Random unit aspects

[General Shapur]

Would it be easy (or even desirable) to introduce some element of randomness to unit size and capability?

For example. Its unlikely units would arrive at the battle fully complemented - there would be some men malingering, deserted, ill etc. Perhaps some % random element applied at the start of a battle to decrease (or increase) unit sizes could be introduced and a % chance it is applied again to have progressively worse (or better) effect on the unit - to a point.

Also, perhaps Raw/untried units could test just before a first clash to see if they are better or worse than one would expect - maybe then reverting to raw(superior) or raw (inferior) once they have been tested in battle. Its always fun to see a rookie unit prevail against the odds or crumble unexpectedly.

[Froz]

There is already random factor determining the unit size. It could be increased, but to me it's perfect as it is. Brings some variety, makes it a bit more realistic, while not affecting the battles in a big way.

As for the other idea - I would not want to have further randomizing on that aspect. But I would love it if I, as the general, would not know about the troops in such detailed way as we do now. My troops, but especially enemy troops. In my dreams, that would include proper fog of war with distant units only barely visible (perhaps showing if it's infantry or cavalry, but not what exact kind etc.), units in the first line blocking sight of the units in the back, enemy units quality only visible at the last moment or even after the units clash and some thing similar to what you described - false information, for example exaggerating enemy numbers on one flank or judging their quality wrong etc.

However, it would make the game much harder for new players and the AI would probably suffer too. Still, in my dreams AI would be made better of course, so I can dream :p.

[General Shapur]

There is already random factor determining the unit size. It could be increased, but to me it's perfect as it is. Brings some variety, makes it a bit more realistic, while not affecting the battles in a big way.

Your right - for some reason I hadn't noticed it. Strike that comment. Maybe a better way of presenting it could be number of troops/core troop number. Eg 258/240 so I know if the units are stronger or weaker than desired.

[Paul59]

There is already random factor determining the unit size. It could be increased, but to me it's perfect as it is. Brings some variety, makes it a bit more realistic, while not affecting the battles in a big way.

Your right - for some reason I hadn't noticed it. Strike that comment. Maybe a better way of presenting it could be number of troops/core troop number. Eg 258/240 so I know if the units are stronger or weaker than desired.

It is quite easy to work out. Each model figure represents 60 actual men, unless a force multiplier is in effect for a particular scenario.

Therefore a 4 figure unit should be 240 men.

An 8 figure unit 480 men.

A 12 figure unit 720 men.

A 16 figure unit 960 men.

The numbers before and after the / represent: the current number of men/the number of men at the start of the battle. Which is probably much more essential to know.


cheers

Paul

[rbodleyscott]

The numbers before and after the / represent: the current number of men/the number of men at the start of the battle. Which is probably much more essential to know.

Yes, because CT modifiers for 25% and 50% losses, and autobreak point, are based on the strength of the unit at the start of the battle, not the paper strength of the unit type.

This is particularly important for understrength units in campaign battles.

[Morbio]

... But I would love it if I, as the general, would not know about the troops in such detailed way as we do now. My troops, but especially enemy troops. In my dreams, that would include proper fog of war with distant units only barely visible (perhaps showing if it's infantry or cavalry, but not what exact kind etc.), units in the first line blocking sight of the units in the back, enemy units quality only visible at the last moment or even after the units clash and some thing similar to what you described - false information, for example exaggerating enemy numbers on one flank or judging their quality wrong etc.

I'd like that fog of war aspect too.

[General Shapur]

The numbers before and after the / represent: the current number of men/the number of men at the start of the battle. Which is probably much more essential to know.

Yes, because CT modifiers for 25% and 50% losses, and autobreak point, are based on the strength of the unit at the start of the battle, not the paper strength of the unit type.

This is particularly important for understrength units in campaign battles.

Possibly. But could you argue that a unit that is usually 240 strong, but is on the field at 300 strong could auto break at 120 rather than 150. What break point better represents an over strength unit? Anyway, probably adding too much complexity without much benefit.

[MVP7]

The numbers before and after the / represent: the current number of men/the number of men at the start of the battle. Which is probably much more essential to know.

Yes, because CT modifiers for 25% and 50% losses, and autobreak point, are based on the strength of the unit at the start of the battle, not the paper strength of the unit type.

This is particularly important for understrength units in campaign battles.

Possibly. But could you argue that a unit that is usually 240 strong, but is on the field at 300 strong could auto break at 120 rather than 150. What break point better represents an over strength unit? Anyway, probably adding too much complexity without much benefit.

Static break point doesn't really make much sense. If you have a group of 20 soldiers and 10 die the remaining 10 will feel far more threatened than a group of 100 would feel after losing 10 men. In any case, auto-break has a significant element of randomness so this would have little effect in most situations.

[sIg3b]

Yes, because CT modifiers for 25% and 50% losses, and autobreak point, are based on the strength of the unit at the start of the battle, not the paper strength of the unit type.

This is particularly important for understrength units in campaign battles.

Possibly. But could you argue that a unit that is usually 240 strong, but is on the field at 300 strong could auto break at 120 rather than 150. What break point better represents an over strength unit? Anyway, probably adding too much complexity without much benefit.

Static break point doesn't really make much sense. If you have a group of 20 soldiers and 10 die the remaining 10 will feel far more threatened than a group of 100 would feel after losing 10 men. In any case, auto-break has a significant element of randomness so this would have little effect in most situations.

+1. My vote goes to "Leave as is".