I'm fine with odd numbers, but I get twitchy about not having at least two of a given unit besides my lord because I like to set my armies up in a balanced formation with units equally spread on either side of my central column. I have no real tactical reason for this except it pleases me visually.
This.
Or having 4 frontline units AND 4 backline units. Setting those those in checkerboard just triggers me. It's always 1/2/3 less backlines than frontlines for nice checkerboarding.
Ofc, you usually need to have more frontline units than backline units. Unless they're "decent in melee".
But even then I will stick to even numbers. Like 6 frontline and 4 backline.
Or ok fine, if you have enough overwhelming firepower you dont really need a frontline.
That is also valid when you have enough dakka. But imo its more viable with nuln ironsides since they dont crumble instantly in melee.
And 0 is an even number so you have an even number of frontline.
5 is alrigth with me. It's half of ten, and things like 25 or 75 are satisfying, so I can get behind 5 backline for 6 frontline : the checkboard looks good this way
You definitely don't need more frontline than backline units. Spread your frontline thin but keep you ranged in squares, you can easily get a 2 to 1 backline to front line ratio while being full covered. You can do much better if you use corner campaigning or impassable terrain to cover your sides as well
For my High Elf early game and auxiliary stacks I run 4 Spearman and 10 Archers in a staggered line. Later on I'll do Silverin/LSG instead but you really don't need that many melee infantry in a ranged-heavy set-up. Now, if I'm playing a faction with short ranged missile infantry (Greenskins, lizards, etc) I'll probably go for like 8 melee and 6 ranged infantry instead and use the ranged units for flanking and anti-air. So it really depends on the faction imo.
With the new empire units I recently tried running only gun lines and artillery. A la napoleon/empire. It works a treat but christ It made me sweat having no balanced army
Interesting. I usually go for no frontline.
Pure checker board. A couple of lords and heroes to defend.
This doesn't work as well in wh3 as it did in wh2
You would have a fucking seizure watching my deployment.
I always go for asymetric deployment, basically so i can win on one flank and then envelop. I then split my frontline into groups with specific objectives and purposes like sem counter, terror charge squad, line breaker etc. Looks completely crazy at battle start but tends to be effective.
Also even numbers are fucked up, you can't have a center.
You’ve never heard of the staunch line of ~~spears~~ axes?!
I usually do the hero front line too but it can be pretty satisfying to watch ironbreakers hold forever.
In my last dwarf campaign, I overloaded one flank with irondrakes (both types).
They would absolutely melt whatever came from that flank, then I’d swing the iron drakes out and blast their entire line (engaged with my lords and frontline) with enfilading fire.
Fucking glorious. I gave them some thunderer/quarreler backup if it seemed like they needed it, eg irondrakes alone can’t usually blast several units of cavalry or fast monsters before they get into melee. Flamethrowers are less effective against large and troll hammers kinda miss a bunch
True, its great for when you use carthagian tactics as lizardmen and have dinosaurs charging through the gaps once the lines meet.
Luckily the ai is doesnt know that one weird trick that enrages Carthagian elephant commanders: sidestepping.
i keep my deployment mostly balanced, except for all my heavy cavalry on one flank hellenistic-style so I can smash through anything and get the backline
Combine this with getting too emotionally attached to my starting units to disband them, especially when they're high rank, and not wanting to mix different unit types in my selection groups, and you have me.
This is how I end up with like seven selection groups, three of which are a single unit that I don't really know what to do with any more but that I would feel bad getting rid of.
To my great shame, I have absolutely recruited unnecessary lords so my obsolete but loyal and experienced units can enjoy a leisurely retirement defending the home provinces; admittedly, I won't cripple my economy to do so but by late game I've definitely got a couple of guys running around with rank 7-9 tier 2 and 3 units in a support role. :)
This is great to do with ogres, since you can dump a bunch of units into your camps for defense. That way they won’t go to waste, and you don’t have to spend so much money and time recruiting a garrison for the camp.
> This is how I end up with like seven selection groups, three of which are a single unit that I don't really know what to do with any more but that I would feel bad getting rid of.
[Mrw](https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/410fd08d121bad351c9de7cd3290583f27fc9068fd816b35346dad61c6de4c8dceaef45fdc6da8df3de8eb0930df9c3e425c177d8476d459763cf1ff853d4244)
Ah, symmetrical deployment, the most aesthetically pleasing trap to fall into. It's generally better to have a strong flank that can win faster and wrap the enemy. If you have flanking type troops concentrate them one side whilst the other just holds and turn the flank on the enemy.
I'm the same in many ways, but for my frontline, I always have 3 units of whatever my anchor is and two flankers that specialize in Anti-large. So for dwarves, 3 ironbreakers flanked by two giant slayers.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the 5-7 man infantry line composed of 3-5 holders and 2 flankers; even to the point of sometimes dragging around two inferior units to accomplish it - Red Crested Skinks are worse in every way than just adding two more Saurus but I'll totally go 3 Saurus w/ shields, 2 Saurus with shields and spears, and 2 Red Crested Skinks to satisfy my aesthetic whims. It's objectively terrible play, but I'm a sad nerd.
lol, Chariot units are the skill testing question I fail constantly; if it's not Grom + 3 Pump Wagons, I just don't recruit it. I understand they're quite powerful if you're good at microing them, but I'm pretty terrible at it. I get my chariots killed... a lot. Lol.
I'm this same way but sometimes I'll have 3 ranged and 4 melee and center the 3 behind the Frontline, but then yeah cav or something to have for that
S Y M M E T R Y
I'm exactly the same way.
I can Kinda get over it if I use two sets of odds that are variants to make a full even (5 shielded and 5 great weapon etc) but they gotta be the same unit name - Marauders/Dwarf Warriors/Kossars etc
Yeah I can deal with having two different variants if they're not too different.
Or occasionally having two different units that are of the same role, like normal longbeards and dwarf warriors or something. Until I have time to replace some units for better evenness.
No.
I find, for instance, that 3 is the sweet spot for a lot of special purpose unit types. Dogs, skirmishers, artillery when it's not an artillery focus faction, that sort of thing. 2 doesn't make enough impact, 4 is too much investment away from core troops.
I like sets of three; but in that instance I pretty much always put one unit of whatever in the central column, and then one on either side of it. If the unit isn't playable or good in the center, I'm almost always going to end up with even numbers. So I'll happily take 3 Araknaroks when playing Greenskins, but I'd rather have 2 or 4 Shadow Warriors playing High Elves because I don't want them anywhere near the center, I want them creeping around the sides or even set up behind the enemy right from the start of battle.
Alexander the Great I am not; I win battles mostly by having better units than the AI and more experienced Lords/Heroes.
Generally agree.
My only objection is that three doesn’t really lend itself to being split up—eg if I need to send my dogs after their archer line AND after their artillery.
Don't split them up. Prioritise and focus targets down, either whichever is most dangerous or most vulnerable, knocking out their balance of power faster makes the army rout faster. A 3 sided charge (micro the units to three different sides of a unit then all charge) will very often break them straight away.
I like having shock cavalry in units of 3 (especially monstrous cav). That means you have much closer to equal numbers (or even numerical superiority with units like empire knights) and can absolutely crush enemy morale with a well placed charge. Often fast enough that supporting infantry units can't get stuck in before you've already dealt the damage and fallen back.
Yeah, unit of 3 also means that you can charge in from 3 directions on an enemy unit and maximise your impact hits irrespective of which one they brace against.
3 Skink Cohort = 480 :) (or the many other 160's, or multiple 120s)
But yes, a bigger unit size could be interesting , as they already have the tech in place in the Intel mode , but at that size I'd probably avoid 40 units vs 40 battles.
I've learned to really love asymmetrical formations while playing a Karl Franz campaign where I only recruit elector count units for Karl. But prior to that campaign, I would have agreed that an odd number for the units on the flanks felt weird.
SAME. In my provinces I always build any unique buildings/landmarks if it has any, then I prioritise each settlement to a specific role based on that unique building/landmark
I **prefer** odd numbers for infantry because it allows my staggered formations to be symmetrical. I'd like to have something like 5 infantry, 5 archers, 2-4 cavalry, and then the rest would be specialists.
People really want to be autistic lmao. No it’s quite the norm. There’s 20 slots and 1 is a lord so there’s 19 slots and getting a balanced army needs even amounts of units for each role to support each other
I’m just saying there’s a natural tendency for players to do even numbers. It’s also a human thing. People are more comfortable with even numbers or number divisible by 5 and 10. From all the campaigns I’ve watched of different YouTubers (which is too many to be proud of lol) they all try to do even number of unit types
I usually try to assemble my armies in 5 groups of 4 - often:
* Lord & Heroes
* Front Line
* Ranged
* Artillery
* Cavalry/Skirmishers/flyers
Then, if the Lord or a hero works well with any of those groups I’ll deploy them as a group leader.
Well.. that depends. Just like you, except for characters and SEM, I tend to dislike it but I've come to accept it in two conditions :
- If for example a RoR or non-RoR variant (for example units from Ikit's workshop, blessed spawnings, grudge units, etc.) is part of the army : I'm fine with the RoR unit acting as the leader alongside two other units. That reminds me of some Star Wars games and movies where unit leaders in vehicles/ships are surrounded by two vehicles/ships.
- If the Legendary Lord buffs a number of units that I can't fit in a group of 2-4 if I want them to share the same number alongside characters and SEMs.
Dang. Talk about 1st world problems.
3 Cavalry is weird but only because it's too many models to work as one flanking blob and splitting them gives you uneven flanks, which in turn forces you to think too much. Anything else is alright.
I used to think like op but the true beauty is thriving in chaos.
Me.
Unless there is a reason, like two halberds and three melee, but I have majority range with a hero.
So essentially it rounds out to 5 by 12 by 1 LL and 2 heroes.
I don’t need even units, I need symmetrical units. If I have three great weapon units, one of them will be in the center of my line, and I will
Make sure I only have an even amount of say spearmen for the flanks. I’m usually fine with one unit of dogs or cav on a single flank tho
Uneven numbers I can allow for stuff in the rear line like ranged or artillery.
But if it’s the front line or especially flanks? You better bet it’s going to be even numbers.
My Vilitch army would upset you greatly. 5 warrior frontline (halberd, shield, halberd, shield, halberd). 3 pink horrors behind them. Vilitch with the single unit champion ROR as his guard.
There are some units that I purposefully have in odd numbers because they work well that way, but I understand the feeling. I find that for ranged units, 3 is a good number to focus one unit down, so I sometimes do that. I also like having certain hybrid units like Lothern Sea Guard in 3's, 2 to guard the flanks, one to act as reserve infantry. Outside of that though, I try and do everything in pairs at least for no good reason.
The only odd number I'm okay with is five, and usually it's only for infantry, like I will have a group of three/five shield Bois and then some great weapon/ap infantry to stick on the end of the wall so they can flank the corners I almost always recruit units in pairs
I like around 4 of each type of melee (spear, sword, mace/ax), along with a few archers and 2-4 cav. It allows me to make multiple groups for attacking a settlement and a long line for field battles.
Depends on my formation. Usually i like even number of units. But sometimes i recruit odd number of units if they are missile cavalry. Usually 3 horse archers.
I try out different comps, but I always just have to do 1 lord, 1 hero, 6 spears/halberds, 2 great swords, 4 ranged, 2 cav, 1 arty, 1 monster/support/machine, 2 flying units
I like having groups of 3 as well, of course it depends on the unit's role, I tend to even out flanking units to even numbers so they can take different sides, but even then, if you have 3, one can go around the back (especially if it's a rear vanguard)
Also tends to happen often enough that a faction just has 2 or 2+1 local recruitment to begin with , or a lord like Malakai has 3 "quest" units like cannons, gyro etc .
Of course this does not play on perfect maps with perfect opponents (talking campaigns) so eventually it does not really matter.
Damn same
I need an even and well proportioned army
I usually make an exception for artillery or elephants
But infantry and cavalry?
Has to be 2 or 4 or 6 etc etc
On the other side of that, I hate having an odd number of a unit type plus the ROR of that unit, because I like to put the ROR in the center of the group, and now that it is even they are off center.
It's about symmetry for me. Shitty text example, with different letters representing different unit types:
C C H S H S H C C
_____A A A
So, while theres an odd number of units H and A, its cool because it's symmetrical.
I hate asymmetrical unit arrangements. 3 Spearmen and 2 Swordsmen is fine, because I can arrange them like:
Sp-Sw-Sp-Sw-Sp
Peachy. 3 Spears, 2 Swords, 1 Greatswords, on the other hand, would be aesthetically displeasing.
I am very OC in strategy games in general to have units be divisible by 2 with 4 or 8 being an ideal. 1s are fine if it is meant to be a sort of leader for the rest.
Mostly yes.
But I always take two heroes per army, so I have to either make up for it with one monstrous entity or an artillery piece.
Now that I started using tabletop caps for my campaigns, it's not as feasible though
Acceptable numbers for me are 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8.
*Maybe* 10 if it's a melee infantry focused faction without much (or need for much) variety, like a CoC faction.
I like to have even numbers of Cavalry because in my mind cavalry occupied 2 parts of the battlefield, the 2 wings, and since 2 is an even number, there should be an even number of cavalry to evenly spread a cross those two spots (although not always depending on tactics).
With infantry in my mind they occupy 3 parts of the battlefield, left, right, and center, so they need an odd number to have a proper center.
For example if you have eight infantry then you'll have two sets of 3 and one of 2 which is awkward, I'd prefer 7 so I can have a strong center of 3, with two wings of 2. Or 9, or even 11, for the same reason, depending on army comp.
This is a classic autism trait. Personally I struggled with symmetry which I suspect this is related too, took me a long time to learn to not get hung up on it.
I still cannot tolerate clutter, despite loving going out in the forest and sleeping outside, I have never been as uncomfortable in my adult life as the 'organic' relaxation corner that my previous job set up
I'm fine with odd numbers, but I get twitchy about not having at least two of a given unit besides my lord because I like to set my armies up in a balanced formation with units equally spread on either side of my central column. I have no real tactical reason for this except it pleases me visually.
This. Or having 4 frontline units AND 4 backline units. Setting those those in checkerboard just triggers me. It's always 1/2/3 less backlines than frontlines for nice checkerboarding.
Ofc, you usually need to have more frontline units than backline units. Unless they're "decent in melee". But even then I will stick to even numbers. Like 6 frontline and 4 backline. Or ok fine, if you have enough overwhelming firepower you dont really need a frontline.
I mean that depends My empire armies rarely have a frontline
That is also valid when you have enough dakka. But imo its more viable with nuln ironsides since they dont crumble instantly in melee. And 0 is an even number so you have an even number of frontline.
I actually usually try to have more back line than front. I prefer having 3-4 frontline units and then twice that amount behind so I can stack them
I hate to break it to you, but 0 is neither even nor odd, but also it’s both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero
Oooh, sorry bud no. Today you learned zero is even.
Kairos, is that you? :)
Frontline: Hellblasters Backline: Hellstorms
For me it’s more like 6 front and 5 back so checkerboard looks good
I know it makes a lot more sense formation wise, but 5 is an odd number so unfortunately I must either remove or add a backline unit.
5 is alrigth with me. It's half of ten, and things like 25 or 75 are satisfying, so I can get behind 5 backline for 6 frontline : the checkboard looks good this way
2s and 5s for me. 5 because there's a middle unit and 2 on each side, leading to 4 back line units.
You definitely don't need more frontline than backline units. Spread your frontline thin but keep you ranged in squares, you can easily get a 2 to 1 backline to front line ratio while being full covered. You can do much better if you use corner campaigning or impassable terrain to cover your sides as well
For my High Elf early game and auxiliary stacks I run 4 Spearman and 10 Archers in a staggered line. Later on I'll do Silverin/LSG instead but you really don't need that many melee infantry in a ranged-heavy set-up. Now, if I'm playing a faction with short ranged missile infantry (Greenskins, lizards, etc) I'll probably go for like 8 melee and 6 ranged infantry instead and use the ranged units for flanking and anti-air. So it really depends on the faction imo.
With the new empire units I recently tried running only gun lines and artillery. A la napoleon/empire. It works a treat but christ It made me sweat having no balanced army
Interesting. I usually go for no frontline. Pure checker board. A couple of lords and heroes to defend. This doesn't work as well in wh3 as it did in wh2
This \^
You would have a fucking seizure watching my deployment. I always go for asymetric deployment, basically so i can win on one flank and then envelop. I then split my frontline into groups with specific objectives and purposes like sem counter, terror charge squad, line breaker etc. Looks completely crazy at battle start but tends to be effective. Also even numbers are fucked up, you can't have a center.
Your center is a melee specialist 😂
The Melee specialist goes in your strong flank, center is for durable units or high MD trash whether going for single or double envelopment >:|
You clearly don’t hail from the school of having 3 heroes hold off 15 enemies while your army shoots them all down
I didn't realize there was another way to play
You’ve never heard of the staunch line of ~~spears~~ axes?! I usually do the hero front line too but it can be pretty satisfying to watch ironbreakers hold forever.
Skryre frontline consisting of 4 plague priests repeatedly summoning skavenslaves out of their ass is a fun way to hold off hordes of dwarfes
In my last dwarf campaign, I overloaded one flank with irondrakes (both types). They would absolutely melt whatever came from that flank, then I’d swing the iron drakes out and blast their entire line (engaged with my lords and frontline) with enfilading fire. Fucking glorious. I gave them some thunderer/quarreler backup if it seemed like they needed it, eg irondrakes alone can’t usually blast several units of cavalry or fast monsters before they get into melee. Flamethrowers are less effective against large and troll hammers kinda miss a bunch
But you can have a false gap be your center!
True, its great for when you use carthagian tactics as lizardmen and have dinosaurs charging through the gaps once the lines meet. Luckily the ai is doesnt know that one weird trick that enrages Carthagian elephant commanders: sidestepping.
This is how I play Tamurkhan, each Hero leading a "squad" with a specific goal
A fan of the Battle of Leuctra I assume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuctra
i keep my deployment mostly balanced, except for all my heavy cavalry on one flank hellenistic-style so I can smash through anything and get the backline
Combine this with getting too emotionally attached to my starting units to disband them, especially when they're high rank, and not wanting to mix different unit types in my selection groups, and you have me. This is how I end up with like seven selection groups, three of which are a single unit that I don't really know what to do with any more but that I would feel bad getting rid of.
To my great shame, I have absolutely recruited unnecessary lords so my obsolete but loyal and experienced units can enjoy a leisurely retirement defending the home provinces; admittedly, I won't cripple my economy to do so but by late game I've definitely got a couple of guys running around with rank 7-9 tier 2 and 3 units in a support role. :)
This is great to do with ogres, since you can dump a bunch of units into your camps for defense. That way they won’t go to waste, and you don’t have to spend so much money and time recruiting a garrison for the camp.
This is actually a great idea. I'm definitely going to start doing this from now on.
> This is how I end up with like seven selection groups, three of which are a single unit that I don't really know what to do with any more but that I would feel bad getting rid of. [Mrw](https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/410fd08d121bad351c9de7cd3290583f27fc9068fd816b35346dad61c6de4c8dceaef45fdc6da8df3de8eb0930df9c3e425c177d8476d459763cf1ff853d4244)
Ah yes, that one feral manticore I start with that always gets shot by arrows and Leeroy Jenkins itself into a unit of halberds.
Ah, symmetrical deployment, the most aesthetically pleasing trap to fall into. It's generally better to have a strong flank that can win faster and wrap the enemy. If you have flanking type troops concentrate them one side whilst the other just holds and turn the flank on the enemy.
Yay! We're not alone! I'd rather be OCD than be good at the battles hehe
An odd number for something in the middle is fine but yeah, I need the even numbers on the flanks
I'm the same in many ways, but for my frontline, I always have 3 units of whatever my anchor is and two flankers that specialize in Anti-large. So for dwarves, 3 ironbreakers flanked by two giant slayers.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the 5-7 man infantry line composed of 3-5 holders and 2 flankers; even to the point of sometimes dragging around two inferior units to accomplish it - Red Crested Skinks are worse in every way than just adding two more Saurus but I'll totally go 3 Saurus w/ shields, 2 Saurus with shields and spears, and 2 Red Crested Skinks to satisfy my aesthetic whims. It's objectively terrible play, but I'm a sad nerd.
Yeah I really hate some starting armies that are like, 7 or 8 units and each one is different
I used to be like that until I realized the magic number for most chariots is 1. Having 2 chariots is too much. Have 1 chariot is awesome.
lol, Chariot units are the skill testing question I fail constantly; if it's not Grom + 3 Pump Wagons, I just don't recruit it. I understand they're quite powerful if you're good at microing them, but I'm pretty terrible at it. I get my chariots killed... a lot. Lol.
I get it. I used to, but forced myself to use them until I figured out how to keep on top of it.
I'm this same way but sometimes I'll have 3 ranged and 4 melee and center the 3 behind the Frontline, but then yeah cav or something to have for that S Y M M E T R Y
Same here, I confess I almost always recruit units by groups of 2 except SEM and heroes, and a well aligned and symmetrical deployment.
What does SEM mean
Single entity model (monster?), never really thought about the M. So the big centrepiece units
Thanks guy
I'm exactly the same way. I can Kinda get over it if I use two sets of odds that are variants to make a full even (5 shielded and 5 great weapon etc) but they gotta be the same unit name - Marauders/Dwarf Warriors/Kossars etc
Yeah I can deal with having two different variants if they're not too different. Or occasionally having two different units that are of the same role, like normal longbeards and dwarf warriors or something. Until I have time to replace some units for better evenness.
Yes, I think I am used to having multiples of 4 units in each army. Especially 3 cav is distigusting how I am gonna flank.
Odd cav is the worst. I'm mostly fine with my center being odd.
No. I find, for instance, that 3 is the sweet spot for a lot of special purpose unit types. Dogs, skirmishers, artillery when it's not an artillery focus faction, that sort of thing. 2 doesn't make enough impact, 4 is too much investment away from core troops.
I like sets of three; but in that instance I pretty much always put one unit of whatever in the central column, and then one on either side of it. If the unit isn't playable or good in the center, I'm almost always going to end up with even numbers. So I'll happily take 3 Araknaroks when playing Greenskins, but I'd rather have 2 or 4 Shadow Warriors playing High Elves because I don't want them anywhere near the center, I want them creeping around the sides or even set up behind the enemy right from the start of battle. Alexander the Great I am not; I win battles mostly by having better units than the AI and more experienced Lords/Heroes.
Generally agree. My only objection is that three doesn’t really lend itself to being split up—eg if I need to send my dogs after their archer line AND after their artillery.
Don't split them up. Prioritise and focus targets down, either whichever is most dangerous or most vulnerable, knocking out their balance of power faster makes the army rout faster. A 3 sided charge (micro the units to three different sides of a unit then all charge) will very often break them straight away.
I like having shock cavalry in units of 3 (especially monstrous cav). That means you have much closer to equal numbers (or even numerical superiority with units like empire knights) and can absolutely crush enemy morale with a well placed charge. Often fast enough that supporting infantry units can't get stuck in before you've already dealt the damage and fallen back.
Yeah, unit of 3 also means that you can charge in from 3 directions on an enemy unit and maximise your impact hits irrespective of which one they brace against.
Raman detected.
Roman cohort = 480 people. And it’s the same number as 3 infantry squads on ultra size in Rome/Attila, so…
Sounds like we need to petition for 240 unit size.
3 Skink Cohort = 480 :) (or the many other 160's, or multiple 120s) But yes, a bigger unit size could be interesting , as they already have the tech in place in the Intel mode , but at that size I'd probably avoid 40 units vs 40 battles.
I'm okay with having 5 melee infantry, but everyone else has to be even numbers.
I've learned to really love asymmetrical formations while playing a Karl Franz campaign where I only recruit elector count units for Karl. But prior to that campaign, I would have agreed that an odd number for the units on the flanks felt weird.
Its the same as border gore, unbearable!
If it is a unit for flanking . then yes i hate it. missile infantry i dont care then line is a bit thicker for then
I have to build unique buildings in the first building slots followed by the resource buildings or else my brain gets mad.
SAME. In my provinces I always build any unique buildings/landmarks if it has any, then I prioritise each settlement to a specific role based on that unique building/landmark
I **prefer** odd numbers for infantry because it allows my staggered formations to be symmetrical. I'd like to have something like 5 infantry, 5 archers, 2-4 cavalry, and then the rest would be specialists.
Every non-hero unit must be in multiplies of 3
Another Raman!
People really want to be autistic lmao. No it’s quite the norm. There’s 20 slots and 1 is a lord so there’s 19 slots and getting a balanced army needs even amounts of units for each role to support each other
I mean not really, instead of having like 6 + 6 of some units you could have 7 + 5
I’m just saying there’s a natural tendency for players to do even numbers. It’s also a human thing. People are more comfortable with even numbers or number divisible by 5 and 10. From all the campaigns I’ve watched of different YouTubers (which is too many to be proud of lol) they all try to do even number of unit types
I usually try to assemble my armies in 5 groups of 4 - often: * Lord & Heroes * Front Line * Ranged * Artillery * Cavalry/Skirmishers/flyers Then, if the Lord or a hero works well with any of those groups I’ll deploy them as a group leader.
Well.. that depends. Just like you, except for characters and SEM, I tend to dislike it but I've come to accept it in two conditions : - If for example a RoR or non-RoR variant (for example units from Ikit's workshop, blessed spawnings, grudge units, etc.) is part of the army : I'm fine with the RoR unit acting as the leader alongside two other units. That reminds me of some Star Wars games and movies where unit leaders in vehicles/ships are surrounded by two vehicles/ships. - If the Legendary Lord buffs a number of units that I can't fit in a group of 2-4 if I want them to share the same number alongside characters and SEMs. Dang. Talk about 1st world problems.
3 Cavalry is weird but only because it's too many models to work as one flanking blob and splitting them gives you uneven flanks, which in turn forces you to think too much. Anything else is alright. I used to think like op but the true beauty is thriving in chaos.
In my nurgle armies it is for lore purposes, so seven chosen and seven exalted heroes for example.
Me. Unless there is a reason, like two halberds and three melee, but I have majority range with a hero. So essentially it rounds out to 5 by 12 by 1 LL and 2 heroes.
Half my armies are just cobbled together from what I can recruit at the time to deal with an emergency…. So no, not bothered by that at all!
I don’t need even units, I need symmetrical units. If I have three great weapon units, one of them will be in the center of my line, and I will Make sure I only have an even amount of say spearmen for the flanks. I’m usually fine with one unit of dogs or cav on a single flank tho
With a general needing to be included, you're always at an odd number. Drives me insane
Uneven numbers I can allow for stuff in the rear line like ranged or artillery. But if it’s the front line or especially flanks? You better bet it’s going to be even numbers.
My Vilitch army would upset you greatly. 5 warrior frontline (halberd, shield, halberd, shield, halberd). 3 pink horrors behind them. Vilitch with the single unit champion ROR as his guard.
There are some units that I purposefully have in odd numbers because they work well that way, but I understand the feeling. I find that for ranged units, 3 is a good number to focus one unit down, so I sometimes do that. I also like having certain hybrid units like Lothern Sea Guard in 3's, 2 to guard the flanks, one to act as reserve infantry. Outside of that though, I try and do everything in pairs at least for no good reason.
I don't mind it at all. That isn't so Odd :) Or is it exactly that?!?
The only odd number I'm okay with is five, and usually it's only for infantry, like I will have a group of three/five shield Bois and then some great weapon/ap infantry to stick on the end of the wall so they can flank the corners I almost always recruit units in pairs
I like even number of melee infantry units and even cavalry, but everything else can be odd
I’m also autistic and also have this problem so Its probably just us lol
I only care about it when it makes formations awkward.
I like around 4 of each type of melee (spear, sword, mace/ax), along with a few archers and 2-4 cav. It allows me to make multiple groups for attacking a settlement and a long line for field battles.
It depends really on what kind of unit. My brain can't work unless my formation is symmetrical but so long as it is I can have odd numbers of units.
Depends on my formation. Usually i like even number of units. But sometimes i recruit odd number of units if they are missile cavalry. Usually 3 horse archers.
I try out different comps, but I always just have to do 1 lord, 1 hero, 6 spears/halberds, 2 great swords, 4 ranged, 2 cav, 1 arty, 1 monster/support/machine, 2 flying units
I like having groups of 3 as well, of course it depends on the unit's role, I tend to even out flanking units to even numbers so they can take different sides, but even then, if you have 3, one can go around the back (especially if it's a rear vanguard) Also tends to happen often enough that a faction just has 2 or 2+1 local recruitment to begin with , or a lord like Malakai has 3 "quest" units like cannons, gyro etc . Of course this does not play on perfect maps with perfect opponents (talking campaigns) so eventually it does not really matter.
Haha same, that’s why I usually have either 1 or 2 hero’s, so I can do the rest even
Damn same I need an even and well proportioned army I usually make an exception for artillery or elephants But infantry and cavalry? Has to be 2 or 4 or 6 etc etc
I demolish buildings even if I want them just to rebuild them in a symmetrical way. Beat that.
On the other side of that, I hate having an odd number of a unit type plus the ROR of that unit, because I like to put the ROR in the center of the group, and now that it is even they are off center.
It's about symmetry for me. Shitty text example, with different letters representing different unit types: C C H S H S H C C _____A A A So, while theres an odd number of units H and A, its cool because it's symmetrical.
Same. It makes sense since it's good for either flanking or spreading your defenses evenly.
I'm like that with some stuff, cav, etc. I'm okay with 5 hellstorms though. keep 'em comin.
I hate asymmetrical unit arrangements. 3 Spearmen and 2 Swordsmen is fine, because I can arrange them like: Sp-Sw-Sp-Sw-Sp Peachy. 3 Spears, 2 Swords, 1 Greatswords, on the other hand, would be aesthetically displeasing.
I am very OC in strategy games in general to have units be divisible by 2 with 4 or 8 being an ideal. 1s are fine if it is meant to be a sort of leader for the rest.
[Here you go OP, I made a special army for you!](https://i.imgur.com/13zSDxy.png)
Mostly yes. But I always take two heroes per army, so I have to either make up for it with one monstrous entity or an artillery piece. Now that I started using tabletop caps for my campaigns, it's not as feasible though
Acceptable numbers for me are 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8. *Maybe* 10 if it's a melee infantry focused faction without much (or need for much) variety, like a CoC faction.
I like to have even numbers of Cavalry because in my mind cavalry occupied 2 parts of the battlefield, the 2 wings, and since 2 is an even number, there should be an even number of cavalry to evenly spread a cross those two spots (although not always depending on tactics). With infantry in my mind they occupy 3 parts of the battlefield, left, right, and center, so they need an odd number to have a proper center. For example if you have eight infantry then you'll have two sets of 3 and one of 2 which is awkward, I'd prefer 7 so I can have a strong center of 3, with two wings of 2. Or 9, or even 11, for the same reason, depending on army comp.
Range units i like odd number makes it easier to checker board
This is a classic autism trait. Personally I struggled with symmetry which I suspect this is related too, took me a long time to learn to not get hung up on it. I still cannot tolerate clutter, despite loving going out in the forest and sleeping outside, I have never been as uncomfortable in my adult life as the 'organic' relaxation corner that my previous job set up
You guys are weird. Wtf?
play as dwarfs. if my turtle is not symetric i feel bad
Karl's starter army. 2 sword and board, one great sword, one halebard. I'm having a seizure every Karl first battle.