unit size

[manekemaan]

What is the "normal" unit size? Not meaning as in graphic but more in logical, strategical size. Like on huge archers don't fit on the gateway. What size would you recommend and why.

[DrDragun]

"Surely this is the greatest jest in all the history of Gondor: that we should ride with seven thousands, scarce as many as the vanguard of its army in the days of its power, to assail the mountains and the impenetrable gate of the Black Land! So might a child threaten a mail-clad knight with a bow of string and green willow!"

I would say the stacks of TATW are quite moderate even on Huge settings compared to historic lore numbers. In terms of gameplay, larger unit sizes definitely disfavor skirmishers as the units are so large that not all javelins are in range at once. Likewise with melee, a smaller portion of the unit is attacking at once (a melee unit of 4 lines will have 25% of its men dealing damage when engaged, a melee unit of 8 lines will have 12.5% of its men attacking). Meanwhile archers will still have their full unit attacking, and also their target has a more generous hitbox. So in this way, Huge unit sizes definitely favors archers.

[eugenioso]

Just play huge for fun.

[Funeh]

I play huge units but sometimes I get angry when I cant position units where they fit just fine but the game wont let them... like in some narrow passes or something like that... also sometimes they get bugged on the walls... but it just seem more realistic with huge units...

anyway I was wondering if you would compare the game unit with real world unit how many soldiers can I imagine beeing in the one unit? Like if there is 150 soldiers, does it mean its 1500 in real?

[DrDragun]

Lots of classic and medieval era battles in Western Europe involved armies in the 15-30K size, which the above quote from ROTK would be in line with. Assuming a force of 20,000 men divided between 20 unit cards, that would be 1,000 men per unit or approximately 7X larger than Huge unit sizes in TATW.

The Battle of Salsu, on the other hand, had 300,000 casualties, which is 100X greater than a typical Mordor stack I kill

[LuckyPistol]

I feel unit size depends on two things:

1. Desired intensity of campaign (small for casual, huge for competitive)

2. What your graphics card can take

[manekemaan]

Thanks for the responses. I guess i'll keep playing on huge (tough indeed it is a bit of an unfair advantage for the archers)

Would you say that at normal size everyone is balanced out than? (no special favor for archers etc?)

[DrDragun]

I think smaller sizes give advantage to cavalry, trolls, and skirmishers and makes the orc factions more maneuverable. It is also smaller running distance for flanking maneuvers with infantry and less fatigue overall in battles.

Every size plays a little different. I don't know which is truly 'balanced'. Playing Orcs of the Misty Mountains on Huge is living hell though, while playing Dale on Small might be harder than on Huge.

[Dutch-Balrog]

Just play huge. All unit stats intatw (archers especially) have been made with the huge unit setting.

[mySentinel]

Size doesn't matter

[manekemaan]

Just play huge. All unit stats intatw (archers especially) have been made with the huge unit setting.

thats very usefull to know! thanks!

Size doesn't matter

its all about skill :p

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[the lightning legion]

a thread is never complete without innuendo

[Funeh]

In your endo!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Wizad]

I don't need to compensate so I play on small unit size.