More Fun with Smaller Armies?

[vermatrix]

I for one am getting tired of endless battles of stacks vs stacks. It seems to me it would be much more fun with smaller armies running around (5 or less units) than full stacks. Is there an easy fix for this or would this require a sub mod?

[Josh Knight]

Submod. Baron's Compilation will work for you. It has a option to turn off Vanilla AI stack spam, which works great.

[Darth Lord Revan]

Yes, you can try Baron Samedi's mod or you can try the Turtle MOD here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=383258
But it's for 2.1 version. Have fun!

[Mhaedros]

The bigger the better

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[sapped]

The bigger the better

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

SO TRUE

[Ceza]

That is why we play Total war, big armie battles^^ No other game has such battles.

[Highland Kelt]

I politely disagree. I also use Baron Samedi's sub mod option to disable Vanilla stack spam, and also disable Garrison Script.
Firstly, if the AI is stupid enough to not garrison sufficient units in their key strategic settlements, that is their problem...
Secondly, a battle of say 5 units of mine vs. 8 of the enemies makes the battle much more compelling - each unit counts much more, and has a key role to play; something which is lacking in a massive battle where you have 10 units of infantry to use as cannon fodder, and are not bothered if they die....

So Yes, smaller Armies are better.

[Dutch-Balrog]

It totally depends on how you play the game.. I also play with huge armies, but i use as much tactics as possible, i try to keep every single soldier alive, although that is not possible.

[Bobz]

I always find the game is much more fun when you are fighting with small armies - tactics count for a lot more. It's far more life like too, most battles in history are small scale skirmishes and sieges - fighting stack after stack devalues the feeling of fighting large battles. They should be the turning points of war, not everyday affairs.

[Agamaran]

Small armies are, by far, much more enjoyable. AI stacks and the garrison script ensured that no faction could destroy another in vanilla--this is completely the opposite when these two bits are taken away with Baron Samedi's mod. Alliances actually mean something. In my game, Gondor had destroyed Mordor before turn 60. That was without my help as well.

You never know what's going to happen in your game when you take away these scripts.

[Gigan]

The reason why battles aren't decisive is because you can only have 20 units per stack. In real life and Middle earth battles aren't as common as in M2TW. Now if you could combine stacks, and have tens of thousands of men in an army, battles would become less common. But computers aren't strong enough for that yet

[Athreon]

While I can agree with both sides of the argument, personally I enjoy larger battles. While in real life small scale skirmishes were more common, at least in that day and age, this is a Third Age mod. If I recall correctly, the only three major battles took place with 10,000, 250,000, and again 10,000 soldiers on one side, at least in the movies. Lore wise, I find it more enjoyable to pit massive forces against each other.

[the stabby man]

With factions like arnor and gondor though you can't really afford to throw away your infantry as cannon fodder, anyone who lets them die en masse is essentially not playing it right, playing with smaller forces just makes the game easier, not less tactical.
Unless we are talking custom battles in which case yes, yes you can afford to throw away soldiers.

[Ekaddon]

If I recall correctly, the only three major battles took place with 10,000, 250,000, and again 10,000 soldiers on one side, at least in the movies. Lore wise, I find it more enjoyable to pit massive forces against each other.

And leading up to each of these battles there were years of skirmishes and small scale battles.

When the huge battles were fought they were decisive. And do remember that these numbers include the enitre army, all its logistic elements etc. not only frontline troops (eg. the troops inside the Rammas Echor included hundreds of trolls for labour and thousands of Orcs..).

If we would play TA lorewise we would have one stack in the beginning and its fate would decide the game for many many turns forward.

I too enjoy small battles much more. It would be much more realistic to have some 5 units on each front and only in rare instances would you be able to field huge armies. When playing "stack vs stack" you very quickly "forget" many units. I prefer to have say the first Dunedain Ranger unit alive at turn 100.

[Dutch-Balrog]

I can understand that you guys enjoy smaller battles. But i don't. That is because i know how to use tactics in huge battles, not just some flanking and things like that, but i have a plan for almost every situation. I also set up my army spreaded out over the deployment zone lots of times, so that the enemy will also be forced to do so, i weaken them, when they are weakened i strike.

[germaan]

Yes for me also small army's it give me no fun to play those endless stack after stack and a war without an ending. Where is the goal in that?

[Rorarii]

I think what the op is trying to say is that he's sick and tired of continous large battles and that skirmish battles are a nice change in pace ... hmmmm .. true to an extent but I'm sick and tired of the AI sending out continous small attacking forces just to be destroyed, and turn my generals into super-heros!

I would prefer a quiet period where forces are built up and suddenly all hell breaks loose .. this is more realistic

R

[KingLeonidas300]

That is why we play Total war, big armie battles^^ No other game has such battles.

some peoples computers cannot withstand such huge battles

[Ekaddon]

I can understand that you guys enjoy smaller battles. But i don't. That is because i know how to use tactics in huge battles, not just some flanking and things like that, but i have a plan for almost every situation. I also set up my army spreaded out over the deployment zone lots of times, so that the enemy will also be forced to do so, i weaken them, when they are weakened i strike.

Nothing to do with tactics.. “The tactician knows what to do when there is something to do; whereas the strategian knows what to do when there is nothing to do.”

The point is that huge battles require a lot of units. To have huge battles you also need the infrastructure to build and maintain them. This leads to the fact that a lot of units will become expendable, even if you do not want it. The AI then also gets the chance to stack spam you, and while this starts no single battle will be totally decisive or worth playing at all. It is by far more enjoyable to have irreplaceble units than ones that are expendable. I for one have never liked the fact that Gondor (or any good race) would be able to throw away hundreds of men in consecutive battles.

[Mhaedros]

I usually have a plan for every situation, but if my men arent enough (due to unit size) there's nuffin to do