What unit size do you prefer and why?

[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 ) !