building vikings?

[wukie2001]

since when do vikings take 2 yrs to build....its always been 1 yrs, either a stack of 100 or 60 units per, but this time its 120 units but it takes 2 yrs to build them, is this a bug/glitch or something in the game? i just recently installed the patch so im just wondering if its got to do with that.

thx...

[I of the Storm]

Your unit size got set to huge. You can change this somewhere in the 'Options', accessible from the main menu, but it applies only to new games, not saved ones.

[wukie2001]

Your unit size got set to huge. You can change this somewhere in the 'Options', accessible from the main menu, but it applies only to new games, not saved ones.

ah, so thats what it was....lol i fugured when u set that option to hude the pieces would look alot bigger in size not in number...oh well, thx...

[I of the Storm]

You're welcome.

[caravel]

Personally I always play on huge units, so I've gotten used to the two year training time. It adds more tactical depth to the game as there is no "just in time" unit training, so you really have to think ahead.

[Fagar]

This threads got me thinking now.
I have never modified the unit sizes always using the default sizes.
It could indeed give an interesting flavour to the game.
I will give it a go.

[bamff]

Tiny cogs have also started turning in my head.....

Does the "huge" setting affect the number of available units in the field?

In other words, do you drop from a total of 16 units down to 8 when you go from "default" to "huge"?

Is there a major impact on what the AI decides to build, given increased build times?

[caravel]

Tiny cogs have also started turning in my head.....

Does the "huge" setting affect the number of available units in the field?

No.

In other words, do you drop from a total of 16 units down to 8 when you go from "default" to "huge"?

No.

Is there a major impact on what the AI decides to build, given increased build times?

No.

In battle the larger unit sizes may affect performance. Though on modern PC's this shouldn't be much of a factor. MTW was designed to run minimally on a 350MHz CPU, 128 MB of RAM and a 16MB DirectX8.1 compatible video card. I somehow doubt many of you are running such a low spec machine in this day and age? So in short there is nothing stopping anyone from playing the game on huge units. I have played it on huge since I first bought STW and have never had any issues.

On the campaign map, the larger units cost more to support. This is because you pay your support costs per head rather than per unit. The two year (actually doubled) training time means that you cannot say, invade a neighbouring province, emptying the province from where the invasion was launched, queue a unit of Spearmen and have them appear as a convenient garrison when you end the turn. The fact that it's doubled also means that units that normally take two years such as Varangian Guard now take four years. The 20 man bodyguard units still take only one year however.

[I of the Storm]

The huge setting however does affect the number of units affordable to a faction and thus the number of stacks appearing on the campaign map. Higher upkeep per unit -> less units -> less stacks.

[Knight of the Rose]

It might also be worth mentioning that retraining troops still only take one year IIRC, so retraining a single spearman will thus be getting you 199 new ones in a turn, but training a new unit with 200 takes two turns.

This again add to the level of strategy

/KotR

[caravel]

The huge setting however does affect the number of units affordable to a faction and thus the number of stacks appearing on the campaign map. Higher upkeep per unit -> less units -> less stacks.

Yes but because you are paying support costs per man you are actually still paying the same. Also as training costs are the same you and the AI, are getting more men for your money.

[I of the Storm]

Well, technically you pay the same price per man, yes. Due to the huge unit size the upkeep doubles in comparison to standard size though. Since your income is not affected by your choice of unit size, you may be able to pay for the same number of men but you are able to pay for only half the number of units. So, while fielding technically the same number of men (roughly), the number of units sustainable halves, resulting in smaller stacks and more 'small scale' engagements.

Anyway, since time is an issue too, retraining becomes a valuable strategic asset. Come to think of it, it becomes even more of an exploit against the AI than it normally is already, since the AI does not retrain as far as I know.

[caravel]

Well, technically you pay the same price per man, yes. Due to the huge unit size the upkeep doubles in comparison to standard size though.

This does not equate to paying more. You pay the same upkeep per head, and you get more men for free when you train them. A 200 man units cost the same upkeep as two equivalent 100 man units.

Since your income is not affected by your choice of unit size, you may be able to pay for the same number of men but you are able to pay for only half the number of units. So, while fielding technically the same number of men (roughly), the number of units sustainable halves, resulting in smaller stacks and more 'small scale' engagements.

The number of units is not a factor. The number of men is. Also, with all due respect, it is clear that you have not played on huge units much if you think that this gives "smaller scale engagements". Battles on the huge units setting are truly epic and always have been since the days of STW, right through to the latest TW games. I would prefer 4 two hundred man units of spears to 8 one hundred man units any day of the week. All the latter has over the former is more individual units, but no more men. To summarise I don't see "units per battle as a factor" nor do I see the AI deploying less units or battles being any less epic on huge units. Also the one most important point is the units per battle limitation. Because only 16 units can take part in any one battle at any one time, regardless of the unit scale, the huge unit size clearly has more men per battle every time. Give it a try and you won't be disappointed.

Anyway, since time is an issue too, retraining becomes a valuable strategic asset. Come to think of it, it becomes even more of an exploit against the AI than it normally is already, since the AI does not retrain as far as I know.

Anything can be exploited but retraining is not the biggest exploit it's made out to be. If you want to play fair with the AI, then do not retrain and enable the "tidy up units after battle" option. This ensures that your battered units are automerged like the AI's. If you play with this off and manually merge your best high valour units together, then you are taking advantage of a bigger exploit than retraining.

[drone]

I've never played on Huge unit settings. Since you end up with fewer units overall, is it harder to find suitable governors (smaller sample set)?

[I of the Storm]

This does not equate to paying more. You pay the same upkeep per head, and you get more men for free when you train them. A 200 man units cost the same upkeep as two equivalent 100 man units.

I did not say otherwise. All I said was that a unit on huge cost twice the upkeep of a unit on normal size.

The number of units is not a factor. The number of men is. Also, with all due respect, it is clear that you have not played on huge units much if you think that this gives "smaller scale engagements". Battles on the huge units setting are truly epic and always have been since the days of STW, right through to the latest TW games. I would prefer 4 two hundred man units of spears to 8 one hundred man units any day of the week. All the latter has over the former is more individual units, but no more men.

Seems we have a misunderstanding. When I said 'small scale' I wasn't talking about the number of men on the battlefield. I never was, see above. I was talking about the number of units sustainable by one faction at a given time. So let's say England can pay the the upkeep for 1000 fyrdmen, 600 archers and 240 hobilars. On normal size it would be able to field 10 units fyrd, 10 units archers and 8 hobilars. On huge it would be 5 fyrd, 5 archers and 4 hobilars. While in both campaigns that would be 1840 men, in one it would be 28 units, in the other 14. You still need to garrison your provinces somehow so that leaves less units for your field army.

To summarise I don't see "units per battle as a factor" nor do I see the AI deploying less units or battles being any less epic on huge units. Also the one most important point is the units per battle limitation. Because only 16 units can take part in any one battle at any one time, regardless of the unit scale, the huge unit size clearly has more men per battle every time. Give it a try and you won't be disappointed.

Well, I do see number of units per battle as a factor. Tactically there is a big difference in commanding a 10 unit army vs. a 12 unit army and commanding a 16vs16 or even a multiple stack battle.
It may be some time ago but I've had a couple of huge setting games too. And from what I remember it took significantly longer (couple of decades) before the AI or myself were able to field a good 16 unit army (and garrison the realm properly) let alone fielding multiple stacks.

Anything can be exploited but retraining is not the biggest exploit it's made out to be. If you want to play fair with the AI, then do not retrain and enable the "tidy up units after battle" option. This ensures that your battered units are automerged like the AI's. If you play with this off and manually merge your best high valour units together, then you are taking advantage of a bigger exploit than retraining.

I couldn't agree with you more.