Why is the size of units so small?

**ray243** · August 11, 2013, 01:12 AM

Having a max limit of 160 men in a unit seems rather small in my opinion.

Can someone from CA clarify on the reason for such a small unit in Rome 2? Is it to optimise the game performance and ensure better AI performance?

**stradar1** · August 11, 2013, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by ray243

Having a max limit of 160 men in a unit seems rather small in my opinion.

Can someone from CA clarify on the reason for such a small unit in Rome 2? Is it to optimise the game performance and ensure better AI performance?

It is pretty sad that they claim the scale of their game will be huge but the only huge part of this game is the Campaign map. I would have to say the maximum amount of troops you can have on your side with 40 units is 6400 if all were 160 man units and that is really small for 2 armies. It is a damn shame that they cant give people with hardcore pc's the option to crank the armies up to epic size units with 40 unit armies instead of 2 20 unit armies as well. Also with the limit of armies on the campaign makes this even worse god I dont know why I am ending up hating this game the more I hear about it.

**jsully16** · August 11, 2013, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by stradar1

It is pretty sad that they claim the scale of their game will be huge but the only huge part of this game is the Campaign map. I would have to say the maximum amount of troops you can have on your side with 40 units is 6400 if all were 160 man units and that is really small for 2 armies. It is a damn shame that they cant give people with hardcore pc's the option to crank the armies up to epic size units with 40 unit armies instead of 2 20 unit armies as well. Also with the limit of armies on the campaign makes this even worse god I dont know why I am ending up hating this game the more I hear about it.

Don't buy it.

**stradar1** · August 11, 2013, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by jsully16

Don't buy it.

I already pre-ordered the game. Im not going to not buy it just because you said so. I have my issues with the game but im still getting it since I been a fan since day one. Of course I am very critical with this game. I know the game is going to be great in certain areas but it is lacking in others.

My only issues with this game is MPC limited to 2 players again. And not getting an option for 40 units in one army and army sizes are just to small to change the battle experience. But yay for mods!!!

Originally Posted by HolyRoman

You have to remember you can have 40 units now, and it's been confirmed they can all be land units if you like. So thats 4800 potentially in a full army. Battles of 9600 men are huge if you pitch a full army versus a full army. Though more men in a unit would be cool, I'm happy with the size.

160 men per unit 40 units = 6400 men not 9600 men....... I actually would not mind if each army could potentially have up to 5000 to 10000 men then id be happy. But no 20 unit armies will be on average around 1600 to 2500 men per army yuck!!

4800 men per legion would work because A it would be accurate and would fit well IMO.

**CanOmer** · August 11, 2013, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by stradar1

4800 men per legion would work because A it would be accurate and would fit well IMO.

Game does not represent accuarate army sizes. Rome I was in 1/15 scale, Rome II has smaller unit sizes. If Rome II has 1/15 scale of real world numbers, then your legion should have 4800 : 15 = 320 men. It means two units of 160. So, two hastati units represent a legion.

**aljonzc** · August 11, 2013, 01:26 AM

Don't you worry about Unit scale guys. It is very modable since Empire Total War... You can even edit the unit_multiplier in the script

**stradar1** · August 11, 2013, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by aljonzc

Don't you worry about Unit scale guys. It is very modable since Empire Total War... You can even edit the unit_multiplier in the script

Id rather it be an option in the game then it being modded it would work alot better!!

Options is the cure to everyone's problems also 40 unit armies should be an option as well.

Shogun 2 total war was $49.99 when it came out. Rome 2 total war is $59.99. Question why am I spending 10 more dollars for a game getting smaller in scale?

I have this feeling Total war games are and always will be stagnant.....

**the_mango55** · August 11, 2013, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by stradar1

Shogun 2 total war was $49.99 when it came out. Rome 2 total war is $59.99. Question why am I spending 10 more dollars for a game getting smaller in scale?
.

I don't even know how this is a relevant question.

**Geniuswas** · August 11, 2013, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by stradar1

Shogun 2 total war was $49.99 when it came out. Rome 2 total war is $59.99. Question why am I spending 10 more dollars for a game getting smaller in scale?

What.

**Rittsy** · August 11, 2013, 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by stradar1

Shogun 2 total war was $49.99 when it came out. Rome 2 total war is $59.99. Question why am I spending 10 more dollars for a game getting smaller in scale?

Game development is more expensive now than it's ever been. Notice that you're paying roughly the same amount for a game today as you did 20 years ago. Most PC games are $60 now, so it might be retailer based as well.

As to the OP's question: It could have been to do with a number of issues. At a guess it could have to do with unit pathfinding...at larger scales maybe you run into problems when fighting in towns or cities, and considering the number of players who's computer can handle andything larger than Huge is in the minority, it might not be worth dedicating resources to solving.

Remember you can control 40 units during some battles, as well as combined Land/Naval battles, so the assumption they've reduced the game's scale or are dumbing the game down is pretty baseless.

**Raikou** · August 11, 2013, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Rittsy

Game development is more expensive now than it's ever been. Notice that you're paying roughly the same amount for a game today as you did 20 years ago. Most PC games are $60 now, so it might be retailer based as well.

As to the OP's question: It could have been to do with a number of issues. At a guess it could have to do with unit pathfinding...at larger scales maybe you run into problems when fighting in towns or cities, and considering the number of players who's computer can handle andything larger than Huge is in the minority, it might not be worth dedicating resources to solving.

Remember you can control 40 units during some battles, as well as combined Land/Naval battles, so the assumption they've reduced the game's scale or are dumbing the game down is pretty baseless.

So everyone's saying unit pathfinding is why units aren't larger in number. So what's the excuse going to be when half my triarii unit is stuck outside the castle wall while the rest of the unit is on top of the enemies units walls and won't budge. You know it's going to happen

**Rittsy** · August 11, 2013, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by Raikou

So everyone's saying unit pathfinding is why units aren't larger in number. So what's the excuse going to be when half my triarii unit is stuck outside the castle wall while the rest of the unit is on top of the enemies units walls and won't budge. You know it's going to happen

The excuse us going to be "Unit pathfinding is a problem."...and if that happens, that'd explain why they didn't double or triple the unit sizes.

**Bearnation54** · August 11, 2013, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by stradar1

I
Shogun 2 total war was $49.99 when it came out. Rome 2 total war is $59.99. Question why am I spending 10 more dollars for a game getting smaller in scale?

I have this feeling Total war games are and always will be stagnant.....

is this serious? Is 4X bigger map not good enough? Or 700 units ( about 650 more then shogun) or more in depth diplomacy, combine battles or how about taking an empire and being able to conquer the known antiquity world? Oh but no that is much smaller in scale then fighting on an island against the sameculture

**Yayattasa** · August 11, 2013, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by stradar1

Shogun 2 total war was $49.99 when it came out. Rome 2 total war is $59.99. Question why am I spending 10 more dollars for a game getting smaller in scale?

Inflation.

Off-Topic: What a way to waste one's 666th post

**Prof** · August 11, 2013, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by stradar1

Shogun 2 total war was $49.99 when it came out. Rome 2 total war is $59.99. Question why am I spending 10 more dollars for a game getting smaller in scale?

Because it is bigger in scale. The battles are not smaller, the campaign map is bigger, the scenario offers a lot more diversity, they added a bunch of new features.

Except for the number of turns per year, there is no aspect, in which the game got smaller compared to Shogun 2.

**stradar1** · August 11, 2013, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Prof

Because it is bigger in scale. The battles are not smaller, the campaign map is bigger, the scenario offers a lot more diversity, they added a bunch of new features.

Except for the number of turns per year, there is no aspect, in which the game got smaller compared to Shogun 2.

What I think is so funny is the maps are HUGE!! But the armies just keep getting smaller and battles become even smaller....

**Prof** · August 11, 2013, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by stradar1

What I think is so funny is the maps are HUGE!! But the armies just keep getting smaller and battles become even smaller....

The armies don't get smaller...they stay the same size as always.

**Shaun** · August 11, 2013, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by stradar1

Shogun 2 total war was $49.99 when it came out. Rome 2 total war is $59.99. Question why am I spending 10 more dollars for a game getting smaller in scale?

Shogun 2 covers Japan. Rome 2 covers from Britain to Bactria, Iberia to India.