Unit size philosophy

[Quinn Inuit]

I've been pondering how to set unit size, and I thought I'd post it here and see if anyone had thoughts. My goal is a set of sizes that has lots of gradation (making it easy to change the size of a whole class of units with a find/replace) and also that promotes varied army compositions. I figure that careful balancing of unit costs plus tweaking of unit sizes should ensure that armies always have the proper proportion of unit types.

Oh, and this also has the added bonus of making spearmen more useful. Right now they kind of suck, but I want to show why they were fielded in large numbers throughout...well, most of recorded history. IMO, the best way to do this is to keep their unit size high, which represents how tightly packed they were on the field and how easy it was to train and equip them (relative to swordsmen)

{All sizes are EDU size, which is medium. For other settings multiply by 0.5, 1, 2, or 4.}

Size 60:
Spear units from civilized factions (e.g., hoplites, Mac phalangites)

Size 50:
Low grade barbarian line units (e.g., Celtic spearmen or swordsmen, Dacian comati, Numidian javelineers, Thracian peltasts)

Size 42:
Archers from archer-favoring places (Crete, Sarmatia, and the East)

Size 40:
Civilized faction sword or melee units (e.g., Roman legionaries, thureophoroi of all types)
Mid-level barbarian units (e.g. Dacian falxmen, Iberian caetrati infantry)
Units that fought as skirmishers who could also engage in melee (e.g., Kurdish javelinmen)

Size 36:
Archers from places that don't favor archers (e.g., Gaul, Greece, etc.)

Size 34:
Slingers from places favoring slingers (Baleares, Kurds, Rhodes)
Light cavalry that was a line unit (Numidian cavalry is the only one I can think of that was produced in these numbers)

Size 32:
All psiloi-type units that aren't expected to engage in melee combat (except maybe with other psiloi, e.g., caetrati tribesmen, Greek peltasts) {I'll also make sure their formation default for the AI is loose.}

Size 30:
Elite spearmen infantry units (e.g., Athenian epilektoi, Chaonian Guards)
Most elite barbarian units (e.g., Dacian Tarabostes)
Spear + javelin pseudo-hypaspist units
Javelin cavalry
Horse archers

Size 28:
Slingers from other places (e.g., Gaul)

Size 22:
Shock cavalry (may be smaller size if super-heavy or larger if sort of medium)

Size 20:
Triarii
Spartiates hoplitai


Full stack model used for planning purposes (this keeps the cavalry level at a historically reasonable 15%)
1 general unit (call it 8 cav)
1 elite infantry unit (30 inf)
6 line infantry units (60 inf)
2 psiloi (32 inf)
3 archer/slinger (call it 32 inf average)
3 auxiliary infantry units (40 inf)
3 light cavalry (30 cav)
1 heavy cavalry (22 cav)

[Wien1938]

Yes. I like it.

[Quinn Inuit]

Cool, thanks!

Do you think Size 50 is too big for those barb units? I've been vacillating on that one.

[Mogan]

I do not think so. Especially if we make them move in a tight, asymmetric formation. I like it.

[Sabazios]

Looks good. 50 isnt to big, i'wd even go to 60. I like to slaughter my barbarians in hordes. Dont think that barb swords should be in tight formation though, as they would more likely be individual warriors and their swords were mostly slashing swords requiring more space.

[Carados]

Size 34:
Slingers from places favoring slingers (Baleares, Kurds, Rhodes)
Light cavalry that was a line unit (Numidian cavalry is the only one I can think of that was produced in these numbers)

Thracian cavalry? They went up to 40% sometimes.

[Wien1938]

Carados, it would be interesting to see the size of those Thracian armies.

[Quinn Inuit]

And Steppe Horse Archers?

I personally am not sure how one can actually justify having size 40 Roman units and size 60 Successor phalangites (especially those of the elite variety). But most of that looks fine.

That was for an infantry army. The steppe peoples are going to be dealt with differently. They'll get larger HA units, like they have now.

I vacillate on the elite phalanx units. On the one hand, if you make them too large, they become too large a percentage of the army. But too small and one of those units gets defeated in a straight fight against a normal unit.

As for the size difference, I suppose we could just make the Roman units cost more, but I'm worried that would get prohibitively expensive. Like I said, I'd like to show that there's a _reason_ most ancient armies used the spear, not the sword. Swords are much more expensive.

Carados, it would be interesting to see the size of those Thracian armies.

I knew I read that somewhere! Here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/4m5w2pe

It looks like most of the Odrysian royal armies were more like 30%, but 40% wasn't out of the question. Bithynian Thracian armies had much less cavalry.

[Caligula Caesar]

And Steppe Horse Archers?

I personally am not sure how one can actually justify having size 40 Roman units and size 60 Successor phalangites (especially those of the elite variety). But most of that looks fine.

[DarthLazy]

Increasing HA size beyond 32 would lead to balancing problems.Keep it as is

[Carados]

Not if foot archers had much greater range (or horse archers much less range).

I find size 40 elite phalangites works quite well. They do have other benefits to the army and opposing elites struggle with them just as normal guys struggle with normal phalangites.

I also share CC's concern about how small the Roman units are (or rather, how large the hoplites and phalangites are), but I guess this depends entirely on what a battle and a stack actually represents. If you treat them from a tactical viewpoint, I guess it makes sense. From a strategic point of view it doesn't make sense because Roman armies frequently outnumbered all other armies excepting migrations, and armies with large mercenary/local units (but a combined Roman army outnumbers the latter, still).

[Wien1938]

Interesting link, Quinn. I suspect the proportion would drop for a full tribal army. 15,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, which works out at a proportion of 13%. The proportion is high because these are probably the 'professional' warriors and mobilised for raiding warfare.

I would argue for size 60 elite phalangites. Just make them really expensive.
They cannot hold their own against larger formations unless these are particularly poor quality, if size 40.

[Caligula Caesar]

Quinn, wouldn't the Greek cuirasses cost more than Roman gladius (a short sword!)? Not to mention that both cultures used metal helmets and, at times, greaves. Are you sure the preference for spears was because of costs? I have a suspicion it is because it is easier to give a man a long spear, plonk him behind a shield, and tell him to stab, than teach him how to use a sword.

Edit: On the other hand, the Italian (including Roman) and Iberian cultures used many more swords than some (I am told the Iberians did not use spears much as well). It strikes me that their swords were short swords, which might not take as much training to use - anyone can stab someone.

[Quinn Inuit]

Interesting link, Quinn. I suspect the proportion would drop for a full tribal army. 15,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, which works out at a proportion of 13%. The proportion is high because these are probably the 'professional' warriors and mobilised for raiding warfare.

Ah, I see. That would make sense.

I would argue for size 60 elite phalangites. Just make them really expensive.
They cannot hold their own against larger formations unless these are particularly poor quality, if size 40.

That's been my experience with tests, too. It messes up the percentages, but otherwise the unit just doesn't carry its own weight.

[QUOTE=Caligula Caesar;8919204]Quinn, wouldn't the Greek cuirasses cost more than Roman gladius (a short sword!)? Not to mention that both cultures used metal helmets and, at times, greaves. Are you sure the preference for spears was because of costs? I have a suspicion it is because it is easier to give a man a long spear, plonk him behind a shield, and tell him to stab, than teach him how to use a sword.

Aye, the cuirasses would cost way more, but that's why only a few of the troops would've had them. I'm sure your average phalangite cost a lot less to equip than your average legionnaire.

Edit: On the other hand, the Italian (including Roman) and Iberian cultures used many more swords than some (I am told the Iberians did not use spears much as well). It strikes me that their swords were short swords, which might not take as much training to use - anyone can stab someone.

That sounds right re: the Iberians. And as for swords, yeah, it's just pointy end goes in other man and you're good.

[Wien1938]

Actually, it is likely that only officers had the muscled cuirass. The elite infantry would likely have worn scale reinforced linothoraxes in the Hellenistic world.

A legionnaire would have not have cost much more to equip as a phalangite. Only the Principes and Triarii wore chainmail in our period until the Marian reforms. Given that the phalangite wore a linothorax and a helmet, carried a short sword, pelte and a sarrisa; the legionnaire would have had two pila, a sword, possibly a dagger and the scutum, together with armour of some sort and a helmet.

Also http://www.uwgb.edu/aldreteg/Linothorax.html

[Caligula Caesar]

However, some of the elite Phalangites do have the cuirass: RTRVII's Asthetairoi, for one, but also ExRM's current Seleucid Argyraspides and, iirc, Chalkaspides.

[Quinn Inuit]

Right, but that's only the elites. It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison if we're looking at them vs. Roman legionnaires, though.

[Quinn Inuit]

On serious reflection, I think y'all are right about increasing the size of Roman legion units to 60. It just makes sense, given the kind of manpower they could raise. What should we do about the Italian legions? Up those, too?

Also, I had an epiphany about bowmen. I think we're doing it all wrong. The vast majority of archers and slingers in this game should be classed with the psiloi as small units. They were for harassment, not actual serious damage. Only Eastern archers and Cretans will keep their current unit sizes. So take that chart above and make all psiloi-type units much smaller, maybe in the 28 range.

[Tony83]

Some excellent points and ideas in this thread guys. I think maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to review VII's units on the strength of it.

Increasing the Roman units to 60 is an interesting idea, and I take the point that, strategically, they often outnumbered their enemies, especially in Greece. However, I believe that the converse was true when it came to the Keltoi "hordes" (or was that a myth put about by Caesar? ).

Tactically, however, it would make the Romans incredibly powerful on the battlefield, using either ExRM's or VII's settings, and I can't help wondering if this would really be a good thing in the long term.

[Quinn Inuit]

That's where increased costs come into play. I figure anything can be cost-balanced with a little playing around. Also, remember that Romans have been rebalanced to not be quite the tanks they were in ExRM 3.5.

As for barb unit sizes, I have mixed feelings about the extent to which we should trust those numbers. The Romans had every incentive to inflate them.