian population of 800-1200 (two cities hovering between 400 and 600 people each) in my game. Meanwhile several large stacks (mostly slingers, as I noted in another thread some weeks back) just stood around nearby. EB replacing population does help explain why the city population shot up so dramatically later on, I assume when Epirus reached the point where their economy couldn't support any more troops. Going from 400 to 10000 should take quite a while by normal rules...

Do the rebels get this population replacement help? A lot of those provinces have also had enormous garrisons protecting ~500 pop. cities. Maybe Messina and various Alpine provinces are supposed to be tiny, I don't know...

Starforge - I thought I read something on these forums to the effect that population dumps like that are frowned on in EB. Not appropriate to the period, etc. If they wanted us to do that, they'd have given us peasants!

[Starforge]

Starforge - I thought I read something on these forums to the effect that population dumps like that are frowned on in EB. Not appropriate to the period, etc. If they wanted us to do that, they'd have given us peasants!

Point taken. Some mods actually encourage it with "settler" style units (Fourth Age TW for example). I play on normal now in all the games because I personally like the balance and most mods don't add in pop to replace recruits.

I liked the epic battles on Huge but have gotten used to running it on Normal.

[pezhetairoi]

I say huge, which I always play on. It's the closest to reality, and it is far harder for the AI to do all sorts of fancy formations with huge size on. No more AI central phalanxes breaking up and before you know it, outflanking you. At least they're so large that they're unwieldy enough that the battle slows down like in antiquity. Not to mention your lines become longer so an outflanking is not such a fatal thing like if it was on huge scale.

Also, I find the sight of 120 slinger bullets flying through the sky that much more gratifying than just 60. :)

Of course, the point about things being unwieldy apply to you too, but what the hey, you're the human player. You're -supposed- to be challenged.