A question about army size

[gull2112]

It has been the general opinion lately that given an equal number of points, the army that has the most units is favored. The reason for this is that the ability of the larger army to turn a flank and get the all important pinch is almost assured.

While I agree that it is certainly easier to win in those conditions, or more accurately, simpler, I disagree that it is a forgone conclusion. However, with a smaller force you can't simply turtle up and charge ahead and expect a good chance of defeating your opponent. You definitely have to give some thought to how few units can hold how much of the battlefield, whilst the rest are engineering a victory elsewhere.

[RushAss]

It has been the general opinion lately that given an equal number of points, the army that has the most units is favored. The reason for this is that the ability of the larger army to turn a flank and get the all important pinch is almost assured.

If this was true, then the Undead would be the faction of choice 

You are correct to disagree with that conclusion.  I've seen it happen all the time where a player with inferior numbers in units is able to arrange their units in such a fashion as to only permit their opponent to engage with a limited amount of units.  The classic defensive arc is one such formation.  I've toyed with something I call the Beef Wedge where you take a 5 front build and concentrate it on 1 side of the map, though it can be shenaniganed and clearly has some weakness.  Maybe I'll stumble across a winning method within that framework.  Or maybe somebody else.  One thing that does make a swarm army work well is the current backup rule which allows a chump to fill in a break in the line without enduring a charge bonus from it's opponent.

[gull2112]

One thing that does make a swarm army work well is the current backup rule which allows a chump to fill in a break in the line without enduring a charge bonus from it's opponent.

Which I think is fine, albeit somewhat ahistorical, as usually the chump units were placed in front of the good/veteran units to give them nowhere to run (improve their reliability  ) Maybe that should be a rule:

If a unit is backing up another unit they both use the courage of the backing up unit.

Hey, I'm going to suggest this for play-test.

[dboeren]

Something I was thinking about last night was the ratio of units to command points.

The more units you have at the same game size, the lower the percentage of them that will be benefitting from command points, whether you're spending them on cards, abilities, or giving them better orders.

it may not be a huge effect (you can counter that a few key/central units getting CP are "good enough") but it is some effect.  An "elite" force of fewer  units will more often enjoy a card played on them or other benefits.

With all the talk about lots of units, what are some actual numbers here?  That is, what would you consider a "normal" number of units for say 2000 points, and what constitutes an "elite" or "swarm" sort of force at that same level?

I've been taking 8 units as sort of a default here - the number required to field a line that spans your deployment area.

[RushAss]

I always thought that 8-10 units was considered to be a "normal" number of units for a 2000 point army.  Anything above that gets swarmy.

[Kevin]

Yeah, in an open map battle 8-9 across is usually a good idea.  7 across can work, but is risky; 6 is suicidal. 

More than 9 units means you're putting units behind other units (which is a fine thing to do, for example, if you have an archer, but isn't always done). 

If you play with terrain, that can sometimes cause a "choke point" which lets you do battle with fewer units.