What unit size do you prefer and why?

[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 ) !