Redux: size-settings...

[Axalon]

Hello guys and thanks for the replies so far. Interesting things in all posts…

IMO the best solution is to totally abandon size scaling and make the mod playable only with default units size (like Pike&Musket).

Out of a strict design-perspective, I agree. Out of a player perspective however it does limit some initial flexibility, customization and choices. Furthermore, I am uncertain on how a total lockdown/removal on this is truly successfully achieved in MTW without potential crashes – short of telling the player so…. Until I can truly somehow achieve that – this is not up for consideration for me and redux. It might be a different story if that thing had been otherwise (by all means tell/show me how, if you think otherwise).

This way you have full 1-200 range in your disposal and you can make units that really differ from each other.

Obviously, there are far more ways to achieve differences in units, but I understand what you are saying. Unitsize is one valid aspect for unittype-distinction, having a 100 more variables at your disposal on that would not hurt – so to speak.

Another thing is training time. For example 3 years for an elite unit is still acceptable but "Huge" setting doubles that time and IMO 6 years becomes unacceptable even for a super elite unit.

I agree, it is too much and as far as Redux goes I consider it an unwanted bi-effect due to MTW-engine traits on max size-settings (which can not be changed, just evaded). Yet another reason to stick to default, I think. 6 turns for longbows is too much even if you do get a 120men strong unit. With default and 3 turns, then it’s well worth the wait, if people want ‘em (after all, every unit is optional). They are very good and I don’t want people to spam them, this ironically enough goes for the AI as well who builds plenty of those on a regular basis.



---

Huge is however more realistic on the campaign map,…

Personally, I think that argument is open for debate, as we are already wandering around in the realm of simplified symbolic representations and clearly not any historical simulations - thus I think it is fair to raise the question of actual benefits of an asserted realism in that particular regard. The argument as such does not convince me basically, given the circumstances of da game...

[...]with less individual stacks[...]

I wonder if less individual stacks are actually a bad thing for the game (assuming they are functional ones and not some understrength formations). Personally, I would argue the opposite as I like to think that it serves the game in a positive manner, having several and different units running around instead of a few monster-sized units leaving little diversity (certainly less anyway) by default…. Not to mention that tactics and importance to bother with it becomes increasingly irrelevant in such circumstances while smaller formations do create circumstances that work in the opposite direction – making tactics more and more relevant.

[...] and longer training time giving more decisive encounters.

The only reason it can be more decisive somehow is because the encounter themselves will decrease in frequency… This for two obvious reasons, It will be harder to create functional armies due to time and cost increases. Other not as obvious reasons are that the AI will be retreating more and fight less, as it will be harder for it to attain circumstances promising enough to make it commit to battle. The AI is obviously instructed to retreat “to fight another day” if such circumstances fail to materialize. The only time the AI will fight no matter what is when defending a castle – as it then has no place to retreat to… There is no “last stand” parameter aside from castles in MTW and thus the AI will not for certain go down fighting, but by retreating away from the sheer numbers in enemy Army X once its own functional army Y is lost (as max settings is hardly lends itself for quick recuperations somehow)….

This in turn increases the possibility that we may crush an enemy with one single battle - if we even get that battle at all that is and the AI has not already retreated itself to death – leaving us with a walkover victory…. A famous example of that is found in the 2nd ED of Redux, with Portugal (before the Spanish Fix was released). Personally, I find it all unattractive as I do prefer to fight for my victories and that is more likely to actually happen if I don’t use max settings. Furthermore, I also think it to be well over the top to virtually kill an empire by fighting one single battle successfully, to me it more reasonable to have at least some battles before an empire is utterly broken.

Other then that, I have a hard time to see how max size would otherwise be more decisive then default as that stuff is fixed in the MTW-engine.

Retraining also becomes much more attractive, giving a real benefit.

This is a valid point, the time-benefits on max settings is much more significant then on default. As Victor/Samsara also points out this is one of the player-benefits provided in MTW as the AI does not retrain units (last time I checked. I have actually yet to any such example). The AI merges units by default however; veterans or greenhorns, no matter, it just bunches identical troops together to full strength formations whenever possible – much like the “tidy up” option available to player.

[...]none of the drawbacks of the original size settings[...]

What exactly did have in mind on this note?

[...]the battlefield has a good number of men [with max settings applied]

I'm guessing this is the single most important reason why people might consider using max settings in the first place. Many gamers tend to equate massed quantity with “epicness” and sure that is one kind of it. Personally I am more in to hard brutal fighting and that utterly regardless of the quantity involved. A 200-400 men strong army can provide some real exciting action to me, and it might very well provide a battle that exceeds a 2000-4000 men army in terms of sheer drama (actually I prefer the minor battles as I have better control and overview in those). But that’s just me, a tactics-, blood and guts-junkie.



---

That said, I recognise that there is a whole debate about what unit size 'advantages' the AI; how much strategic thinking comes into play when build times and per unit cost increase; and how unit balancing issues are resolved.

I know that some people have paradoxically enough argued that max settings would somehow create the very opposite effects of what post:1 observes and concludes. Other then that, my memory of this is fussy. Feel free to refresh me or link me to where you have encountered this debate you are referring to. As for the whole “we must not take advantage of the AI”- discussion/doctrine on general terms, I can only say that I personally find it highly questionable in its foundations – as I have understood it. In short, to me it is essentially a load of BS for several reasons (should people be truly interested in the “why’s” of that some day, I might explain it in full).

I readily buy the idea of pikes being larger than spear companies 'cos I'm completely underwhelmed by them - except in the Pike and Musket mod. (Apart from SAPs, of course, which my therapist tells me have inflicted some sort of psychological trauma on my MTW persona.)

...?... I find that very strange as Redux’s pikemen are obviously more effective on cavalry then in MTW - the only unit that actually can keep up with that somehow are Swiss Armoured Pikemen. The stats are rather clear on this. This goes for the Heavy Pikemen as well since they are even better then that, and MTW don’t have any formation that can compete with it in capacity – they even got armorpiercing bonuses. There is no counterpart in MTW or anywhere that still uses the CA battlesystem (which most mods do? Right?). So that notion does not add up well with the actual realities in Redux.

That said, I'm completely open to all the other points you've made and look forward to reading other people's comments.

x2....


- A