What unit size do you prefer and why?

[Knight of the Temple]

I'm still on my first campaign and chose to go with the default unit size, but I like the idea of bigger battles, or battles on a larger scale, so I intend to try the 'huge' unit size in my next campaign. I know this has other consequences though, such as longer training times and higher support costs, and the fact that some units aren't scaleable, like Royal Knights.

What unit size do you all use and what are your reasons?

[macsen rufus]

I usually play on large size (ie spears = 166 men, archers = 100 etc) as it's a good compromise between performance and huge battles! Everything will train in 1 year except a few special units that take longer even on default. I don't really like huge unit size for two reasons: the 2-yr training as you mentioned for some units, and also the archer units get TOO large to deploy sensibly - for best accuracy they need to be 2-deep, and with huge units these get way too wide, and manuoevre clumsily.

On my previous machine I had to use small unit size as the video card was 4Mb below minimum requirements (!), and the downside to that was the unscalable bodyguard units were just overpowered - they still had twenty men, when a standard sword unit say was only 30 men. This gave a massive advantage to those factions that spawned princes year after year (eg the Danes) - loads of RKs that the other small units could hardly touch. It really affected the tactical side of the game. Plus the spear wall was always tiny.

[caravel]

I'm still on my first campaign and chose to go with the default unit size, but I like the idea of bigger battles, or battles on a larger scale, so I intend to try the 'huge' unit size in my next campaign.

I have always played on huge unit size, apart from a spell of a few months playing on large units. I know it causes a performance hit but I simply prefer it with the 200 man spear units, 120 man infantry/missile units and 80 man cavalry units.

I know this has other consequences though, such as longer training times and higher support costs, and the fact that some units aren't scaleable, like Royal Knights.

The 2 year training time doesn't bother me in the least, but I may be used to it perhaps. The higher support costs aren't really a factor as you are paying per man anyway. The higher training costs and training times increase difficulty somewhat, as you have to think before you train an expensive unit and also you cannot have a unit trained and ready the following year in emergencies. The Royal Knights issue is a problem though.

I have solved this in the mod I'm working on by making all of the non-scalable 20 man bodyguard units (Royal Knights, Ghulam Bodyguards, Sipahis of the Porte) scalable. This equates to them being 40 man units on huge unit size. I've also changed Mongol Heavy Cavalry, Boyars and Kataphraktoi to 20 man scalable units to help balance all bodyguard units.

[Eternity]

I also play on Huge unit settings since I love the way the field is filled with so many corpses after every battle. However, I noticed that general units generally perform poorly in these settings, and it's easier to kill the generals in these situations, making the computer suffer since they're usually willing to commit their general in battle. I don't really mind the fact that the units require 2 turns to train either since I can retrain ANY unit in just one turn. So this means that I can retrain a 1 man spearmen unit into 200 spearmen unit in just one turn .

In my current Irish XL campaign, Gael Gaedhils usually take 4 turns to train, so I simply retrain them everytime they drop below 30 men, as i get more men/turn this way (or less than half for those units that take 2 turns to train). Huge unit sizes lets these 40 men berserkers (9 charge, 6 melee, 4 defense, 1 armor, 12 honor ) slice through 200 men units without taking much casualty. Also, nothing compares to the kill rate of the 200 men unit Bonnacts throwing their heavy spears into crowds. Huge settings are definitely the way to go for the epic feeling.

[Martok]

I play with just the standard Normal-size units. Part of it is a performance issue, as I have a computer that's older than spit (and even that's not working at the moment). Another reason is that the units are generally the most balanced on the standard setting, which is important to me. And to echo macsen rufus, I find Huge units to simply be too unwieldy to manage properly. (Of course, it's entirely possible I'm unconsciously just using that as an excuse to cover up for my computer's deficiencies.... )

[naut]

Nice and boring, default.

[ChaosLord]

I play on normal as well, not because of performance issues just because I got used to it then saw no reason to change. Plus I like the nice even amount of troops per unit you get with it. And since I always use the MedMod huge isn't an option, which means i'd have to deal with the odd looking amounts you can get on large if I wanted to go higher.

[Ciaran]

20/53/80/133. I´m not sure now which one that is, but it´s the one I´m most comfortable with, having started the Total War series with RTW. My system could handle the larger sizes, but I´ve tried and found them unwieldy.

[caravel]

For me, the unwieldiness is part of the gameplay. It is satisfying to see a large unit of Spears twisting into position in just the nick of time.

[Innocentius]

Default for me as well. Huge in custom battles though, I prefer realistic sized battles (and plenty of casualties..he...he...).

[Adrian II]

I play with just the standard Normal-size units. Part of it is a performance issue, as I have a computer that's older than spit (and even that's not working at the moment). Another reason is that the units are generally the most balanced on the standard setting, which is important to me. And to echo macsen rufus, I find Huge units to simply be too unwieldy to manage properly. (Of course, it's entirely possible I'm unconsciously just using that as an excuse to cover up for my computer's deficiencies.... )

What he says. ^

[Kralizec]

Large almost all of the time, I tried huge but I don't use that anymore mostly because the 2-turn recruitment annoys me.

Manoeuvring units is a bit more tricky then it is on default sizes, but I actually like it that way.

[drone]

Default, mainly because I'm lazy and never changed it. I've been playing VI campaigns recently, and the default size feels right anyway.

[King of Bavaria]

I prefer a smaller size, because of the better maneuverability of the troops, especially for the archers, as I generally like to have a lot of ranged troops.

For games with the standart map, I use medium-size ((?) with 133 men spears), and default-size (100 men) for the viking-scenario.
Just because armies and funds are smaller during that era.

[professorspatula]

I used to play with large units, having decided huge was too much of a burden for the AI with the whole increased unit support costs and 2 turn training thing. But the last couple of campaigns, I opted for medium? or whatever the one before large is. You still get plenty of men on the battlefield but I find the lower support costs allow both you and the AI to churn out more units. It's also a bit easier to stick a variety of units into the keep's garrison, as on large and huge, a couple of spearmen unit tends to be all you can fit in there.

[Brandy Blue]

I prefer the default because those 100 man peasant units are handy for holding down captured provinces cheaply. Just one will do very well for tame provinces, and even places like Portugal calm down a lot if you put two or three there. The battle map considerations don't concern me much because I rarely get long enough chunks of playing time to do large battles.

[Knight of the Temple]

It's been interesting to find out what you all use. I didn't expect as much diversity! I thought there would generally be an overall best setting that most would prefer (except in the case of computer limitations, which I can understand).

I'm still very much attracted to the huge setting. Somehow I think that will seem more realistic and just give a grander feel to battles. But I assume that the battle-maps are the same size regardless of the unit setting, so I can certainly foresee less space and potential to manoeuvre on the battlefield, which is something I don't look forward to.

[caravel]

I'm still very much attracted to the huge setting. Somehow I think that will seem more realistic and just give a grander feel to battles.

I can vouch for that. Battles last longer and your stacks tend to made up of several large units instead of many small ones. I prefer to line up three huge units of i.e. Chivalric Sergeants to use defensively rather than using six smaller ones. There are many pros and cons, and it's mainly down to personal preference.

But I assume that the battle-maps are the same size regardless of the unit setting, so I can certainly foresee less space and potential to manoeuvre on the battlefield, which is something I don't look forward to.

Not really a problem, there is more battle map space than you'll ever need in MTW battles. Small units can manoeuvre more quickly yes, and they're better for plugging gaps. But Large/Huge units, being more unwieldy, bring in a whole new dynamic to your strategy. If the two year build time becomes bothersome, you can try the large unitsize, but any lower than that, and I feel that battles become much less epic.

[Mooks]

I like hugest, because I enjoy the site of oceans of dead bodies.

[Innocentius]

I'm still very much attracted to the huge setting. Somehow I think that will seem more realistic and just give a grander feel to battles. But I assume that the battle-maps are the same size regardless of the unit setting, so I can certainly foresee less space and potential to manoeuvre on the battlefield, which is something I don't look forward to.

On the other hand, with less manouverability comes the fact that it's harder to flank anyway, since you and the enemy can form a line simply too long to out-flank. The battles only get more realistic the larger the unit size (960 vs 960 men deciding the faith of let's say Flanders is pretty ridiculous), but for me the weak performance of my computer is more important in a campaign.

[Caliburn]

Large works for me, as it does not change the strategic balance too much. Too bad it's still 20 men per unit for royal knights and such - I like the small size coupled with easily manoeuvreable tactical punch in the default setting. Somehow larger unit sizes make me more reckless when they should instead do the opposite - or maybe that's playing a bit of Rome talking...

[caravel]

Welcome, Caliburn, to the org.

I agree that the large is probably the best unit size for most players. It is also relatively easy to mod the 20 man bodyguard units as scalable.

[Don Esteban]

I've always preferred normal simply as it seems to work best. No computer issues, no scaling issues and not too many 2 hour battles(like happened today when I was trying to play in my 1 hour lunchbreak ) !