The most realistic unit size setting?

**dieterweber35** · February 27, 2009, 05:08 PM

Just wanted to know what the most realistic unit size option is for this time period. (small, normal, large, Huge).

**Samir** · February 28, 2009, 01:54 AM

interesting question...

game wise I dont think that there is a most realistic unit size. the gameplay does change and battles usually get more difficult if you increase unit sizes, especially low quality troops who really gain a lot in numbers comparing to smaller unit sizes get most from the different setting. 150 peasants dont rout as easy as 80 peasants if they meet 90 knights.

historically realistic I think it depends a little bit about what we are talking.

continental european armies in wars like englands rose wars, or HREs internal struggles had troop strengths between 1000 to 5000, but peasants and other auxillary troops were not counted there.

crusades were up to 100.000 strong, although there was a huge ammount of merchants, pilgrims, family members etc.

islamic armies made up to 1.000.000 men, but with all accounts from the mediveal time you usually have to substract at least one 0...

in general all battle accounts were a little bit inaccurate especially number wise. of course it sounds better that your army of 1000 desperate brave christian knights charged into 100.000 armed to the teeth islamic horde than they rode over 8000 peasants and sent the rearguard of 500 elite cavalry routing

and none of your surviving knights will probably step forward and say that it was just a tenth and that you were not as desperate and brave (as well as christian) as the story suggests...

**Stressball** · February 28, 2009, 02:02 AM

Well, back in those days soldiers would be commanded by the lords who could afford them. This meant that a minor lord might only be able to bring 20 men to a battle, whereas a duke may be able to bring a thousand or more, and they would all be commanded by that lord, who would take his orders from the King, the General, or the highest ranking Aristocrat, Whether he chose to obey them or not. In some cases no one would be in charge at all. (Agincourt; the French) Obviously they weren't limited by unit slots either.

It does not work that way in MTW, so no size is realistic, but I think the best unit size is huge, since its closer to the amount of men that could have been involved.

**eisenkopf** · February 28, 2009, 04:03 AM

I was wondering about that too. Making a little calculation, I think that no unit size is actually realistic, just as the previous posters wrote. The largest possible battle on huge unit size would be 24,000 vs 3,000 men, would it not? Please correct me if I'm wrong: 8 stacks surrounding one stack, each stack with 20 units with 150 men each. So, you'll never reach the epic proportions of some ancient or crusader battles. From my experiences in gameplay, I favor normal unit sizes, even if this is a bit low if you play Byzantines, for example. The pathfinding and unit formations just get too messy with huge unit sizes, imho.

**Soulghast** · February 28, 2009, 05:36 AM

Historically speaking? Huge. Armies during the Medieval Period consisted of thousands of men. So:

More men = More realistic

But I do use a slightly smaller unit scale, large. The pathfinding problems in the sieges are unbearable, and are only made worse through larger unit sizes.

**StalkAndStrike** · February 28, 2009, 10:54 AM

well in more local battles, from lord to lord lets say, smaller units would be realistic, yet this game deals with both international battles, and local....so its really up to you!

**fluffstalker** · February 28, 2009, 07:15 PM

I always use huge

. Its simply too epic to pass up, and yes its the most realistic for nation to nation battles. In fact Id say they are still a bit too small, the infantry and pike formations especially.

Of course the pathfinding suffers terribly, but the confusion it creates is fine by me as in real life soldiers didnt always go where you wanted them to, ie point and click. The sheer scale of it always makes up for it in the end.

**Carpathian Wolf** · March 01, 2009, 12:22 AM

Huge. The little 4,000 men battles are pretty dinky in comparisant. They're more like skirmishes than battles. Oh well.

**StalkAndStrike** · March 01, 2009, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf

Huge. The little 4,000 men battles are pretty dinky in comparisant. They're more like skirmishes than battles. Oh well.

Haha, maybe in the future when our computers are crazy powerful we will be able to put it on the "realistic" setting- which makes armies have dozens of thousands

**Nazgûl Killer** · March 01, 2009, 12:13 PM

The most realistic unit size is the biggest size, however it all depends on what you want, remember it's just a game.
If you want total realism (Also makes battles laggier and more difficult), biggest unit size, if you want a smooth gameplay and pretty easy one too, smallest, the two in between are a combo.

**dynamo** · March 01, 2009, 01:37 PM

Bigger is obviously more realistic, but the pathfinding is so incredibly bad in certain cases that its more trouble than its worth.

**StalkAndStrike** · March 01, 2009, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by dynamo

Bigger is obviously more realistic, but the pathfinding is so incredibly bad in certain cases that its more trouble than its worth.

But it looks cooler in confusion !

**jsktrogdor** · March 01, 2009, 11:14 PM

all troop sizes are more realistic than this:

happy?

**claudius2007** · March 01, 2009, 11:27 PM

Haha AOE I ... How epic. I loved that game.

**Caml3** · March 01, 2009, 11:28 PM

Forget Huge, if you want terrible pathfinding play AOE. I'm still scarred from when I reinstalled that game a year ago. I generally play with medium/large. Big armies are still pretty formidable, but behave well and aren't so hard on the hardware as Huge. Huge is still more accurate (as has been said) and fun to play around with on quick battles.