Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
For the West-Saxons for instance they would raise the fyrd, but each fyrd contributed different numbers depending factors such as population and wealth of the lord. Likewise the viking warbands would consist of different jarls working together, but how many men each jarl had depended on the size of their domain, and the number of men in it.
Also, for many battles at the time, it is unknown how many people took part. So just pick something that you like (I generally lean towards smaller units just to improve game performance, as it is not really representative anyway).
It's also a good choice for comabt balance, as the Warscape engine is balanced for Large and Huge.
Huge and Normal are also realistic, but not necessarily across the entire span of the campaign. Huge makes numbers too big in typical mid game battles, while Normal would tend to make large, multiple stack battles late game a little smaller than they should be.
And again, the Warscape combat engine is most balanced at either Large or Huge, which makes Normal and Small settings problematic anyway, when manually resolving battles.
The size at mustering is part of this too. A regular unit of infantry will muster at 36 men at Large setting. This is a good amount for a freshly raised unit, while not growing too large either.
In terms of "units," we can see some general scales for warbands and retinues.
A jarl, earl, thegn, Gaelic rí tuath, etc. would realistically have the number of personal troops such as we see with the bodyguard units on Large settings, ex. 75 to 150 men for a foot guard. On Huge settings though, those household troops are less historically plausible in terms of their numbers.
A new noble at Large musters in at 22 strong, for example. On Huge, they muster in at 30, which is comparable to 22...but soon they come up to 100 men, whereas on Large only 75. That extra 25 men is a big difference, because it is equivalent to a whole extra household troop mustering in at Large.
As Earnavill explained nicely, there weren't really distinct units in this time, not in the way we think of in a modern military organization, or with the Roman imperium. Nonetheless, we do have some idea of the sizes of forces as a whole, and the makeup of those forces.
Medieval "armies" (hosts) were organized on a per-campaign basis, and typically were divided into three larger sub-units: vanguard, main body, and rearguard. There was also baggage and scouting elements, organized according to circumstances.
Cavalry was usually a fairly small proportion, even with cavalry heavy forces such as the Normans. Large settings are also a good choice then considering a full strength cav unit weighs in at 45 men. Because the Warscape combat engine scales best at Large and Huge settings for missile attacks, impact attacks and such, going Normal or Small is problematic anyway, but Huge with 60 cav per unit is a little too big across multiple stacks.
In terms of overall numbers, it could vary a lot, by culture, geography, campaign, etc.
On average, a very large host in this period (late 9th through 11th centuries), composed of multiple allied lords, their retinues and their levies, was 5K to 9K fighting men.
Examples of what were recorded as decisive and very large battles, relevant to the ToB setting, would include:
* Hastings, 1066 AD. Normans versus English Kingdom: c. 8K Normans and c. 9K English.
* Stiklestad, 1030 AD. Olaf II of Norway versus peasant rebels and usurper nobles: c. 7K under Olaf and c.14K for rebels.
* Assandun, 1016 AD: English under Edmund Ironside versus Norse of Canute the Great and allied English: c. 10K guys for each side.
* Clontarf, 1014 AD. Coalition of Gaelic lords and allied Norse versus coalition of Norse from Mann, Dublin and Scandinavia, with allied Gaels: c. 7k to 8K guys on each side.
* Brunaburh, 937 AD. Coalition of Strathclyde, Alba and Norse, versus Kingdom of England (Wessex + Merican forces): 9k to 10K guys on each side.
----------------------------
Most battles, especially those that happened earlier, tended to be even smaller in scale, even if they were important battles:
* Maldon, 991 AD. English under Byrtnoth of Essex versus Norse invasion fleet of Olaf: c. 2K to 3K English (Essex thegns + local fyrds around Maldon) and 3k to 4K Norse ("100 longships," probably averaging 30 to 40 warriors per ship).
* Sulcoit, 968 AD. Dál Cais Gaels under Brian Boru versus Norse of Limerick under Ivar: ~ 350 to 1K (absolutely no more than 1K, most likely less than 400 men) Gaels and c. 1K (most likely no less than 500 and no more than 1,200 men) Limerick Norse .
* Ashdown, 871 AD. Wessex versus GHA: less than 1K Norse (probably c. 800) and around 1,200 to 1,500 English.
* Englefield, 870 AD. Wessex versus GHA: "2 jarls and their men" for Norse (ie probably c. 300 men), versus Æethelwulf of Berkshire with the local fyrd (probably no more than 500 men at most).
--------------------------------
So "Large" Unit Size setting yields good historical scale.
A powerful kingdom in game will have typically about 4 full stacks, so at Large settings, that's anywhere from 8K to 12K guys. Counting the guys auto-garrisoning provinces, a good size kingdom will count an additional c. 10K guys, so around 20K to 30K men potentially under arms throughout an entire realm, which is historical.
Furthermore, the largest, most climatic battles late game, with full 40 vs. 40 matchup, and other factions coming in as co-belligerents, will have in the range of 10K to 20K involved, which is also nicely within the historical scale.
Finally, there is also the end game invasion fleets for Ultimate Victory condition, which will each average 9 stacks of around 15 units apiece, so these numbers fit nicely too within the scope of the largest foreign invasion forces of the period, such as with Canute's father, or the GHA, ie c. 15K men.
So I keep it set to the Large unit size setting.
20K soldiers for a large kingdom is still too many. In 1066 it takes to combined strength of england to master that many men, and we are fighting in 900s for this game.
I think medium is more realistic, and 80 men regiment is very close to 30-70 men a rich land owner can call to the battle
The views on numbers do vary for this period.
I know that the Shieldwall team, like you, also concluded medium/normal unit sizes as being the most historical.
Part of the difficulty squaring historical numbers with any of the game's unit settings is that the unit size setting applies the same to all factions, across all countries, and across time, whereas in actual life, of course, all of these were variable factors.
For example, Scandinavia during the age ToB is set in actually seems to have produced a lot of manpower. The forces of the GHA, the Norse answering the call to support the anti-Boru coalition in 1014, and the invasion force of Sveyn Forkbeard were all very large. In contrast, if we look at Ireland during the same age, military manpower appears much, much smaller.
So same time periods, similar tech, even similar social structures, but we see some countries pumping out more manpower than others, or at least seeing more of their men equipped and operating as campaigning warriors.
Systems can change over time and from place to place as well. With the "fyrd" or militia system, for example, it could be that typically one out of every three able bodied men was expected to be equipped for muster, or one out of every five. There is evidence for both ratios, varying at different times, and in different regions.
So the total amount of relevant manpower to be drawn from might be effectively identical over the course of a couple of generations, but if the system that tapped into that manpower went from a 1:5 to 1:3 ratio, or vice versa, over the span of a generation, that would obviously really change the numbers of troop effectively fielded.
Politics and strategy is a part of all of this too. We have to always bear in mind that the guys we hear about for Medieval campaigns and battles are those that actually showed up, not the total numbers possibly available.
A good example relevant to ToB would be the battle of Edington. First, a very large Viking force coming in by way of south Wales had been destroyed in a storm over a year earlier. This force was said to be 120 ships and even if that was not exact, regardless, it was very sizeable host that had been planned to pincer Alfred from the west while the rest of the GHA came from the northeast.
Second, a very big portion of the GHA was not present for the battle because both Ubba and Ivar had gone separate ways from Guthrum. Third, the chronicles convey that many of the warriors in the GHA had elected to settle in the new lands they had taken, turning to domestic activity intead of campaiging. Fourth, the surviving accounts also convey that many Anglo-Saxon thegns and fyrds were wavering in support of Alfred and had abandoned him.
So the amount of warriors fielded, especially by the GHA, during these several years was lower than it had potential, and then those that did take to the field split their numbers over differing strategic aims.
So with a game like TW, where there is a sandbox, we should distinguish between potential manpower and actual manpower. Basically, the idea is to not fixate too much on the final numbers we arrive at for historical fights. Just because a particular historical battle had, say, c. 4K guys doesn't mean it couldn't have easily seen 5K, 6K, even 7K if political and strategic events had played out differently.
Another example is the battle of Clontarf, where several sources indicate Máel Sechnaill and all of the Mide contingent did not honor their oaths to Brian Boru: they were ordered to muster, but apparently either didn't form up at all, or did not march to the battle area. At the same time, one of the Viking leaders on the other side, Sigtrygg, apparently kept a significant chunk of the Norse who had sailed in from the Lesser Isles and such away from the battle, in Dublin, because he was afraid of potentially losing control of the city later on. As a result, the battle of Clontarf may have easily had a couple of thousand more fighters potentially involved than actually took part and was counted in the chronicles.
Finally, when I was talking about "10k to 20K men potentially under arms" for a large kingdom, I want to reiterate that I was specifically saying this included the auto-spawned garrisons in the province capitals. This abstracts the historical reality that not every single man who could bear arms would be on campaign, although still technically counted as a potential fighter, equipped and ready to post guard somewhere, man forts, escort supply trains, collect taxes, etc. They would become battle elements only when facing sudden and localized threats, because these are basically a "reserve" or "rear echelon" corps.
In terms of *field forces* for a powerful kingdom, in the game we're not looking at that 20 to 30K strong number, but rather, as I said in the first post, typically 4 full stacks (80 units). Each stack is often a little over 2K men at Large Unit size setting, if we figure typically 5 missile units, 1 cav, 13 infantry, and 1 foot general at 120 men. At most, we're only looking at 2.4K men for a 20 stack at Large settings (ie. 120 man infantry × 19 + 1 noble's guard at max size of 150 men).
These numbers, again, meaning the *field/mainline forces*, are historical for a large kingdom.
In other words, even if you have four army stacks consisting of all 120 man strong infantry and 150 man strong noble guards, we're looking at 9.7K total men across the four (80 units). With more typical 20 stacks of 2K men or less, we're looking at c. 7k to 8K total guys across four army stacks. That's definitely within what you'd expect historically.
Regardless of what people's conclusions are on the history side of things, I think it's worth mentioning again though that the TW battle engine has issues with anything less than Large Unit sizes.
Unfortunately, for some time now, the TW combat mechanics are not balanced for Small and Medium. This is in both the historical and the WH TWs, btw. Things like impact damage, charge, missiles, and artillery rounds are all balanced around Large and Huge settings, and they don't scale with smaller numbers of guys as targets or entities.
So sadly, if someone wants to go with smaller unit sizes, their battle mechanics aren't working as clean or as meshed as they should. You can most easily see this in MP battles: battles flow totally different using Large or Huge than they do on Medium and Small.
(I assume I'm playing on Medium.... that must be the default, right?)
On the campaign map, you can tell quickly by looking at the full strength size of a unit. A standard infantry unit such as Ceorl or Militia Spearmen will muster fully to 160 men on Huge, 120 men on Large.
Anyway, yes, as I said sadly there are balance issues with Medium and Small.
The main problem is that missiles or things that act like missiles, meaning things that "fly into" targeted units, do not scale across the unit size settings. The battle map terrain or geometry doesn't scale either.
For example, say an arrow tower defending a settlement inflicts 6 casualties on a targeted unit in the span of some seconds: the issue is that whether that is 120 men, or 60 men, it's still 6 men taken out of action. So on Large the unit suffered 5% casualties; but if set to Small sizes that same unit suffered double, ie. 10% casualties, in the same amount of time and from the same cause.
"Why is that a deal?", someone may wonder. The reason it's a significant factor is because in the battle engine TW uses, morale is largely determined by meeting thresholds that are proportions of overall unit strength.
So there is a morale drop ~ 20% casualties, for example. The faster you get to those thresholds, the faster units degrade in their effectiveness, which causes additional morale drops, for example, the "Losing Current Combat" modifier.
So smaller unit sizes can be taken down faster from the same combat factors, for the same initial time and movement.
Another example is with impact or shock attacks. Say that a unit inflicts roughly 1:3 casualties on the charge: if they are 120 man strong and put in four ranks, they have frontage of 30 men, meaning they will take out roughly 10 guys on the charge. Now, that same unit will be only 60 men on Small settings, but still do 1:3 on the charge. So if you stretch that unit into two ranks of 30 men, you're still doing 10 casualties on the charge. Meanwhile, the target unit has changed size as well, so 10 casualties means it goes from suffering ~ 8% withstanding the charge versus ~ 15%, from moving from a big to small size setting, respectively.
So in this type of situation, the shock unit's damage potential is over-represented or over blown, because of the smaller size settings.
Now, it could be argued that it's all relative because of dragging into two ranks instead of four, but that leads into the second big problem: battle terrain and geometry doesn't scale.
In other words, whether you're at Huge or Small settings, a gateway for a fortified town is the same width; a bridge is the same width; hills and forests are the same size; character auras for abilities are the same size; etc.
Unit mechanics don't scale either, so to get basic bracing benefits, you need to be in three ranks, for example.
So combining the two factors together, it means you'll need two or three units to do many jobs on Medium or Small that only one unit on Large or Huge could do, like hold a gateway choke point effectively.
----------------------------------------------------
Overall, the main issue here is that TW's unit counters model the guys at 1:1.
So if you see 40 guys, it is literally 40 guys, 160 models is 160 guys, etc.
In an alternative system, like in a game such as Field of Glory 2, the models are just graphical representations of an actual amount of men. In such a system, it doesn't matter if you only see 60 men in two ranks, for example, because that could represent 500 men in six ranks, and that is how they are treated for purposes of combat calculations.
In the TW system, if you want those 60 guys to be in six ranks, they must literally be in six ranks, meaning only 10 man frontage. So a larger size, like 120 men, changes everything because when they are in six ranks they have a 20 man frontage, while the terrain remains the same.
I seem to remember hearing something about a 'health' stat for units in this game (or maybe it was one of the previous titles?). I wonder if something like that is helping model the concept of 'casualties' in some abstract way, without necessarily needing to show 1 man killed on the battlefield per 'hit'.
Heh, maybe someday I'll figure out the stat crunch for this game. Maybe. I still have the excellent guide book for MTW, which walks you through the combat calculations in great detail. Shortly after that game, it seems the publishing philosophy changed, and big, fat, useful crunchy guidebooks went by the wayside, certainly for TW games at any rate.
So yes, there is a unit health. It isn't modeled 1:1 in the sense that each man model is a distinct entity or unit by himself.
But it is 1:1 in terms of how many men per unit, and for physics calculations.
So going back to what I was saying earlier, a unit needs to be in four ranks to get full bracing benefits, whether that is a 60 man unit click-dragged into four ranks of 15, or 120 men dragged into four ranks of 30.
So on small or medium size settings, you necessarily must have smaller frontages, in real terms (relative to the terrain), to get the same cohesion, bracing and other combat benefits.
You can also see this with shield fort formation: it takes three ranks to form it, no matter what size you're on. So a Small or Medium sized unit in shield fort will basically have no reserve ranks; a Large or Huge sized unit will be able to form shield fort and have extra men to the rear to replace casualties, in addition to having greater frontage. This makes putting your battle line into shield fort a lot less resilient on Small or Medium.
-------------------------------------------------
Something I forgot to mention earlier though was that all of this does not apply necessarily in a mod such as Shieldwall.
A mod such as Shieldwall re-balances the unit sizes and their combat stats around Medium sizes.
It still suffers from the fact that terrain and battle map structures (e.g. gateways, number of spots to beach ships at for port settlement battles) don't scale, but most everything else takes into account the smaller sized units.
So I would say for Shieldwall, or such like, it's best to follow the mod team's recommended settings. If they structured the combat around Medium size setting, then use Medium setting.
But for vanilla Thrones gameplay, I would avoid Medium or Small if at all feasible.
Thanks for writing that comment, must've took a while (Compared to the usual 3 - 5 lines people tend to write these days!)
Was quite interesting to read, I've always wondered what the OP asked even though I knew it depended on wealth & region. So thanks again for that :)