Army size

[Witan]

Why the army size in random battles are limited to such little numbers of men fighting? Even with the biggest army size, they are far away from most big battles of the timeframe.

In the historical battles it seems to me the army size is quite bigger to better reflect the true army size, but why is this not the case in random battles?


And for example, why some army lists like the seleucid one has so little sarissa phalanx and cataphract units avaible to choose? In the battle like in magnesia, there are much more...

And why for example a sarissa phalanx has 960 men in a random battle? From what i have read, one formation had 256 men. Wouldn't it be more historical accurate to give them 256 men and make much more units available for the maps, that would also make micromanagement quite more interessting. Or is there a historical explanation for taking 960 men and giving the selecuids and some other nation only kind of 7 units in biggest random battle size?

And i only took the seleucids as example. There are other unit types and other nations with quite strange numbers available...

I really like Field of glory 2, it is a wonderful game that really tries to reflect historical battle. But these questions have been in my mind for a long time now and the restrictions have reduced my playing fun, like the seleucids having a big diversity but such hard restrictions in choosing the number of certain units.

[jomni]

The random battle size is just a matter of purchase points and the men per unit is pretty standard.

The historical battles are not bound by these limits. Historical Battles do not need to be "fair" for both sides, so Richard has the luxury to adjust to the actual historical numbers. He would use a scale modifier to change the number of men in each unit.

[Lancier]

The more the units on the battlefield the harder my (poor) laptop might handle the game ^^ tho i understand what Witan means and respect his claim. On the other hand current 20-25k (max?), with 2000FP and 64x64 map size gives quite challenging and eyeful games according to me, the bigger would be micromanagement madness (requiring giant maps as well?) like some HPS/JTS games...

[Witan]

The historical battles are not bound by these limits. Historical Battles do not need to be "fair" for both sides, so Richard has the luxury to adjust to the actual historical numbers.

But if the random battles should stay fair, if both sides get the same amount of points available (and a price to balance units), but each unit the historical accurate men in a unit size and not just a standart number.
Also why restricting the possibility to take more units of a kind, even if in truth more of them were used. In another post Richard said something like:

Don't worry, we are not going to balance the factions to make things "fair". Some of the historical armies really were crap, and these nations tended to be the conquered, not the conquerors.

If this is true, so why restricting nations like the seleucids so hard in choosing the ammount of phalanx and other units so hard. I am sure, they used more of some units in history like in random battles possible. This is also shown in the battle of magnesia for example.

And I really can understand the concerns of Lancier, but on the other side, you should be still able to play with less army points and so with a smaller army size.

For me, it would be a really good gameplay feeling, to have the oppurtunity, to play with greater army size more relating to some historical battles. Also, not to have strict balance restrictions in some armys, destroying their true historical potential. And, if the unit size of for example 960 is just a random think, why not making it historical? Players with bad PC would still be able to play with a little amount of units, others would have the opportunity to play with more historical flavour.

the bigger would be micromanagement madness

And also with this point, you can stay with little armys, if oyu dont like heavy micromanagement. It is all a thing of game options.

Maybe Richard on his own could say something to this suggestion.

[rbodleyscott]

The custom battles are not limited to smaller numbers of units than the historical battles, but they have to be able to cope with some of the armies whose individual units are very cheap, so that maximum size of the armies (in units) is set accordingly.

In terms of numbers of men, the historical battles use a force multiplier so that the total number of men in the battle matches the historical numbers. This means each unit is reported as larger, rather than there being more units on the battlefield.

[Witan]

The custom battles are not limited to smaller numbers of units than the historical battles

This matter is clear for me, but why you dont give them the historical accurate number of men in a unit, making more units of accurate size. Like not one unit with 960 men sarissa phalanx but kind of 4 units with 256 men.
Making the historical battle maps bigger, with more smaller (and more historical fitting) units possible to deploy on it.
And if someone likes pure balance in custom battles, there will still be the point system and if someone has a too bad PC, he can still choose a smaller army size for custom battles.

This is however a suggestion to make the game feeling more historical accurate, what i think is an important goal for this game. Below i am mantioning an easier but also
abstract way to solve this problem.

In terms of numbers of men, the historical battles use a force multiplier so that the total number of men in the battle matches the historical numbers. This means each unit is reported as larger, rather than there being more units on the battlefield.

I also noticed that already, but why this is only done for historical battles, and not for custom battles?
It seems for me a bit weird to have such small numbers of men in the battle results, even with biggest army size and yes I know, de facto its the same number of units on the battlefield, but the difference in numbers harms the atmosphere a bit for me.

[nikgaukroger]

This matter is clear for me, but why you dont give them the historical accurate number of men in a unit, making more units of accurate size. Like not one unit with 960 men sarissa phalanx but kind of 4 units with 256 men.

I think you will find that doing that would make it less historical as there is, I believe, no evidence of such small units of Hellenistic pikemen operating independently.

[rbodleyscott]

I also noticed that already, but why this is only done for historical battles, and not for custom battles?
It seems for me a bit weird to have such small numbers of men in the battle results, even with biggest army size and yes I know, de facto its the same number of units on the battlefield, but the difference in numbers harms the atmosphere a bit for me.

I take your point, but not all battles were huge.

[Aryaman]

In fact, numbers in ancient battles are very unreliable in most cases, and with a tendency to be grossly inflated

[jomni]

This matter is clear for me, but why you dont give them the historical accurate number of men in a unit, making more units of accurate size. Like not one unit with 960 men sarissa phalanx but kind of 4 units with 256 men.

I think you will find that doing that would make it less historical as there is, I believe, no evidence of such small units of Hellenistic pikemen operating independently.

True. Unit size is a factor of historical command and control too.
Large bodies of men clumped togeter in a unit block like Phalanx and warband is a realistic reflection of how many units can act independently.

In fact the multiplier in Historical battles is the one that is not realistic. Though you have correct number of total men, you get less maneuver units.

In Skirmish, each single unit has the right number of men but you cannot go beyond the points hard limit and you will never reach the total number for men in historical mega battles. But good enough to simulate typical battles. Increasing the hard limit is possible but it will put many PC’s to their knees at the moment.

In the link below, the guy has made up a realistic Legion. This proves that the number of men per maneuver unit (cohort) is roughy correct. But he can only field two Legions and not more.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 77&t=80803