What is a unit?

**rebelyell2006** · January 03, 2011, 06:31 PM

Something that always bugged me about the RTW and M2TW game mechanics is the lack of any definitive connection to real-life scales (beyond the label of "cohort"). What does a "unit" of militia spearmen in M2TW represent? A small band of spearmen (at 1:1 conversion), a "company"-sized unit of ~250 men, a Dutch battalion-sized unit of ~500 men, or a few thousand men? What does this say about a full-stack army? How would a formal Spanish Tercio be represented in the game?

**EmperorDan** · January 04, 2011, 12:27 AM

in the medieval times, there was no two factions with the same scale, the unit's size varied much from country to country, so I guess that CA implemented the same unit size to all factions not in connection with historical facts, but rather to give each factions fair chances.....

**Ishan** · January 04, 2011, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by EmperorDan

but rather to give each factions fair chances.....

It could be that but as a modder i see it as there are same multiple units with different textures so that's why this is done as they found it less tedious.

**EmperorDan** · January 04, 2011, 02:15 AM

beats my answer

**Vazzaroth** · January 04, 2011, 11:33 PM

I was going to start a new thread in a similar vein. I'm wondering what the most truly realistic unit scale is. Large seems about right, but even then archers cant fit on some of the walls. Huge seems unrealistically huge amounts of men are deployed and lost in each battle and the entire region would be underpopulated for ages at the lack of fathers.

BUT Im no expert in these things (Not yet, until I can find a good college in my area that offers these history classes) so I'm not sure if the numbers are in line with what was fielded. Anyone else might?

**rebelyell2006** · January 05, 2011, 12:24 AM

The problem with figuring this stuff out is the fact that CA included historical games, which feature armies of various sizes in just one or two stacks, representing between 5000-30000 men. So, if an army of ~2000 models represents about 20000 men, then one model=ten man? Then a unit of Tercio Pikemen would represent an entire Tercio? That would make no sense given that a Tercio was a united, cohesive "regiment" consisting of pikemen, swordsmen, peltasts, arquebusiers and initially crossbowmen. And what would that say about settlements, that to be a "city," London would need to have a population of 60,000 people. But in 1100, according to the dubious Wikipedia, London had a population of about 15,000, and in 1300 had a population of 80,000. At the same time (1100's), Constantinople had a population of about 200,000, but that was a declining population from what it was in the past. Rome had a population in the millions before the timeframe of M2TW. And these settlements start out as large towns, with in-game populations under 6,000 (and if the above scale is correct, less that 60,000 people). I think CA doesn't want us to figure out an actual scale, because it doesn't seem to be a geometrical scale.

**Medkirtys** · January 05, 2011, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by rebelyell2006

The problem with figuring this stuff out is the fact that CA included historical games, which feature armies of various sizes in just one or two stacks, representing between 5000-30000 men. So, if an army of ~2000 models represents about 20000 men, then one model=ten man? Then a unit of Tercio Pikemen would represent an entire Tercio? That would make no sense given that a Tercio was a united, cohesive "regiment" consisting of pikemen, swordsmen, peltasts, arquebusiers and initially crossbowmen. And what would that say about settlements, that to be a "city," London would need to have a population of 60,000 people. But in 1100, according to the dubious Wikipedia, London had a population of about 15,000, and in 1300 had a population of 80,000. At the same time (1100's), Constantinople had a population of about 200,000, but that was a declining population from what it was in the past. Rome had a population in the millions before the timeframe of M2TW. And these settlements start out as large towns, with in-game populations under 6,000 (and if the above scale is correct, less that 60,000 people). I think CA doesn't want us to figure out an actual scale, because it doesn't seem to be a geometrical scale.

wat

**rebelyell2006** · January 05, 2011, 10:20 AM

That is what's bothering me, Medkirtys. It doesn't make sense. None of the unit scales in M2TW make sense, because the game designers give us no hint as to what the units represent. I go back to the first post in the thread. What is a unit of militia spearmen? A small group of similarly-armed militiamen, perhaps ~100 spearmen? Or ~1000 militiamen from the region, primarily armed with spears but could be armed with anything.

**painter** · January 05, 2011, 10:34 AM

I will be surprised to see consistent unit sizes throughout the ages, particularly before professional armies came about again.

**rebelyell2006** · January 05, 2011, 10:59 AM

But that is not what I am asking. What I am trying to figure out is what is a unit, and what is a full-stack army? What did they intend it to be, a 1:1 ratio of models to soldiers? A 1:10 ratio?

**EmperorDan** · January 05, 2011, 11:12 AM

In medieval times, a unit would varie from region to region, from army to army, from faction to faction... not to mention that from one town to another units of militia could have had 250 men in Paris and 150 in Bordeaux.....Now, to answer your question rebelyell2006, my guess it`s that the ratio looks like 1:5...speaking about the unit scale...the population may have some other scale....

**shikaka** · January 05, 2011, 11:20 AM

In medieval times the most often used was the 'lance'. That is 1 knight and what he brings it to battle (squire, crossbowmen, archer, cavalry companion, familiars, etc.). It wasn't the same even in the same country (wealth distribution between knights).

A tercio is 8 pike companies and 2 arquebus companies at the foundation of the tercios. (% of firearms increased with time.)

We are having in the game standardized, but not historical 'units', so it is not possible to find the equal of them, as they never existed as such IRL.

**rebelyell2006** · January 05, 2011, 11:18 AM

Yeah, I phrased my questions incorrectly. I meant the in-game units, the cards that show up in an army, not any sort of real historical military organization.

**EmperorDan** · January 05, 2011, 12:28 PM

rebel you meant the unit ratio, the game unit compared to real time uni, corectly?

**rebelyell2006** · January 05, 2011, 12:44 PM

Yeah. What I want to figure out is if there should be a ratio of real history soldiers to in-game models, and the dual use of the word "unit" has confused the thread. Obviously when it comes to militia spearmen and peasant groups, along with about 95% of the in-game military groups, any connection to real history military units would be pointless. Given that there was no uniformity of arms and armor, exact ratios and exact ideas for in-game groups are probably non-existent. But what should I consider the in-game groups to be? Should a militia spearman group be considered to represent ~100 men, ~500 men, ~1000 men? If a historical-game full stack represents more than 20,000 men (such as the Battle of Arsuf game), then would a campaign-game group of militia spearmen represent a thousand or more men, or are there three different real-life:in-game ratio systems (settlement, campaign military, historical-game military)?

**EmperorDan** · January 05, 2011, 12:49 PM

I don't have the faintest idea.

**Medkirtys** · January 05, 2011, 12:58 PM

Now when i understood what you said, i realised it was bugging me too

**EmperorDan** · January 05, 2011, 01:13 PM

welcome to the club...still, it would be nice if a veteran member would see this and give a competent response....

**PrestigeX** · January 06, 2011, 12:30 PM

I think the historical accuracy is something that is debatable. The majority of the information we know about the middle-ages was written by monks, and often because they were comissioned to chronicle the life and stories of their benefactor / over lord. So, take it with a grain of salt. If the accounts were all written by the people who were actually fighting the battles we might have a much different idea of warfare in that time period.

Some sources seem obviously more truthful than others.

The idea that each and every region, or 'faction' in the game needs to have its own specific method of recruiting troops and numbering them etc, simply isn't practical for a game. I think CA did a good job of providing each faction with types of troops that correspond to what they actually used.

This talk of Tercios.. what is the problem? The troop type is called "Tercio pikemen" -- you can add crossbowmen, or arquebusiers to them no problem... And there you have your more proper 'tercio's'.

As for the other statements about knights, being different in every region etc... Well think of the game.. Say in Toulouse you may be recruiting Noble Knights and Crossbowmen with armor, with good experience etc,, meanwhile in Metz you've got Mailed knights and peasant crossbows with no armor.
Eventually you can upgrade everything and streamline your army, but presumably this will happen later on in the game.

Having standard unit sizes for each faction, isn't as important as the cost of the units. Maybe for 5,000 florins the French can recruit 1,000 men,,, meanwhile the egyptians could muster 3 times that amount.

But, if you really wanted to you could alter the size of each individual unit... And the cost, and the recruit pool speed (how long it takes to replinish the unit)... So, instead of mongol horse archers being 60 men, for 700 florins... and a recruit pool speed of 0.5. .. you could make it 100 men (which would be proper for how they organized themselves) for 1100 florins, and a recruit pool speed of 0.3 ....

IT wouldn't be hard, just go into the files ... Export-Units (for size and cost) and Desc_Buildings (for recruit pool, experience etc)

**Old Geezer** · January 06, 2011, 11:12 PM

I think that the game designers did a very good job at sizing the number of men in the "units". When the units are larger there are problems with control and placement in settlements. Also the pathfinding becomes more difficult and units get stuck in a quandry at times and never move. Cavalry units sized 30 or smaller are much easier to control, especially charging. The 40 sized cavalry units are just a mess - they have a very difficult time charging as they run into rocks or get stuck by a single man that they bump into while charging and the whole charge is ruined. I guess it would be more accurate historically if the infantry were 100 men each, as most armies seemed to have organized this way (at least the Romans and Jews did). Personally, I prefer to play with fewer men/units as the battles are easier to watch and the maneuvers can be more complicated.