army sizes

[atila9000]

what i mean is not how many soldiers a unit has, but how many units an army can have.
it might be a bit more historical that different cultures have different maximum of units in an army (all of them starting from regular 20). i mean that, for example, the barbarians always outnumbered the romans. in a TW battle, both with 20 units, it would still be aprox. 2200 romans vs 2300 barbarians, making the battle pretty even.
most of the battles, barbarians outnumbered the romans at least by 10000 men, and i want this factor to be in the game. in a battle, there would be 2200 romans, with 20 units, vs 3500 barbarians with 30 units, which shows the romans being outnumbered.
as for carthaginians it would be 23 units, hellenic 20-22 units, eastern 24-26 units.
and as for barbarians would be too overpowered, we could make them that, to win a battle they must rely on numbers more that strategy.

[Lockcaps]

I want to be able to have ATLEAST double unit sizes, ie 500 men or so per unit.

About the barbarian thing, that is a good point. CA has to either give them even more soldiers per unit or give factions different amounts of unit cards(ie. Romans get 25 per battle, barbarians get 35)

[The Great Montrose]

I dont think barbarian factions will be able to have more unit cards but I think the amount of men in each unit is a good point because the barbarian factions did rely more on numbers than anything else

[Ariovist]

Those myths about the masses of barbarian warriors will never die - sadly.
If you take your time and take a look at modern researchs from ethnologist and anthropologists combined with archaelogical findings the numbers of barbarian armies from ancient roman sources are just impossible. Wikipedia just copied them from those ancient sources.

[atila9000]

Those myths about the masses of barbarian warriors will never die - sadly.
If you take your time and take a look at modern researchs from ethnologist and anthropologists combined with archaelogical findings the numbers of barbarian armies from ancient roman sources are just impossible. Wikipedia just copied them from those ancient sources.

but many documentals always say that romans were outnumbered by the barbarians. and if it is stated in a documental, well... thats can mostly be true

[Love Mountain]

but many documentals always say that romans were outnumbered by the barbarians. and if it is stated in a documental, well... thats can mostly be true

Unless the sources used were Roman, in which case Romans probably exaggerated enemy numbers to make their victory seem more grand.

[The Great Montrose]

Roman sources were probably exagerate but still the "barbarians" did usually outnumber the Romans but probably not quite as much as what we think

[Ariovist]

Roman sources were probably exagerate but still the "barbarians" did usually outnumber the Romans but probably not quite as much as what we think

I ask you again to read some modern stuff about ethnology and anthropology.
Add that with the problems in agriculture, the way germanic people lived and pure logistics and you will see, that for example germanic warriors were not so numerous the romans wanted their own people to believe.

[Condottiere 40K]

If you're a Roman general, and the Senate will only grant you a triumph at a certain casualty level, your estimation of the body count may be a trifle skewed.

[Titus Livius Patavinus]

The numbers of soldiers in battles from that time period were always estimates. Do you really think they had people going around counting armies before battles? They were gross estimates, sometimes reported in a wide range by different people. And most sources that are from that period are of the Roman kind, which means they probably used a little propaganda to make themselves look better by defeating a massive "hoard" of barbarians.

The numbers weren't always in the Roman's enemy's favor, just look at many of the battles of Hannibal's campaign, he usually had less men but still beat the Romans.