Part. 1 The strategical impact: cost
Now on a strictly strategical level the higher size setting you use, the higher costs of troops you’ll get and that fact will of course make an impact on the game. Greater numbers of men means higher costs of training all scalable formations (and it will of course mean higher support costs as well). Since redux economics are pretty harsh (particularly in the VI-version), that will obviously make things harder in a general sense for you as the player. For each new unit you commission the troop better be worth it because of the hefty cost that comes along with it. And, it is very unlikely that you can commission as many units as you like. This is especially true in the beginning of the campaign since your economy is not strong enough to enable you to do such things, especially at higher difficulties. So, that aspect does make an impact on the game and it could be regarded as making things harder for you.
Part. 2 The strategical impact: armies
Higher unit size settings will probably also result in a slightly lower overall quality in the various armies during that game because it is too expensive to commission the really pricey “high end” units at all times (especially in the beginning). My guess is that there will be more cheap units around instead because of that fact, and all this in spite of the new RX-AI introduced with the Spanish fix. Even if the new AI is very likely to handle such circumstances far better than the old AI (the CA AI) it will probably be forced to rely on inferior troops more often because of the higher costs.
This is especially true for factions that usually don’t have strong economies going such as Hungary, Burgundy, Aragon, Portugal and Poland for instance. It might also make an impact on Byzantium (and possibly Russia as well). And all this will probably show more in the VI-version because it has a tendency to more often ignore the AI settings in a way that the regular version don’t do, so there are differences between the two versions of redux and its not always in favor of VI. At any rate, all this will probably have the end result that the game will be slightly easier because the opposition won’t be quite as good as it would be with default unit size settings (after all, the redux economy is designed for that and it can handle that better since the costs involved there are lower). That fact will of course make an impact on the game, if not a critical, but it will probably make things a bit easier. So, we probably have somewhat conflicting results here this far.
Part. 3 The strategical impact: the stratmap
Another and perhaps the most decisive strategical impact of unit size settings on the game are the impact on the existing balance set up in the stratmap when the game starts. The already deployed and available units all over the stratmap are adjusted to default settings (and they will not scale accordingly to any other potential settings. It’s the same story in the original game). This will undoubtedly disrupt that balance to various degrees, and that at an increasing level the more you deviate from the default settings. The higher settings you use in the unit size settings, the easier it will be to crush or scare off those enemy units already deployed on the stratmap.
Essentially it will create circumstances that forced me to do the Spanish fix in the first place. Playing as Spain for instance on higher settings will most likely be easier since such settings are more likely to trigger the hardcoded flaws concerning Portugal or Aragon for instance. Thus you can still destroy Portugal in the same old way as before because of such higher size settings, since these will undoubtedly more easily trigger that notorious self-destruct behavior in Portugal because the existing garrison is not scaled or adaptive to higher settings than default. That goes for the opposition found on the British Isles as well and basically all over the game.
So in that sense there is a very real and noticeable strategic impact on the game that is directly connected to the unit size settings. That circumstance will be especially true in the beginning of the game and for the rebels in particular. However, these effects will also linger on in all factions that don’t have impressive economies to boost up their armies fast enough. I think that we all can agree upon the fact that high costs and poor economies usually don’t function that well together. In other words, in this sense the higher unit size settings you have the easier game you get (for reasons stated above).
Part. 4 The strategical impact: conclusions
In a general sense I have here pointed out three areas that unit size settings do make an impact on the game and out of those three, at least I consider, the last one to make the most serious impact on the game. The start of a game is usually one of the most vital phases of a game and redux is no exception in that sense. The fact that the already deployed units in redux (or in the original) won’t adapt to various size settings undoubtedly disrupts the set balance for the game. And that fact increases consequently the higher settings you might use. It’s easy to exploit and abuse such circumstances by lets say, triggering the hardcoded retreat behaviors of the AI. The greater unit size you set, the more easily you can trigger such behavior in the AI managing the already existing armies on the stratmap, even if it is unintentionally.
In other words your chances of simply “scaring” the enemy to retreat to death by weight of numbers regardless whatever troops it might be increases with higher settings. Thus we can for instance very well produce the infamous “Portuguese self-destruct retreat” all over again, in spite of having the Spanish fix installed (which is only designed for default settings). I think that it serves very well as an example of what kind of impact we are talking about here, drastic!
Now you guys may play on whatever settings you like but bare in mind that the game/redux is actually designed for default settings, thus anything above that will undoubtedly make things easier for you on a strategical level, and it gets easier for each higher setting. Do not forget that fact when you alter unit size settings next time. So much for the impacts on the strategic level, lets us have a look at what happens in a strictly tactical sense then?
Part 5. The tactical impact: time
The whole thing is pretty easy really, the more troops we have in one single unit the greater margins we get for errors. A unit that holds more men can simply survive longer, just because of that fact; it holds more men. Now, if a unit survives longer, even if we deployed it or used it wrongly or at least less efficiently. It also means that we have longer time to remedy a bad situation, thus the circumstances of battle becomes more forgiving to us. Thus we can conclude that battles will get slightly but increasingly easier with higher size settings.
Part 6. The tactical impact: command
Now, if things take longer to happen it also allows us more time to react and correct various faulty or less advantageous orders that we might give during battle. If that is the case then things will undoubtedly get easier to handle because we have greater chances of being more aware of what is actually happening and can thus deliver more proper orders accordingly. After all, the more time we have at our disposal in battle the better overview we get over that battle. The better overview we have, the likelihood of us giving better orders increases, simply because they are presumably based on more accurate assessments of the current and ruling circumstances of that particular battle. Thus we will probably give better orders to our troops. Thus things will get increasingly easier the higher settings we use since we get extra time to asses our situation and thus we are more likely to successfully command our forces.
Part 7. The tactical impact: efficiency
If we also consider the various aspects of the various values/stats that troops got in redux it is fairly obvious that they are pretty extreme by comparison with original MTW. Reduxed troops simply in a general sense far more efficient at what they do. Because of that that fact, the effect of various strengths and weaknesses in different troops will show much faster in a reduxed battle. If we increase the men in all units we also to a various degree “slow down” that circumstance because yet again there are more men that have to die before we get a noticeable effect of that and the various following consequences will thus kick in later (as in rout or total unit elimination for instance).
However, if we got smaller numbers of men, our margins to get away with flawed orders decreases. In redux is much about (but not completely) to accurately deploy and use the correct troops to meet the “correct” foe. As in maximize our own bonuses against the foes weaknesses, as in pikemen vs. cavalry for instance or infantry/archers vs. pikemen and so on. Pikemen might be excellent against cavalry due to powerful bonuses in such circumstances, but against sword-infantry they don’t have these bonuses and thus get considerably weaker and are therefore more likely to get slaughtered in the process. And in case of facing archers there is little doubt that they are vulnerable to enemy fire since they got no shields to protect themselves.
Now this might be valid elsewhere as well to some degree, but due to the more explicit values/stats that reduxed battle got, the effects of all this will kick in a lot faster. All this resulting in the fact that we actually got less time to react and remedy a situation if it gone bad. Increased numbers of men will undoubtedly to a degree have the very opposite effect or at least slow down that process. Thus the traits of various troops become less important with higher size settings to a variable degree since our time to correct various errors increases at an corresponding rate the higher settings we use.
This creates the effect that we can handle the battle more easily and need not in focus on the traits and strengths of the troops as much, simply because we don’t have to. It gives us the luxury to more easily get away with flawed orders, in other words it is more forgiving to us players. As a result of all that we can safely assume that higher settings create circumstances that make the game easier for us to handle.
Part 8. The tactical impact: diversity
When our margin becomes smaller our dependency on flexible and accurate usage of various strengths and bonuses becomes more and more critical. We simply can not afford to foul up because the unit will so fast get into a rout or be utterly destroyed before we might have time to save it. Thus we must depend on optimal strengths and bonuses whenever possible in order to survive and at the same time get the advantage over the enemy, and this is especially true when facing a numerically greater enemy. But the general principle here is to take out or break enemy formations faster than the enemy can do ours. The more men we got, the less dependent we become to use these men in an optimal tactical level since their sheer numbers allows us to save/reinforce/relieve them later with other units. Thus the dependency on diversity to counter various foes in battle becomes less critical, because we have with size; the luxury of time and expendable manpower. Thus we can clearly draw the conclusion that higher size settings makes diversity less and less important. With a reduced amount of aspects, such as tactical diversity, that actually demands our attention - things will undoubtedly become easier to handle.
Part 9. The tactical impact: balance
The impact on the overall tactical balance between various units is also a factor that comes into play with unit size settings. With the small unit size settings, the none-scaleable smaller or mini units like royal knights, feudal champions or Norse scouts becomes overpowered in comparison to other scalable units in the game. And its easy to mass-produce Royal Knights for instance to crush all opposition by brute force. They are designed to function with default settings and are balanced accordingly. So, even if we apply the small unit size settings that balance will certainly be disrupted to a degree.
However it is far more likely that the settings will be adjusted above the default settings and with that we get other problems that still create the same effects, as in the balance will be upset. Now, if we apply higher settings the non-scaleable units will be increasingly underpowered and thus the balance will also be upset to various degrees. Since units like Royal Knight or Byzantine Cataphracts for instance are among others important parts of the entire unit grid the system of units will become increasingly distorted because all those non-scaleable units in the game become more and more dysfunctional in regards to the other scaleable units. If that in it self makes the game harder or easier is possibly open for debate, but there is little doubt that need for using units like that becomes less and less important the higher settings you apply. If nothing else, they will eventually become so underpowered that it is questionable if they will contribute in any meaningful way in battle. Essentially we then get problems that seem to be very similar to those discussed under the diversity section (see part 8).
Another aspect of balance as well is the assigned tactical profile of a faction. The Moors and Saracens for instance are to a degree dependent on numbers and it is a part of their tactical profile. If you remove or weaken such traits by using small unit size settings that profile will to a degree be damaged and handicapped in some cases. On the other end of the spectra we have for instance the Norse and many Catholic factions that possibly will become stronger by such a move, because the many high quality units that are available to them and that fact will most likely become more noticeable as well.
The battles system is after all designed with the default unit settings in mind and it is balanced accordingly. What ever other unit size settings there are, will undoubtedly make an impact on a tactical level and that impact will become greater the more we deviate from the default settings, the more the balance is upset. Thus default settings are very likely to provide the optimal tactical experience of reduxed battle and probably the game as a whole (since battles, and the effects of battles are a major and vital cornerstone of the game). If the balance becomes distorted the risks of possible exploits will probably increase and that usually make a game easier if we decide to utilize such exploits.
Part 10. The tactical impact: conclusion
With the 5 presented aspects of time, command, efficiency, diversity and balance I think that we can safely assume that size settings does have an impact on redux on a strictly tactical level in battle. There is little doubt in my mind at least, that increased size settings makes the game easier (for reasons stated above) and it is thus another possible parameter/option of tailoring the game difficulty apart from the rather crude settings of Easy/Normal/Hard/Expert settings.
Anyhow, because size does make an impact on how hard a battles gets it also will in the long run influence the entire game experience, because if the battles are harder the risks of you loosing them becomes higher. If you loose battles it will undoubtedly make an impact on how you fare in the overall campaign eventually. There are critical battles and there are less critical battles, we can all agree upon that. But, the tactical effects of size remains regardless if it is a critical battle or not without any exceptions. Thus it does make an impact on the difficulty of entire game in the long run (assuming that you command your battles personally).
In order to minimize the tactical effects or distortions of unit size settings there actually is only one viable alternative left and that is the default settings. The very level that redux and its unique battle-system were designed for.
Part 11. The impact of unit size settings: closing remarks
What I have tried to determine here are the effects of unit size settings and the consequences that follows with that, nothing else. You guys can play at whatever size settings you like but if you decide to alter the unit size settings you should also be aware of the effects of that choice. A game with, lets say, maximum unit size settings will never provide the same tactical experience as default settings will for instance. The reasons for that are what has been discussed here and not whether a certain preference should be regarded as better than any other.
It seems that we can use the unit size setting parameter to “fine-tune” the difficulty of the game at least in a tactical sense, and that is valuable information as well. In a strictly strategic sense a campaign set on max will never provide the same challenge as default settings will, because of the unscalability of already deployed units over the stratmap when game starts, either in redux or the original MTW (it is hardcoded). It is easy to just commission a few new upscaled units and then the starting balance are essentially lost and will continue to be so until all such units are eliminated from the game. Thus we have a widespread and multiple impacts that eventually can possibly make difference for the entire campaign….