Unit Size

[Emme]

New to the forum..

Just want to say this is such an awesome mod minus a few bugs/tweaks Great work to the TWTA team!!!

So far, I have finished Silvan Elves, Rohan, and Gondor campaign on VH/VH. I choose these good factions because they are in the middle and lots of action/battling vs the evil factions. IMO, I think every factions are quite balanced, there's always a way to win and it depends pretty much what the type of strategies.

Question: does anyone noticed that choosing the unit size on the game matters A LOT on the outcome of the battle? After finishing the campaign a few times, this is what I find:

Small - Normal unit size = heavily favours Rohan (Calvary charges are simply more effective in low numbers and will usually route any units with a direct charge. The calvary will knock down most the enemy units whereas on larger scale, the back calvary will get blocked and ineffective. It is also easier to run around battle with smaller size).

Large - Huge unit size = favours Silvan Elves (what can I say? anyone that masses a full army of archers can practically destroy any incoming unit with minimum loss, even the Trolls.. Easily take down 2-3 units with focus fire before it even hit the infantry line, the horse archers can easily run around the back enemy line, distract and destroy the siege)

Normal - Large unit size = favours Gondor (a more balanced faction, however mainly excellent infantry units with better attack/defend compared to most factions)

Agreed or disagreed? any comments?

[Protestant Knight]

I agree with you all the way I have not tried Rohan like that myself but I can see how that would help Rohan a lot

[Myshkin]

I agree on the comments for large-huge and small scale.

Normal is something in between. Not necessarily in favour of Gondor. Elven boni are weakened, and cavarly charge is not that great either.

I would say it favours Mordor, who suffers most from both, but could be wrong. Probably normal is most balanced of all. That's why it's the standard size of MTW2.

[Vaz]

I play SS and BC a lot more recently due to getting experience of other factions for DaC, and have realised that I get far better results on Small than for Huge. I can't run major huge battles in any case, but I'm happy with what I have.

[Shocked]

I use large scale, its pretty balanced

[IHV]

For the sake of my PC i use Large instead of Huge.

Whats the recomended default size by modders anyway? My large has 113 foot soldiers and 57 cavalry units if im correct, and no matter what unit size i choose its still odd number.

I agree with Rohan cavalry charge but Rohan can do that with Large unit aswell. My 29 Generals cavalry (or Rohan Riders or Lancers, even scouts) can easily win 189 orcs infantry, charge in, pull out immidiately, by doing that this charge kills roughly 30 orcs (most ive seen when i charge with general killed 65 orcs) belive it or not. Do it couple of times and they route. And best thing is you lose 1-5 men yourself most.
I now mainly keep cavalry as settlements defense (exept Edoras ofcourse which is constantly surrounded by 3-4 full stacks of enemy due to the Invasion call by Dark lord.)

[Vaz]

On each unit, there will be some Captains (or command models) added to the unit. They are models which have no actual additional effect in game, other than provide a visual representation of a Standard Bearer/Captain. They just count as another unit member in all respects.

In Kingdoms, this was present in the Constable of Jerusalem and his Knightly Bodyguard in crusades. While not an actual Bodyguard for a General, (so there's no traits etc), it represented as such.

[eugenioso]

i personally think that in order to play a fulfilling game you need to have huge settings enabled.

FOR EXAMPLE, in the original MTW, before you entered the game you could set the unit scale of units.

a unit of 100 peasants on normal for 100 florins. that same unit on huge scale was 200 men large AND ALSO costed 200 florins. all units sizes are doubled in there and also prices are raised accordingly. so the effect is that the game stays pretty much the same, except that production of units is faster and more expensive.

as for MTW2, ive seen it happen as well.

[Deedlit]

I just think the elves are overpowered no matter what battle size. have you seen there stats? i can wipe out a mordor force of around 4000 orcs with 500 Eldar archers, An yes im going to get Lore fanboys saying "There elves they can do that"

But if you think about it you get 1 elf aginst 1-5 orcs and its pretty safe to say who will win. Or 1 elf aginst three gondor troops, Agian its pretty safe to say who will win, But if you add 50 orcs vs 1 elf and if they all attack at the same time(And dont do a classic movie clich where they only attack one at a time) then the orcs are going to win. Sometimes its a bit silly me defending a city with 2 stacks of Eldar archers and wiping out 20% of the attacking force.

And some factions dont even have units to defend aginst such powerfull troops. early or even late. Elves need there numbers cutting by about 10% but there stats remain the same. The rest of the factions work better in huge, i can see mordor failing on low unit size setting though. But i do agree with you on rohan & Gondor

[jellebie]

I just think the elves are overpowered no matter what battle size. have you seen there stats? i can wipe out a mordor force of around 4000 orcs with 500 Eldar archers, An yes im going to get Lore fanboys saying "There elves they can do that"

But if you think about it you get 1 elf aginst 1-5 orcs and its pretty safe to say who will win. Or 1 elf aginst three gondor troops, Agian its pretty safe to say who will win, But if you add 50 orcs vs 1 elf and if they all attack at the same time(And dont do a classic movie clich where they only attack one at a time) then the orcs are going to win. Sometimes its a bit silly me defending a city with 2 stacks of Eldar archers and wiping out 20% of the attacking force.

And some factions dont even have units to defend aginst such powerfull troops. early or even late. Elves need there numbers cutting by about 10% but there stats remain the same. The rest of the factions work better in huge, i can see mordor failing on low unit size setting though. But i do agree with you on rohan & Gondor

well on the campaign map the elves are outnumbered engough to be balanced, and try RC for smaller elven sizes.

[Twist of Cain]

I just think the elves are overpowered no matter what battle size. have you seen there stats? i can wipe out a mordor force of around 4000 orcs with 500 Eldar archers, An yes im going to get Lore fanboys saying "There elves they can do that"

No, you'll get Elf fanboys saying that.

[Vaz]

Mordor Stomp on Low Unit settings. yes, the difference Ratio's increase (i.e 100 archers versus 250 Orcs is 2.5, whereas on small, 40 Archers versus 100 Orcs is still 2.5, but there's less arrows required to kill the same unit, over the same distance, but they're also able to swamp your Melee troops far easier. Although yes, there's greater imbalance, IMHO.

However, I've never had issues with the Silvan's being Overpowered - nearest thing that is OP'ing is their Horse Archers. Amazing accuracy, great range, nice damage, fast moving, and can even make a decent charge, although that's tempered by having few arrows and a fast shooting speed, meaning that once they're gone, they're gone.

[confused german]

100 archers versus 250 Orcs is 2.5, whereas on small, 40 Archers versus 100 Orcs is still 2.5, but there's less arrows required to kill the same unit, over the same distance, but they're also able to swamp your Melee troops far easier. Although yes, there's greater imbalance, IMHO.

What? I may be silly, but i spent some thought on unit size in med2 times and i agree that what you say sounds intuitively right, but seems be wrong logically:

If it's the same ratio on either size setting (which has always been my explanation for the odd numbers, i actually never did the math), why should somehow be killed faster in any case then?
Even the routing-condition-settings will supposably be orientated at percentages (of dead comrads, missiles in the air), not on actual numbers (i.e. 154, 13 etc.).

Of course you need less arrows to kill 100 orcs, but having 40 Archers, it should be the same thing as killing 250 and having 100 Archers, or am i totally confused?

You sure, you don't fell victim to a kind of "optical illusion" (sooo many riders, sooo many arrow in the air)
or can you explain it to me? I actually don't have experience with different unit sizes in TATW, so i don't know, just thinkin...

I my humble experience, unit size changes gameplay more importantly in the following points:
- pure duration of battle (higher number = longer battle = more time to react [as everything don't go so fast] and moreover more time to be in the close look and watch the show.)
- environment effects (smaller armies fit on smaller hills and are more flexible in startegically moving them over the battle map, bigger units man wall sections alone while smaller can be combined on walls, which also can be of advantage).
This is head-clear, cause the environment don't change size in proportion to your armies.
- overview (i find it way more easy to get the full picture of what's going on during a battle with smaller unit size [you know, this is the "Oh, right, the horse archers i send around to distract his cav (meanwhile slaughterd on some distant hills, had very high chevron, you feel so bad and remind yourself that quickloading battles was aginst your honour)-problem].
Especially when playing in generals view, which i truly recommend in easier battles just for the fun of it, the smaller the units, the less i get confused.)

But of cource, pc power is main criteria here. (Huge stacks look awesome.)

@eugenioso:
You sure? Cause i played campaigns in vanilla+patches med2 in all possible unit sizes and never noticed a price difference. Actually, i even wondered about this. But i had some buggy unit-card-screen, always showing the "large" unit numbers, no matter what size i played on. (And that's the screen, where you read the upkeep). Still, i have to say, my overall-upkeep-level was always considered by me to raise and fall with the number of units i have to pay, and not their starting number/ size setting.


And...
@Starwen:
They are elves! They can do that!
(Actually, IMO regarding the lore (including simarillion, where elves are dealt with in a higher detail) the vanilla elves are too weak and, yes, too many. Especially regarding retrain/ expand-issues, not pure unit size.)


But unit size is a interesting matter, let's try to find some answers we all agree with!

bo


edit: ah, sooory, read again and saw: you think small unit sizes powers riders due to movability bonus and the fact that many riders don't effect battle when they are too deeply packed, since they just crush on the backs of their colleagues. I agree that large ore huge mounted units tend to behave somehow retarded on the battlefield and seem to loose much of their swiftness. Although, you should be able to attack in a 2to3 rowdeep cav formation (where every lance got someone to spike) even in huge settings, since there's also bigger victim units running around.
Again i say: Unit size rather alters gameplay in style than actually favouring this or that unit type.
Hope i stung into a bees nest and get some refuse...

[Deedlit]

RC Will wipe over the Standard Third age mod?

[jellebie]

yes it alters some stats in your third age folder and adds a few new units and events and heroes and lots of other stuf.

[Deedlit]

yes it alters some stats in your third age folder and adds a few new units and events and heroes and lots of other stuf.

What if i wanted to go back to old Third age?

[Seleukos_I.]

What if i wanted to go back to old Third age?

You can make a second install for RR/RC. Otherwise you'd have to reinstall TATW.

[Jean=A=Luc]

What if i wanted to go back to old Third age?

Easiest way would be to backup the whole data folder and later copy it over the RC/RR modified one if you want to go back to vanilla. Though this requires some extra HD space.

[Kahvipannu]

Yeah, unit sizes really matters in the battles, I agree with your post Emme.
I usually always play with large-settings, becouse I like large battles. Only thing is that siege-AI and pathfinding isn't as buggy with medium and easy, which makes playing with them a lot more enjoyable.

I my humble experience, unit size changes gameplay more importantly in the following points:
- pure duration of battle (higher number = longer battle = more time to react [as everything don't go so fast] and moreover more time to be in the close look and watch the show.)
- environment effects (smaller armies fit on smaller hills and are more flexible in startegically moving them over the battle map, bigger units man wall sections alone while smaller can be combined on walls, which also can be of advantage).

bo

Agreed, good example is siege battles. It's big difference if theres 200 men fighting on the walls, than 600 men for example. The longer fight goes on, more casualties attacker suffers from tower defence. Also boiling oil has more targets on huge settings, specially if defender stops attacker at the gates.

[confused german]

Yes, man. Smaller armies - faster battle - less time to shoot or boil.
But shouldn't the percentage of oil-boiled enemies be the same?

The only point really mattering here to me seems to be that siegetowers and gateways don't change in size proportionally to the units, which means: fewer of your men (in%) can actually attack the defenders in siege the bigger the unit size u use.

This i reagard as "environmental effect" (see above) and leads to the prolongued shooting times.