20 unit armies again!!!

am i the only one that finds the current maximum of 20 unit armies really restrictive? and the current reinforcement system implemented in empire really annoying and unrealistic?

i know this had probably been discussed before but im really dissappointed that we have the same system in NTW it seems. Isnt it about time CA moved on to a 30 or 40 unit stack with proper reinforcements system?

I don't think so. It would be way to hard to manage at 30 or 40. However I think that they could have gone up to 25 units.

Evan

Originally Posted by Evan MF

I don't think so. It would be way to hard to manage at 30 or 40. However I think that they could have gone up to 25 units.

Evan

i dont think so cos u can just use the group units button to simplify where needed....

Originally Posted by Evan MF

I don't think so. It would be way to hard to manage at 30 or 40. However I think that they could have gone up to 25 units.

Evan

Not to mention the performance issues. The more units, the uglier the game would have to be to run well in full battles.

Originally Posted by Evan MF

I don't think so. It would be way to hard to manage at 30 or 40. However I think that they could have gone up to 25 units.

Evan

If you are good commander, then you can command 40 units easily. Remember, real commander commanded maybe thousand of soldiers in real life battle.

I would like the old way reinforcements use to be, but 20stack units are fine. Getting anymore then that its just hard to control all those units and battles would last a long ass time.

I want regiments at leas to be divided into company's. Corpses and divisions would also be cool though.

Those that complain about too many units to control just don't know how to micro like a Korean.

The 20 units system is a left over from RTW were armies weren't that big (legion = 4200 men).

Originally Posted by S-te-Fan

The 20 units system is a left over from RTW were armies weren't that big (legion = 4200 men).

yeh exactly - its time to crank it up CA!!!

Originally Posted by S-te-Fan

The 20 units system is a left over from RTW were armies weren't that big (legion = 4200 men).

I don't understand your point, you are aware Rome would group the Legions into armies.
There were many battles durring RTW's period where battles had near to, or over 100,000 participants.

As a compromise until CA give us more than 20 units, would larger units be any good?
I mean at present line inf on huge=160, and cav=60, would say, 50% larger units at least fill out a battlefield more?

Originally Posted by Frost, colonel

I don't understand your point, you are aware Rome would group the Legions into armies.
There were many battles durring RTW's period where battles had near to, or over 100,000 participants.

As a compromise until CA give us more than 20 units, would larger units be any good?
I mean at present line inf on huge=160, and cav=60, would say, 50% larger units at least fill out a battlefield more?

1 company of line infantry had about 300-500 men. They need to increase everything to a bigger size.

Originally Posted by LiN

1 company of line infantry had about 300-500 men. They need to increase everything to a bigger size.

Where did you read that, and do you mean company or battalions? Because 300-500 for a company is huge, which army are you talking about, not British? A really big battalion could be over 1,000 men, depending on recruitment, but that's not normal.
At Bleinhiem 1704, the Allies average Battalion size was 681 men

I wondering for ETW/NTW if inf units will start to become clumsy for gameplay if over say, 250 men?

Maybe if CA create a half decent AI we could have a more advanced command structure with huge battlefields and massive armies with different ranking officers. Now THAT would simply be epic. Until then, 20 units it is.

What do you mean Ragerancher? The battlefields are already massive. We have historically accurate numbers of men on the field! and why would fixing the AI solve human management of the game?

Evan

Originally Posted by Evan MF

What do you mean Ragerancher? The battlefields are already massive. We have historically accurate numbers of men on the field! and why would fixing the AI solve human management of the game?

Evan

Firstly, yes the battlefields are big but not big enough to allow truely tactical manouvering. If the AI was competant, it could easily reinforce the left flank of its army in time if you attacked there as opposed to having a situation where you can attack a flank and then roll up the line.

Secondly, the numbers are actually WAY off the size of real battles. Darth mod allows about 400 men per unit. 20 units is 8000 men. At Waterloo there were 50-70 thousand on each side. Remember, Darth mod significantly increases the size of the units.

As for the AI, having a competant AI would allow CA to create a much more interesting command structure. Rather than controlling indiviudal units directly, you would give orders to sub-sections of the army and the AI would do the work of interpreting those orders. Alternatively, the AI could have to total combat view and you as a human would control the individual units in a sub-section of the army. It would allow more options to how you want to play and potentially add a stronger role-playing element to the game that slightly existed in Rome.

Originally Posted by Ragerancher

Firstly, yes the battlefields are big but not big enough to allow truely tactical manouvering. If the AI was competant, it could easily reinforce the left flank of its army in time if you attacked there as opposed to having a situation where you can attack a flank and then roll up the line.

Secondly, the numbers are actually WAY off the size of real battles. Darth mod allows about 400 men per unit. 20 units is 8000 men. At Waterloo there were 50-70 thousand on each side. Remember, Darth mod significantly increases the size of the units.

As for the AI, having a competant AI would allow CA to create a much more interesting command structure. Rather than controlling indiviudal units directly, you would control sub-sections of the army and the AI would do the work. Alternatively, the AI could have to total combat view and you as a human would control a sub-section of the army. It would allow more options to how you want to play and potentially add a stronger role-playing element to the game that slightly existed in Rome.

So... are you here to play "What the hell is Ney doing! How can you send in cavalry without infantry?! Can't I leave a battlefield for a minute!" or Total War?

Originally Posted by LiN

So... are you here to play "What the hell is Ney doing! How can you send in cavalry without infantry?! Can't I leave a battlefield for a minute!" or Total War?

I'm here to play total war, hence why I specified very early on that the prerequisite for this was a competant AI.

Originally Posted by Ragerancher

I'm here to play total war, hence why I specified very early on that the prerequisite for this was a competant AI.

What you said was to have an AI to actually do the maneuvering while you say "attack the right flank", which is NOT Total War.

Try to manipulate that units in MP without pause and then we'll see how your opinion changes.