Poll: what unit size do you use?

[Mount Suribachi]

What unit size do you use?

[Budwise]

Usually I go with default so thats what I voted but my current campaign is set for Huge because I was doing custom battling and I forgot to change back that setting.

[Mount Suribachi]

Since I upgraded my PC I've gone to Huge unit size which really alters the game dynamic IMO after playing on default for so long.

In the early game when cash is tight having units take 2 years to build, and more importantly costing twice as much to build makes it very hard to build an army quickly, so defending yourself when attacked, or rushing an enemy is much harder. Finding 550 florins for a unit of Cavalry ain't easy in the 11th century

I also find that battles go quicker as on default size, 2000 men per side is 2 stacks each, on Huge, its 1 stack each. So when one side routs, the battle isn't prolonged by the arrival of another wave of troops.

[Dutch_guy]

In my campaigns sofar I've used the default unit size.

But I'll probably give the other sizes a try too.

[Knight Templar]

I've used only default size unit since I got the game.
Does anyone knows what are the differences between small, default, medium, large and huge size for a unit of swordsmen (I only know it's 60 for default)?
Thanks

[Marquis de Said]

I've only used default, because units with 133 men tend to put me off. I like even numbers.
But I'm going to have to try the bigger sizes and see how it affects the game.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Large because iirc huge size makes most if not all units take two turns to train in campaign which is a real pain, and iirc you also start with small units. But I use huge for custom battles.

[EatYerGreens]

I voted for default, since that's all I've ever tried in my campaigns.

I did have a stab at double-size units once, in Shogun days, but found it very off-putting, for all the usual reasons.

In Shogun, my biggest fight wasn't with the enemy factions, it was with my own economy - constantly getting average, poor or disastrous harvests and never having enough money to keep pace with the size of enemy amies, even on default size. To add the higher cost of the larger units just made matters worse.

Variable harvests are a thing of the past, though, so I'm certainly willing to give it a try with the bigger sizes, one of these days.

An additional strain on the economy will be the need to build more unit training centres, to reduce the impact of the 2-year training times and it's good, in a way, that this motivates the player to spend time and trouble building the economy to be able to afford this extra infrastructure, instead of being able to rush a nearby faction into oblivion in the first few turns. Retraining of damaged units may also figure more into the game, as a means of saving time. For me, the logistical problems are a part of the overall challenge.

By the way, I forgot that there are three sizes bigger than default, so I hope I voted right! (Default: RK=20, Cav=40, Inf=60, BI/Pez=100)

[Strike For The South]

default

[Ludens]

Does anyone knows what are the differences between small, default, medium, large and huge size for a unit of swordsmen (I only know it's 60 for default)?

On small size: Bodyguards 20 cavalry 20 infantry 30 spears 50
On default size: Bodyguards 20 cavalry 40 infantry 60 spears 100
On medium size: Bodyguards 20 cavalry 53 infantry 80 spears 133
On large unit size: Bodyguards 33 cavalry 66 infantry 100 spears 166
On huge unit size: Bodyguards 40 cavalry 80 infantry 120 spears 200
(Taken from Froggy's Unit Guide.)

[IrishMike]

I use large, good for that epic battle feel. I would use huge but i'd rather not wait around 2 years for a unit.

[Martok]

Default. I hate uneven numbers, and I don't like the 2-year training time that Huge units require (plus they put a strain on my computer).

[VikingHorde]

I always play with huge unit size, prefer as many men on the battlefield as possible.

[Pillowfighter]

I play with huge units just for the big battles and that way not having reinforcements straggling into battles in the late game. Although I do tend to have economic issues in almost every campaign I've played so far...so go figure.

[Mount Suribachi]

One other issue that I forgot to mention is that Huge unit sizes can be unwieldy on the field of battle - to flank effectively you have to change your cav from 2-3 ranks to 5 or 6, which reduces the impact of your numbers.

[Shambles]

I use huge good fun if using welsh on expert in mtw vi
I finished a campaignl like that a lil while ago,
I dont load from save if i die or loose so it took a while :)

[professorspatula]

I play campaigns on large, although I think I started one not too long ago on medium. I like large battles I guess. However, one disadvantage of using bigger unit sizes aside from 2 turns to recruit on huge, is you can't get a good mix of units for garrison defence. Each unit takes up so much space, that often you can't fit anything more than some spearmen and peasants or whatever. And they also use up all the food, meaning your keeps won't last long in a siege. It's not a big deal I suppose, but its a minor annoyance.

[ShadowMagnet]

Large gives nice big units on the battlefield and lots of corpses, and makes the game a tad more difficult (unit training/upkeep cost). I always get in trouble when using huge setting. Somehow it does't feel right.

[mfberg]

I use huge, it keeps me honest when deciding which unit to train, as they take either 2 or 4 years. It also makes jihads and crusades more important to get those free units. The best is those 120 man welsh bandits though, great fun to hide them in the fenceline and have them pop up flanking a of a unit of huscarles.

mfberg

[ajaxfetish]

Out of curiosity, does anyone try playing on small size? It seems the huge relative change in the size of royal units would have a dramatic effect on the game's dynamics, but I've never got around to checking it out. Each would be like a full unit of feudal or chivalric knights (or lancers in late) but with much less infrastructure required to produce them, and of course all the freebies from princes. The Orthodox Christians would suffer on the other hand, I imagine, from having their royal units remain the same while everyone else's double in size. Has anyone experienced this to know how it effects the game?

[EatYerGreens]

I play campaigns on large, although I think I started one not too long ago on medium. I like large battles I guess. However, one disadvantage of using bigger unit sizes aside from 2 turns to recruit on huge, is you can't get a good mix of units for garrison defence. Each unit takes up so much space, that often you can't fit anything more than some spearmen and peasants or whatever. And they also use up all the food, meaning your keeps won't last long in a siege. It's not a big deal I suppose, but its a minor annoyance.

In another thread, I remember asking if fort/keep/castle capacity remains unchanged from what it is in default size (240, 420 men, etc) but don't remember getting any response, so I'll ask that again here.

One potential solution to garrisoning is to make full use of broken units leftover after battles.

40 man units are no longer effective on the battlefield when up against units of 120 but you could pack six different troop types into the smallest size fort and get an effective, balanced defence out of them.

You could also deliberately 'under-stock' the garrison just by using fewer of them. Enough men to keep province tazes maxxed out but few enough to get a longer siege duration.

The only drawback is inadvertently dropping a cadre into a castle, forgetting you already have one of that type in there. Anything less than half size for both of them and they'll merge even if you didn't want them to.

I often have good governors-in-waiting (4-Acumen types) in broken unit remnants and have to take pains not to lose their stats by doing the merge the wrong way around (either the results are just plain inconsistent or it's because I constantly forget whether its the one you drop or the one which is dropped onto which determines the stats for the merged unit).

There is a trick whereby you can 'fabricate' a unit of reduced size by using one to 'top-up' a number of others which all suffered light battle casualties. For example, after a battle you have units with 196, 193, 187, 165, and one with 115. They're all bigger than half size and won't auto-merge. By dropping icons on one another within the stack menu-bar, you can shuffle troops between units. In this case, you'd end up with 200, 200, 200, 200 and a leftover with 56 men, ideal for making a garrison strong enough to hold a gateway for 20 minutes but not so large as to eat all the food in one year.

This kind of shuffling also means you can keep frontline units up to full fighting strength and only have to sent one unit on a time-consuming round trip deeper into friendly territory for the single-year retraining trick.

[Budwise]

I have it on HUGE and its just too much. Its so hard to train units and keep my frontlines full.

A little more of this and I will go back to Default.

[Mount Suribachi]

EYG, I'm pretty sure the castle capacities remain the same (780 & 960 for Fortress and Citadel?), though I haven't specifically checked.

Personally I like the challenges that using Huge units sizes throws up. Anything that makes the game more difficult is OK by me

[EatYerGreens]

Masochist: "Harder! Hader! Hurt me! Hurt me!"

Sadist: "No."