Large vs Medium

it's worth noting thist list was made from the paradigm of grassy flatlands. perhaps someone who never plays grassy flats can offer their own interpretation. this is not a final list, i just made this as a rough draft. if you want me to explain any point please ask. if you disgree please tell me your reasoning as i fully accept that some changes will need to be made. when the setting has a direct effect i wrote it down, no matter how small, and i've made no attempt to quantify the effects i've listed. I've only listed things related to gameplay - obviously large/large is more realistic and looks cooler. for the record, i prefer medium funds, large units, but i also like med units and large funds, or med/med. i'd appreciate if anyone could add to the list of characteristics for the large settings.


Med Funds:
-more fast paced gameplay (micro)
-greater emphasis on offensive play
-greater differences in nations (spain and ottoman and austria are much better on medium funds)
-more strategy in builds
-Better performance

Med Units:
-More fast paced gameplay (micro)
-More emphasis on cav
-greater emphasis on offensive play
-greater emphasis on morale
-Better Performance

Large Units:
-more emphasis on lights
-less emphasis on morale
-more emphasis on defensive play (usually when coupled with large funds and on maps with terrain)
-artillery more useful

Large Funds:
-Good test of micro
-more emphasis on defensive play (usually when coupled with large units and on maps with terrain)
-artillery more useful

I find that the large condoms fit me the best, dmcheatw.

Originally Posted by dmcheatw

it's worth noting thist list was made from the paradigm of grassy flatlands. perhaps someone who never plays grassy flats can offer their own interpretation.

I never play GF, but it's been some time since I've played anything other than large/large, so it's more of a question than an opinion.
I agree with most of your assessments, but why

Med Funds:
-greater emphasis on offensive play

Large Funds:
-more emphasis on defensive play

?

For an attack, having to sacrifice a unit (or at least having to take into account heavy losses to it) is not unusual; but with medium funds, every unit lost is much more relevant.
Therefore, I would guess defensive play is more of a winning strat in med funds than it is in large.

Art spam is nearly useless in large funds, because there are so many units approaching that the artillery fire doesn't even know where to fire.

Originally Posted by daniu

For an attack, having to sacrifice a unit (or at least having to take into account heavy losses to it) is not unusual; but with medium funds, every unit lost is much more relevant.
Therefore, I would guess defensive play is more of a winning strat in med funds than it is in large.

Art spam is nearly useless in large funds, because there are so many units approaching that the artillery fire doesn't even know where to fire.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Medium funds PROMOTES attacking!

Originally Posted by Crizpy Apple

Medium funds PROMOTES attacking!

And what brilliant reasoning you use to assert your statement!

Originally Posted by daniu

And what brilliant reasoning you use to assert your statement!

Most tournaments use medium funds + units because these are the most balanced setting which promote fairplay and balanced. These rules are decided upon by a team of veterans who specifically want to improve the games balance.

Medium / medium definately promotes attacking and is the most balanced.

Durrrrrrrrr

Originally Posted by Crizpy Apple

Most tournaments use medium funds + units because these are the most balanced setting which promote fairplay and balanced. These rules are decided upon by a team of veterans who specifically want to improve the games balance.

Medium / medium definately promotes attacking and is the most balanced.

What rules are used in tournaments is irrelevant to the question whether it promotes attacking. As is balancing.
dmcheatw cannot "help" you explain why med promotes attacking if you don't even try.

Strike two.

yeah it is pretty gay there is no substantive discussion in this thread, except for us anyway.

Originally Posted by daniu

For an attack, having to sacrifice a unit (or at least having to take into account heavy losses to it) is not unusual; but with medium funds, every unit lost is much more relevant.
Therefore, I would guess defensive play is more of a winning strat in med funds than it is in large.

on grassy flats i see what u are saying. admittedly when i came up with this point my reasoning was that on a map with terrain, it'd be easier to go through choke points and around defenses if there were less units. this is because It's easier to guard the choke points and on italian grassland and prussian hills, etc when you have more men, just as it's easier to defend a fort the more men you have. the map sizes are fixed, the terrain is fixed, but the number of men is scaleable, the more men you have the easier defense becomes as the map gets more crowed and mobility more restricted. On grassy flats, this only comes into effect in 2 v 2 or larger, and usually only if unit sizes are set to large as well, and then it's only in the early game, once each sides armies thin out a bit the the battle slowly becomes more dynamic over time.

I was guilty of cherry picking my information and not looking at it consistently from the paradigm of grassy flats. on grassy flats larger fund sizes only promote defensive play sometimes (on team games with large/large settings, and then only for the first 1/2 of the game).

Originally Posted by daniu

Art spam is nearly useless in large funds, because there are so many units approaching that the artillery fire doesn't even know where to fire.

I'm not really talking about art spam but rather 0-2 art per person sort of thing. again, i was more thinking along the lines of in a game with terrain, once the choke points are blocked and a solid line is formed, the longer that line is and the stronger that line is for a fixed area, the easier defense becomes, the more static the fight becomes, the more effective artillery becomes. the more units you can buy makes all this easier, and it's made worse by large/large settings. and it's worth noting that large Sizes, also changes the way the unit handles attacks. the larger the unit the more resilliant it tends to be, and it lends an inherent advantage to shooting and against cav, as larger units don't get mass routed as easily, and when they do they often come back. it becomes physically too many men to kill with cavalry shock tactics alone. so the effects of morale and unit size in the game make larger unit sizes harder to attack and route swiftly. it takes longer to kill 120 men than it does 80 men. the engagements just go faster on smaller unit sizes.

but anyway, On grassy flats artillery enhanced effectivness is intermittent because you need that gridlock first to slow the game down to give artillery time to work and to allow you to pay proper attention to your artillery.

Originally Posted by dmcheatw

he had legitimate points that on grassy flats the effect isn't always there though for larger funds.

Again, you seem to think I'm trying to win an argument against you while I'm just trying to follow your reasoning.
And how could I even be trying to make points on grassy flats? I said I never play it and haven't in 2 about months.

Originally Posted by dmcheatw

on a map with terrain, it'd be easier to go through choke points and around defenses if there were less units. this is because It's easier to guard the choke points

I really don't understand what you're saying.
How can it be easier to "go around defenses" with less units?
Anyway, what I was trying to say before is that I would be more reluctant to try a frontal assault on a choke point that looks weakly defended in medium settings because the losses I risk doing it account for more.

the more men you have the easier defense becomes as the map gets more crowed and mobility more restricted.

This sounds reasonable in theory, but I honestly cannot think of any instance where I had a problem with restricted mobility due to army size.
I may sometimes keep units in the second line if it gets crowded, but why would that be better for defense than for offense?

the more static the fight becomes, the more effective artillery becomes.

Agreed.
I also agree that large funds battles are more static overall (because it's less likely that you have all your units moving all the time); therefore, artillery is more effective in large funds.
This is why artillery is quite common in large funds armies and less so in med funds.
An enemy fielding artillery however is an incentive to not stay static and defend.

Another aspect I would like to add which I imagine is more important in large funds: due to the large area covered by one's army, it is harder to keep all vulnerable points of it in sight; this is why I feel threats of attacks (like moving cavalry) work better, putting more emphasis on psychological factors (aside from the micro required to control the units).

All in all it's a matter of taste whether people like med or large I suppose.
I'm also not saying that large funds battles are "better", I'm just trying to explain why I like them more.

Originally Posted by daniu

Again, you seem to think I'm trying to win an argument against you while I'm just trying to follow your reasoning.
And how could I even be trying to make points on grassy flats? I said I never play it and haven't in 2 about months.


I really don't understand what you're saying.
How can it be easier to "go around defenses" with less units?
Anyway, what I was trying to say before is that I would be more reluctant to try a frontal assault on a choke point that looks weakly defended in medium settings because the losses I risk doing it account for more.

This sounds reasonable in theory, but I honestly cannot think of any instance where I had a problem with restricted mobility due to army size.
I may sometimes keep units in the second line if it gets crowded, but why would that be better for defense than for offense?

Agreed.
I also agree that large funds battles are more static overall (because it's less likely that you have all your units moving all the time); therefore, artillery is more effective in large funds.
This is why artillery is quite common in large funds armies and less so in med funds.
An enemy fielding artillery however is an incentive to not stay static and defend.

Another aspect I would like to add which I imagine is more important in large funds: due to the large area covered by one's army, it is harder to keep all vulnerable points of it in sight; this is why I feel threats of attacks (like moving cavalry) work better, putting more emphasis on psychological factors (aside from the micro required to control the units).

All in all it's a matter of taste whether people like med or large I suppose.
I'm also not saying that large funds battles are "better", I'm just trying to explain why I like them more.

no i meant to agree with you mainly in my post. those things don't hold on grassy flats except in certain instances.

as far as how medium funds makes it easier to attack, well my thinking is if you have 5 units of line on medium funds, and 7 on large funds, but the terrain and width of the map remain the same, the larger the army for the given space the easier defense is. i don't necessarily mean that attacking through a defended choke point is easier, i mean less choke points will be defended, or defended properly, because the player will have less units available to garrison the choke points. overall his battle line will be shorter, and thus easier to manuver around. a map 1000 meters across is easier to defend with 2 extra line, and several extra more units overall, and on large/large 3 v 3s it is very easy to stretch from redline to redline, which covers the entire front. this prevents flanking, which hinders offensive actions overall.

this is what i mean when i say too large of an army restricts mobility. if i start a 4 v 4, even on medium/medium, i always feel i'm either sandwiched between two armies or between an army and the redline, on large/large it's even worse. I agree large funds battles are more static overall, but i think it's for the reason i just outlined.

then if that makes sense i was thinking that it makes artillery more useful as one of the few units that can effectivly attack in such a gridlock (the other being 125 range).

if one team has arty and the other does not it only encourages one side to camp. if both teams have arty in a serious match it can take hours before one team wins the shootout and the other is forced to attack. that said, i don't like to prohibit artillery. it's true it's harder to keep your army and surroundings in full view on large unit sizes and/or funds, but that isn't so relevant among good players like us because everyone here uses the dev camera that reads these forums.

med/med, the opposite extreme, is sort of like an arcade game, very fast, very much about manuver warfare. in 1 v 1s large funds and/or units can also be about manuver but in team games this becomes increasingly difficult mainly due to the map sizes imo.

one thing future TW needs to introduce is scalable maps for when unit size and/or funds increases so does map size. and i dont just mean make the redlines further. increase the distances between the physical features so people can't fortify all the choke points, make the patches of forest a bit larger on homestead so large units can hide easier, make house models that can garrison more men so on large or ultra you don't have men overflowing buildings on italian grassland, make river crossings larger, make streets wider. cause right now this one size fits all approach doesn't work as well as it might IMO. larger unit sizes dont fit as well on the maps that seem to be optimized for medium unit sizes, and ultra units don't work at all.

Originally Posted by dmcheatw

one thing future TW needs to introduce is scalable maps for when unit size and/or funds increases so does map size. and i dont just mean make the redlines further. increase the distances between the physical features so people can't fortify all the choke points, make the patches of forest a bit larger on homestead so large units can hide easier, make house models that can garrison more men so on large or ultra you don't have men overflowing buildings on italian grassland, make river crossings larger, make streets wider. cause right now this one size fits all approach doesn't work as well as it might IMO. larger unit sizes dont fit as well on the maps that seem to be optimized for medium unit sizes, and ultra units don't work at all.

Excellent idea - i can't see y they cant still roll out maps like that for ntw or update the current ones it would make the games alot more enjoyable

Originally Posted by dmcheatw

i don't necessarily mean that attacking through a defended choke point is easier, i mean less choke points will be defended, or defended properly, because the player will have less units available to garrison the choke points.

Ah yes, that's true. You have more units to "pluck the holes" if you will.
But then again, the attacker also has more units to take advantage of the weak spots.
I guess it really boils down to each players style of play in the end. I'm always attacking on l/l and used to be when playing m/m back in ETW; I also encountered campers in both settings.

this is what i mean when i say too large of an army restricts mobility. if i start a 4 v 4, even on medium/medium, i always feel i'm either sandwiched between two armies or between an army and the redline, on large/large it's even worse.

I think I only ever played one game 4v4, and that was in Empire... too laggy. But it's not hard to believe that what you're saying is true.

if one team has arty and the other does not it only encourages one side to camp. if both teams have arty in a serious match it can take hours before one team wins the shootout and the other is forced to attack. that said, i don't like to prohibit artillery.

Agreed.
It's one of the reasons I never play "serious" matches; of course I try to win when playing, but I feel having to waste my time to win is worth it.

it's true it's harder to keep your army and surroundings in full view on large unit sizes and/or funds, but that isn't so relevant among good players like us because everyone here uses the dev camera that reads these forums.

Also, agreed.
But: the difference between players with different skill levels becomes larger.

med/med, the opposite extreme, is sort of like an arcade game, very fast, very much about manuver warfare.

That brings me back to something else you had said before: that large units are more resilient to attack is true of course and got me thinking.
Since large units allow more time to react, they are more suited to large funds armies where mistakes are more common due to less overview.
Allowing for mistakes in med funds games should take a lot of speed out of the game; maybe that's a setting suitable for new players: allows to pay attention to most of their army, doesn't strain their micro too much, and allows for tactical experiments because it forgives mistakes to an extent.
What do you think?
I also wonder how large funds and med units behave, never considered that...

Large condoms are much to small for me

OP, I think that med units/funds are for girls and people with bad computers.

Now I know why I hardly play this game. Ive just downloaded the new campaign but don't think ill waste my time playing multi. This game has been out for like 4 months now and you all are still trying to work out the best settings. Such noobs.

I got 9 stars in this game in the first week. This game like all its TW predecessors is a simple game based on a simple premise whether you attack or defend. Have the numbers and concentrate your fire.

I prefer Med size and either med funds or large funds. And as the op said you have greater number of nations to utilise effectively. But don't waste your money on France. Other cheaper nations build more effective armies.

Since I can’t be bothered to play this game and you all can’t work out how to win I let you all in a secret. Just don't tell anyone.

The game is about winning. If you want to win play med/med or med/large go a nation like Otto like the OP said hopefully your opponent will go France (most nooobs do). Make sure you host. (No matter what your connection is like, hosting give u a slight advantage) Don't waste you time on expensive line they are crap on med settings. (this is why the OP said minor nations are better). In med units/ large funds you should bring about 5 or 6 lights (100 range) and 6 or 7 average line the rest all cav. With Otto a majority of rifle cav and 1 or 2 lancer cav. The op is right about fast game in med settings (you should be able to finish off you opponent in less than 10 minutes if you are any good.) Tactics in med settings are very very simple if you use your brain. U should have either a light inf or cav advantage if u pick yours armies right. Once you engage your lights if you have a light advantage you will usually force your opponent to use cav or inf to support. On med settings game is over at this point the extra damage your light inf will do to the cav or line will give you the advantage when you attack with your line. (like I said you don't really need good line as the game will be won after there first line volley, no need for a quick reload) When your lights are done or you see you have enough of an advantage roll in your line and shoot ( now timing is important here) you want your cav to hit him just after you let of one volley. On med size settings your opponent is gone. You win.

When I was really bored i played with art ( Russia is good ) just sit back and watch as you pound your opponent as his pitiful line tries to close the gap. You will get a first shot off with your lights while still pounding him with art. At this point your opponent is gone. Let him finish off you lights and then move in your line, you know the drill, volley then hit with cav. Opponent routs. The guy who talks about large size units why would you give your opponent more men, he might actually get to your art. Fast quick games are by far better.

So if you read what the OP said carefully you should be able to realise the first two options are way more superior. Don't waste your time on large settings they are just gay and your opponent will usually lag. I stopped playing in ETW when I got to 65000 and ive stop playing this after I got 9 stars I cant remember losing a ranked med settings game. Campaign is the only good thing about this game. Multi is just dull and there are no decent players so come and play MW2 if you want to play a real game. (but only if you are a good gamer)

Op why would you bother to quantify it should be pretty obvious if you have some intelligence and who cares what the game looks like ( its about winning), noob players rely on good line to much and in Med size settings you can massacre line with good lights and quick cav. Game over in 10 minutes Doh. OP u seem a smart guy give this rubbish away and play MW2.

Originally Posted by Toby787

Now I know why I hardly play this game. Ive just downloaded the new campaign but don't think ill waste my time playing multi. This game has been out for like 4 months now and you all are still trying to work out the best settings. Such noobs.

I got 9 stars in this game in the first week. This game like all its TW predecessors is a simple game based on a simple premise whether you attack or defend. Have the numbers and concentrate your fire.

I prefer Med size and either med funds or large funds. And as the op said you have greater number of nations to utilise effectively. But don't waste your money on France. Other cheaper nations build more effective armies.

Since I can’t be bothered to play this game and you all can’t work out how to win I let you all in a secret. Just don't tell anyone.

The game is about winning. If you want to win play med/med or med/large go a nation like Otto like the OP said hopefully your opponent will go France (most nooobs do). Make sure you host. (No matter what your connection is like, hosting give u a slight advantage) Don't waste you time on expensive line they are crap on med settings. (this is why the OP said minor nations are better). In med units/ large funds you should bring about 5 or 6 lights (100 range) and 6 or 7 average line the rest all cav. With Otto a majority of rifle cav and 1 or 2 lancer cav. The op is right about fast game in med settings (you should be able to finish off you opponent in less than 10 minutes if you are any good.) Tactics in med settings are very very simple if you use your brain. U should have either a light inf or cav advantage if u pick yours armies right. Once you engage your lights if you have a light advantage you will usually force your opponent to use cav or inf to support. On med settings game is over at this point the extra damage your light inf will do to the cav or line will give you the advantage when you attack with your line. (like I said you don't really need good line as the game will be won after there first line volley, no need for a quick reload) When your lights are done or you see you have enough of an advantage roll in your line and shoot ( now timing is important here) you want your cav to hit him just after you let of one volley. On med size settings your opponent is gone. You win.

When I was really bored i played with art ( Russia is good ) just sit back and watch as you pound your opponent as his pitiful line tries to close the gap. You will get a first shot off with your lights while still pounding him with art. At this point your opponent is gone. Let him finish off you lights and then move in your line, you know the drill, volley then hit with cav. Opponent routs. The guy who talks about large size units why would you give your opponent more men, he might actually get to your art. Fast quick games are by far better.

So if you read what the OP said carefully you should be able to realise the first two options are way more superior. Don't waste your time on large settings they are just gay and your opponent will usually lag. I stopped playing in ETW when I got to 65000 and ive stop playing this after I got 9 stars I cant remember losing a ranked med settings game. Campaign is the only good thing about this game. Multi is just dull and there are no decent players so come and play MW2 if you want to play a real game. (but only if you are a good gamer)

Op why would you bother to quantify it should be pretty obvious if you have some intelligence and who cares what the game looks like ( its about winning), noob players rely on good line to much and in Med size settings you can massacre line with good lights and quick cav. Game over in 10 minutes Doh. OP u seem a smart guy give this rubbish away and play MW2.

Excuse me Mr. Total War God, who in the hell are you?

Originally Posted by Toby787

Now I know why I hardly play this game. Ive just downloaded the new campaign but don't think ill waste my time playing multi. This game has been out for like 4 months now and you all are still trying to work out the best settings. Such noobs.

I got 9 stars in this game in the first week. This game like all its TW predecessors is a simple game based on a simple premise whether you attack or defend. Have the numbers and concentrate your fire.

I prefer Med size and either med funds or large funds. And as the op said you have greater number of nations to utilise effectively. But don't waste your money on France. Other cheaper nations build more effective armies.

Since I can’t be bothered to play this game and you all can’t work out how to win I let you all in a secret. Just don't tell anyone.

The game is about winning. If you want to win play med/med or med/large go a nation like Otto like the OP said hopefully your opponent will go France (most nooobs do). Make sure you host. (No matter what your connection is like, hosting give u a slight advantage) Don't waste you time on expensive line they are crap on med settings. (this is why the OP said minor nations are better). In med units/ large funds you should bring about 5 or 6 lights (100 range) and 6 or 7 average line the rest all cav. With Otto a majority of rifle cav and 1 or 2 lancer cav. The op is right about fast game in med settings (you should be able to finish off you opponent in less than 10 minutes if you are any good.) Tactics in med settings are very very simple if you use your brain. U should have either a light inf or cav advantage if u pick yours armies right. Once you engage your lights if you have a light advantage you will usually force your opponent to use cav or inf to support. On med settings game is over at this point the extra damage your light inf will do to the cav or line will give you the advantage when you attack with your line. (like I said you don't really need good line as the game will be won after there first line volley, no need for a quick reload) When your lights are done or you see you have enough of an advantage roll in your line and shoot ( now timing is important here) you want your cav to hit him just after you let of one volley. On med size settings your opponent is gone. You win.

When I was really bored i played with art ( Russia is good ) just sit back and watch as you pound your opponent as his pitiful line tries to close the gap. You will get a first shot off with your lights while still pounding him with art. At this point your opponent is gone. Let him finish off you lights and then move in your line, you know the drill, volley then hit with cav. Opponent routs. The guy who talks about large size units why would you give your opponent more men, he might actually get to your art. Fast quick games are by far better.

So if you read what the OP said carefully you should be able to realise the first two options are way more superior. Don't waste your time on large settings they are just gay and your opponent will usually lag. I stopped playing in ETW when I got to 65000 and ive stop playing this after I got 9 stars I cant remember losing a ranked med settings game. Campaign is the only good thing about this game. Multi is just dull and there are no decent players so come and play MW2 if you want to play a real game. (but only if you are a good gamer)

Op why would you bother to quantify it should be pretty obvious if you have some intelligence and who cares what the game looks like ( its about winning), noob players rely on good line to much and in Med size settings you can massacre line with good lights and quick cav. Game over in 10 minutes Doh. OP u seem a smart guy give this rubbish away and play MW2.

After reading this, I spent hours trying to solve the mystery. Who could this mysterious man be? He comes onto the forums, he speaks of his skills. Is it a sign? Is it a preview of things to come!?

I decoded ancient mysteries. I read the Bible. I consulted the Pope, and received word from Buddha himself! I took a in the toilet, and in the was an encryption from the highest powers man has ever known. I took a picture of the encryption, and it is the evidence we have all been looking for to reveal this man's identity! Here is a rough sketch of the message I received!



HE IS A TROLLLLLLLL

[[[[[[[QUOTE=Toby787;7441372]Now I know why I hardly play this game. Ive just downloaded the new campaign but don't think ill waste my time playing multi. This game has been out for like 4 months now and you all are still trying to work out the best settings. Such noobs.

I got 9 stars in this game in the first week. This game like all its TW predecessors is a simple game based on a simple premise whether you attack or defend. Have the numbers and concentrate your fire. ]]]]]]]
Stars are nothing bro.. i can get 9 stars easily like every1 else..just hill camp pyramids with art... but no i stay with 4-5 stars because i dont care bout that much it doesnt prove nuthing most of the times..and people seem to underestimate me a lot because of it...but they get what they deserve

Toby787>
The rest of us "retards">

Haha

that pic doesnt look much like a total war god

but i might use it for my avatar, thanks for posting

im not trying to look like a god but really is it that hard to work out how to win

the op seems to be quite brilliant compared to most who post on the forum.

med settings are by far the best if you want to win that seem to me to be obvious but you just need the right army and most spam line which of course is retarded in med

if your IQ is between 0 and 40 play large settings, if its above 40 come play mw2

Originally Posted by Toby787

if your IQ is between 0 and 40 play large settings, if its above 40 come play mw2

Hey thanks for the advice. I just have one question, what if your IQ is 40.

Please respond quickly, I've been staring at the Multiplayer menu for a few hours completely confused about what to do.