Unit size

[Ghaust the Moor]

What is the most historicly accurate unit size. I have experimented with all of them, but I am unable to decide which is the best. Please help, and thank you.

[A Very Super Market]

Uh, none of them. They are all too small. However, I would say that large size is the best balance between looking "right" and not having path-finding issues.

[Duguntz]

It really depend on what you ant to do... for example, If it's roman or Hellenes, I'd go to Large, but me, as I play Sweboz, and i like to roleplay tribal warfare, I play on normal size... plus, on smaller scale, you must REALLY pay attention to missiles! well, as sweboz and on normal size... Even toxotai archers are... brutal!!!
So i'd say that it's really how you enjoy it the most!

Cheers!

[d'Arthez]

Personally, I always play huge, to simulate recruitment actually denting population growth. Also with the smaller factions such as Hayasdan, Saka etc.., since you simply will not have much liberty to retrain troops, because of the limited population base.

Large and huge are the only one settings that have some impact on population, making it a bit harder to maintain your tax-base, and develop your provinces.

[Ghaust the Moor]

which unit size would be best for an accurate legion recreation

[Celtic_Punk]

large to huge.

with huge you can force immigrate sections of population (recruit akonistai, or another cheaap unit with lots of guys.)

field battles are longer and harder to control (realistic) and siege battles are absolutely epic!!!!! trillions of soldiers storming through, and your hoplites presenting themselves in narrow streets. awesome! at the end the bodies pile up and you cant tell the difference between road or grass.

[The General]

which unit size would be best for an accurate legion recreation

Huge gets closest, as a legion usually had from 4,500 (early-to-mid Republican) to up to 5,200 men (from Marian's times through early Imperial period to mdi-Imperial times) - not including auxiliaries.