How large will battles be?

[Preacher]

A few hundred at most? Total war scale? What we talking about chief?

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Zeus:

It seems to be based on how many men you can levy from your own village. From videos looks to be 100+

oof

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

That guy can’t seem to count very well. As there’s more than just above a hundred.

But I’d be surprised if we get anywhere close to 1000 however.

Not TW sizes by any means. Though in all seriousness I do not know why people are thinking this is going to be some total war killer. It’s really not. So don’t hype yourself up thinking it is or you might just be disappointed.

[Preacher]

Ah, okay. Thanks guys

[Always223]

There's no limit to battle size so theoratically it's unlimited.
Better question is, if you can upkeep the amount of units without going bankrupt

[Cabalius]

The game at the moment doesn't possess a Unit Cap, so it's up to you, how good your PC can handle it, and how much money you have in order to recruit.

Slavic might change this though during the testing period when the game launches during EA.

[Preacher]

I got to thinking and you know, total war was about entire nation's. In this game, it is a personal estate so a few hundred men battles make sense

[Royal Fusilier]

I wouldn't expect more than a few hundred soldiers per side. As a Lord you will most likely have your trained Household soldiery fleshed out with the Levy of your serfs. That will most likely put a soft cap on total numbers available. Mercenaries might also be available but that probably wouldn't raise the total by much.

[[No In] Boomfunk]

If you Look into History, usual Fights werent that big.
I would Count in a few hundreds max

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Medieval battles had indeed shrunk massively compared to the armies of antiquity or the armies that followed.

But they still had multiple thousands of men. Just not tens of thousands.

[Jefferson]

javascript:Forum_ReplyToPost( '3115899349858767999', '3112522283889220771' );
There was battles with tens of thousands of men. Its just the big kingdoms like England or France that had big armies.

[Someguyinhere]

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

Medieval battles had indeed shrunk massively compared to the armies of antiquity or the armies that followed.

But they still had multiple thousands of men. Just not tens of thousands.

Multiple thousands weren't all that common either. But tens of thousands also still occurred. It's just that gathering that many men was a logistical ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, as it meant organizing and deal brokering between many, many different Nobles and securing their retinues.

The vast majority of Medieval conflict were sieges. And I mean just surrounding a castle, a walled estate, and waiting them out. Walled estates, (which all castles were) were engineered by very smart people to kill you. Not just you, but literally everyone else dumb enough to try and take the holding by force. Could it be done? Sure. But it was very costly, very risky, and often ended in utter failure.

Open field battles were something most Nobles wanted to avoid, as the risk/reward ratio wasn't very great. You could easily win a pitched battle, but wind up losing so much of your fighting force you are incapable of continuing your campaign. While HUGE field battles did happen, the majority tended to be small skirmishes.

You may be thinking, "Well that just sounds boring." From a gameplay perspective, a little. So, I wouldn't personally be offended if the dev wanted to eschew a little realism there and allow for much larger armies and conflicts. Because lets all be honest. When we imagine epic medieval battles, we like the fantasy. We like the idea of BIG armies of heavily armored knights, well armored soldiers, and lightly equipped freeman levies going at it.

We even like the idea of the poor sop peasants with their farming implements trying to not become cannon fodder, even though that idea is ALSO mostly fantasy. Most commoner levies were made up of Freemen, not villain farmers and mud ranchers. There's always a balance to be struck.

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Someguyinhere:

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

Medieval battles had indeed shrunk massively compared to the armies of antiquity or the armies that followed.

But they still had multiple thousands of men. Just not tens of thousands.

Multiple thousands weren't all that common either. But tens of thousands also still occurred. It's just that gathering that many men was a logistical ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, as it meant organizing and deal brokering between many, many different Nobles and securing their retinues.

The vast majority of Medieval conflict were sieges. And I mean just surrounding a castle, a walled estate, and waiting them out. Walled estates, (which all castles were) were engineered by very smart people to kill you. Not just you, but literally everyone else dumb enough to try and take the holding by force. Could it be done? Sure. But it was very costly, very risky, and often ended in utter failure.

Open field battles were something most Nobles wanted to avoid, as the risk/reward ratio wasn't very great. You could easily win a pitched battle, but wind up losing so much of your fighting force you are incapable of continuing your campaign. While HUGE field battles did happen, the majority tended to be small skirmishes.

You may be thinking, "Well that just sounds boring." From a gameplay perspective, a little. So, I wouldn't personally be offended if the dev wanted to eschew a little realism there and allow for much larger armies and conflicts. Because lets all be honest. When we imagine epic medieval battles, we like the fantasy. We like the idea of BIG armies of heavily armored knights, well armored soldiers, and lightly equipped freeman levies going at it.

We even like the idea of the poor sop peasants with their farming implements trying to not become cannon fodder, even though that idea is ALSO mostly fantasy. Most commoner levies were made up of Freemen, not villain farmers and mud ranchers. There's always a balance to be struck.

That was very informative for a brief summary an enjoyed reading it.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Compare that to more ancient times and they raised armies that could be staggeringly large. Due to how societies operated back then from Spain all the way through to India they all had a form of citizen militia system where they could levy their entire or almost their entire male population for war. Larger nations had hundreds of thousands of men at their disposal.

The Romans for example facing off against Hannibal lost major battle after major battle to him. Their largest defeat was suffering 60-70,000 casualties to a force of 50,000 men. Yet they still managed to recruit a new force after that. They had also lost two more major battles earlier losing tens of thousands of men. Yet still raised more forces to take the fight to the carthaginians in Spain. While having enough men remaining in Italy to deny Hannibal any major city. The Naval battles of Cape Ecnomus or battle of Salamis could have involved nearly 300,000 men each. Nothing in medieval times came close.

Societal change led to smaller and smaller militaries. During the collapse of the western Roman Empire more and more rights for citizens were eroded away and more local autonomy was given to local rulers. Forming a sort of proto feudalism and serfdom by the collapse. The eastern Roman Empire emulated many of these changes as well. When the new Germanic kings replaced the Roman Empire they kept a similar administration and it was a good way to control the local populace. The fact that the ruling class was an entirely different culture to the locals also cemented the split between the lower and upper classes. A similar story happened with the rise of Islam and the rapid Arab expansion. They also needed ways to control large amounts of foreign and religiously different subjects. So they decided to adopt late Roman ways of administration as much of the land they conquered was ex Roman anyway. India was also going through changes in its caste system. The system itself becoming more prevalent.

Japan independently formed a type of fudalisk as well though its origins were much earlier. China was the only place that still maintained large standing armies. Which were primarily used for defence. The lands bordering the Roman Empire were rather severely depopulated as many living there moved to the Roman Empire during its collapse.

All these events led to a change in society and thus a change in how war was waged. You know had a warrior class that was only a small fraction of a population. These warriors would become very elite by the late medieval period. Where changes in technology and tactics changes how armies were raised drastically.

[seasider66]

Really looking forward to this game , Its not about size it what you do with it lads

[Someguyinhere]

Originally posted by seasider66:

Really looking forward to this game , Its not about size it what you do with it lads

She said never.