Huge Units Size?

**Bearhugger** · January 02, 2009, 07:23 AM

Will "huge" unit sizes take too much population off the AI's cities?
Shall I use "large" instead?

**DaVinci** · January 02, 2009, 07:57 AM

Optimal is Large for the balance, but it is playable with Huge, too.
So if you can't live without the maximum possible troop numbers, then just play with Huge. However, you should consider that in middleage times, there weren't pretty rare cases of epic battles.
If your pc has no performance issues, then i recommend to enable 'unlimited units' for the battle mode (in preferences.txt). Nearby reinforcements would join the battlefield, rather than are "delayed", also if the stacks are full.

**Caliburn** · February 23, 2009, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by DaVinci

However, you should consider that in middleage times, there weren't pretty rare cases of epic battles.

Can you clarify this, please?
Since during the X - XIV century period, even small nations were able to field armies of several thousand to tens of thousands strong (of course, most of those men were not professional soldiers of a standing army, but conscripts used during the spring-summer seasonal campaigns).
e.g. during the Crusades it was often that each side muster armies 10k - 40k strong (if there is need I can provide you with exact dates, places, commanders and army size).
Naturally, fights between nobles in Western Europe, would be somewhat downsized to perhaps 1000 - 5000 men in field, all together; but Western Europe is just a tiny part of the world.

**martyr** · February 23, 2009, 07:15 AM

muslim armies cold be quite large, saladins army for invading the kingdom of jerusalem was round 30,000 i think.

but crusader armies were much, much smaller.

**Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze** · February 23, 2009, 08:58 AM

that depends on what you call an army...have you counted the woman, peasants and children?

**Caliburn** · February 23, 2009, 12:35 PM

Let me see, battle of Stamford bridge in 1066., each side had more than 7000 men in the field, and battle of Hastings, also in 1066. both sides had over 8000 men each.
In first encounter with the crusaders, in October, 1096., Arslan destroyed crusaders vanguard, well over 1000 men strong.
In battle of Manzikertas, fought on August 26, 1071., both sides had over 20000 men each.

I can go on, but I think you got the point.

It should be also noted that Total War is far less populated than it should be... i.e. the cities have far less inhabitants than they historically had.
It seems that all the numbers (population and army/unit size) have been downsized.

**Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze** · February 23, 2009, 12:56 PM

agreed with that...but hey! in games like Age of Empires ONE SOLDIER mostly represents a few thousand

**DaVinci** · February 23, 2009, 02:19 PM

Those battles you are mentioning were major events in the history of medieval battles .. please do not forget this

And ie. the seasonal Frankish campaigns for example were much smaller in size, unless they would have met for a major subjugation.
However, this really isn't the point of the topic.

You can play as you want, though Large size is optimal for the provided balance, whereas Huge functions as well, but not that optimal.

**Caliburn** · February 24, 2009, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by DaVinci

Those battles you are mentioning were major events in the history of medieval battles .. please do not forget this

Well, I agree to some extent, but then, at least two of major battles would take place every year in the period of interest. Also, the issue is ability of a nation to field an army of 10k or more (that clearly existed in the period of interest).

Originally Posted by DaVinci

However, this really isn't the point of the topic.

Of course not, my intention was to clarify things, nothing more.

Originally Posted by DaVinci

You can play as you want, though Large size is optimal for the provided balance, whereas Huge functions as well, but not that optimal.

Care to elaborate a bit? Or at least to give an example?

By the way, is city population at the start of the game hardcoded or can it be modded to be more historically accurate.
I suppose that population of a city does NOT represent the entire population of a province.
Is there a way to train units without a decrease in population?

Don't get me wrong. I love the ChivalryTW mod, and since I don't play MTW, M2TW I would love to improve it even further, if it is possible.

**Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze** · February 24, 2009, 04:36 AM

hell, even if you WOULD mod the beginning population that in still wouldn't matter...because ( i think) the population numbers when you can upgrade the city (24000 - huge city for example) is hardcoded!
if you would start with a population that big, and you would have no way to really stop it...then you would get so much unrest, squalor etc. that every city would revolt eventually!

**Alavaria** · February 23, 2009, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Bearhugger

Will "huge" unit sizes take too much population off the AI's cities?

I believe this is the case. Especially on harder difficulties (Or actually, just Hard campaign difficulty). Near the start, the AI has enough money to train tons of low level troops (peasants/levies). If you play on Huge size, it *will* do silly things like train 9 units of levy infantrymen for you to slaughter, and get stuck because it's cities never grow - until you take them, that is.

**Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze** · February 24, 2009, 01:06 AM

i never liked huge unit sizes anyway, it gives slowdowns, it drains cities and seeing the terrible i-like-low-level-troops AI...well, never mind about that

(a little bit, not too much...i do always play with unlimited units to make nice battles, i just think it's more accurate)

**martyr** · February 24, 2009, 05:20 AM

i think the best way to rationalise city populations and army sizes is to think that each unit or citizen represents 10 actual ones, kind of like AOE

**Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze** · February 24, 2009, 05:35 AM

haven't you read the Chiv bible?

1. You shall not worship AOE, because i am Chivalry, the one who led you out of the destruction that is Vanilla.

on-topic: really, i like large unit sizes...from what i've seen in the Dutch Hstory comics (fantastic comics, they have a nice neutral look on everything and the jokes stay fun....even when you grow "too old" for comics!) is that my ancestors have had ALOT of wars! (really, if anyone would ever make a Dutch submod....well, i think 12 factions wouldn't even do to get all Factions that existed here in the Middle Ages) And these wars were not that big, maybe large would still be too large!

**DaVinci** · February 24, 2009, 10:51 AM

It is like it was mentioned already: The Rome engine cannot reflect historical population-numbers of regions, nor it can the M1TW or M2TW engine or ETW engine.

You should not change the starting pop-numbers drastically and also not only with other significant increasings, and if you do so, expect a very changed balance of the campaign outcome, respectively AI gameplay.