Unit size vs quality of units

[Chris]

So i've noticed that some unit cards have fewer units then others (some very much so with no more then a few dozen).

What is usually preferred in battle? Small - medium sized unit with higher attack/defense (or whatever special ability they got) or medium large - large units?

It seems like quality trumps quantity since low morale and attack damage is always a bummer when it comes to battle. Nothing like seeing a large unit size of 90+ get smacked and run away from a 12 Warriors of Chaos troops.

Is the large size just to "look cool" to compensate for lower quality or does it actually have any use in battle strategy (besides cannon fodder since that relies on another unit to do the combat for them).

[RCMidas]

Really depends on the unit, what/any technologies or Lord skills are affecting them, what veterancy they are, what opponent they are fighting, where they are fighting, how tired they are, what magic is in play etc.

Going to an extreme example, for instance, a completely fresh rank 9 Empire Spearman unit whose commanding Lord's skills focus entirely on them, fighting an exhausted rank 1 Vampire Count Black Knight unit in a forest, will invariably end in the death of that cavalry unit.

The long and short of it is that larger unit sizes typically mean lower-quality at their base level. They are cheap, easy to recruit from lower tier settlements, quicker to recruit (no 2 or 3 turn recruitment times here), and are invaluable at wasting the time of more valuable enemy units who cannot be deployed against a more worthwhile foe.

A rank 1 Empire Spearman unit that can block a gate and hold out for a minute or two against multiple enemy units whilst your mages rain down all kinds of death on those vastly more valuable and expensive enemy units has made it very much easier to win the battle, for instance, even though in a more traditional punch-up they are of little value.

Their larger size also makes it easier for them to block the advance on multiple enemy units, which can work wonders for stopping cavalry charges, forcing the enemy to break formation to avoid running into (a unit of Dwarf Longbeards standing still will encourage many units of Greenskin Goblin Wolf Riders to try and circle around instead of pushing straight through, for instance, slowing down their advance) and so on.

There's also the important factor to remember in smaller unit sizes - losing any individual model hurts them much more than it does a larger unit. An Empire Spearman unit of 90 soldiers will barely notice the loss of one individual model. A Vampire Count Crypt Horror unit of 9 monsters will suffer about a 10% loss in combat ability. Units of smaller sizes, if not supported properly, can be effectively neutered if the enemy cuts down their numbers.

If that Empire Spearman unit holds the line against one or two units of Vampire Count Crypt Horrors long enough for a supporting Empire Handgunner (for example) unit to blast the unlife out of the monsters - which will be easy to do due to their size, so almost no chance of friendly fire - then they will have dealt an inordinate amount of damage to the enemy army despite being an essentially expendable unit.

[Nefrogitis]

I played a lot against the AI in skirmish battles, and what I saw is that quantity beats quality--easily.

All you need is one unit to keep them occupied, while you send a second one behind their back. They shatter very quickly that way.

And the more units you put on them in the flanks or at the back, the quicker they die, especially for monsters.

To take a giant down for example, send one unit to meet him, then send another in its back, and you might need another unit to shoot at it from the distance if you don't have magic bolstering your troops.

It feels so cheep because your giant costs more than these three units combined, but that's how it is. So, quantity will always win you any match because you will always have units to send in your opponent's backs.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Nefrogitis:

I played a lot against the AI in skirmish battles, and what I saw is that quantity beats quality--easily.

All you need is one unit to keep them occupied, while you send a second one behind their back. They shatter very quickly that way.

And the more units you put on them in the flanks or at the back, the quicker they die, especially for monsters.

To take a giant down for example, send one unit to meet him, then send another in its back, and you might need another unit to shoot at it from the distance if you don't have magic bolstering your troops.

It feels so cheep because your giant costs more than these three units combined, but that's how it is. So, quantity will always win you any match because you will always have units to send in your opponent's backs.

Thank you!

I'm more of a horde - like player so I was hoping that was the case. I like to overwhelm my enemies rather then micromanage one singular one.

[Neptune Towers]

Generally the effective units in this game are ranged infantry units placed in checkerboard formations and some single-entity monsters. As a rule melee infantry and melee cavalry will generally underperform, as will most monstrous infantry with the notable exception of minotaurs. Melee infantry with high melee defense and high number of models per unit is good for auto-resolving battles with minimal casualties. A few stacks of cheap stuff like basic swordsmen can beat anything in auto-resolve. If you want to go the route of manual fights, typically cheesy strats and doomstacking are way more effective than conventional tactics, the latter still being able to get the job done but at a much higher cost both in resources and casualties.