Rationale for number of men per unit

[JZ Temple]

I just got the Warlord edition. When I had the original I was running a low end machine but now I have an uber-computer, so now I can turn up the graphics. I have tested the 120 man units, and they look and run fine. My question is, what advantages/disadvantages result from going to 120 men per unit instead of 60, aside from the graphics? Is there any tactical effect?

[Jaguar]

Well, i know that it costs more and takes longer to train 120 units. Also if u quickly train a unit, the enemy's starting troops are 60, u can attck quick and have the numerical advantage.

[Algesan]

Also, the 60 man units are more manageable in manuver, especially the missile units. In the pre MI game, it allowed you to take and hold provinces a bit earlier, since the AI hordes were restricted in size. It looked to me like they build units at 1/turn regardless of size.

[BakaGaijin]

I personally like 60-man units for the reason given by Algesan. Getting 120-man units into good formations is a royal pain, especially if you're trying to make a two-rank unit of guns or archers... Too much hassle. Much easier with only 60.

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[A Nerd]

120 men per unit are more fun in my opinion. Larger battles with higher casualties. More possibility of merging units as well. In the add-on if you choose an all Japanese campaign with default unit size of 120, all you standard starting units will be of 120 men rather than 60 as was before the add on.