A unit can consist of 1-10 units at the moment iirc, and I think there was a data value which showed some pretty high possible numbers (probably for mods), although I think it would be safe to bet a single unit could reasonably consist of 50 soldiers.

if HomM3 is anything like HomM5, or Kings Bounty, then each unit is simply a potentially infinite stack, made up of as many units as you could gather and recruit ... possibly with some arbitrary limit based upon leadership, or class, or somesuch. Still, a nearly infinite stack made of 100s of soldiers.

We provide many actual cohesive fighting units made of a particular size (probably depending on logistics tech plus how large your barracks/training yard is) working together, moving across the battlefield. These "units" gain in experience over their battles, and are limited to a set number (depending on what the dev team decides) ... currently that number is 10 or 12 iirc, although getting to 50-80 would be a nice number just going on my experiences with Total War. Hopefully it will not be a tunnel vision battle-map like in HOMM5 (or the out-dated battle screenshot) but rather a vast, flowing, battle-scape with rolling hills and scattered patches of dense forest. Since the dev team has mentioned terrain will be a factor, I can only joyously hope for a sophisticated battle simulator .... and not a crude display of stacks of doom mocking themselves as a "tactical battle" like in the HoMM series.

In HOMM I couldn't even say, separate my stack of knights into two stacks of knights if I wanted too .... I just have one giant mob of knights, and one mob of peasants, and one mob of footsoldiers, against their mobs.

I admit it was fun for the time, I liked the game, hurrah and all that. but it simply was not sophisticated! and I would not appreciate that style of battle in a proper 4x game.

If it was a victory, I think dead team-mates equipment should be added to "inventory" ... so that if the excess inventory is retained until your unit arrives at the city, only training time will go into effect to replenish troops.

However, if it was a Retreat from battle, you would lose the equipment, and therefore need to stock the unit with fresh troops AND fresh equipment. There is still an upside to adding troops to experienced unit vs making a new unit. Fresh troops will gain at least some measure of the Unit experience (potentially all of it)

If however, we are using units as multi-soldier cohesive military .... units .... and each individual soldier draws from the population pool ... then Men killed upon the battle-field simply do not re-grow, but must be sent from the population pool into the army.

There are many ways to do that, including sending new soldiers by caravan towards the marching army, or sending freshly recruited units of similar type to later "rejoin." In such individual soldier based battle-sims, weakened units of the same build can join together, to create a larger unit (up to the maximum allowed), and experience is re-divided among the unit to find the new experience level.

I prefer this method because it lends to a more sophisticated "real time" tactical battle, where soldiers are actually lost, people actually die, and unless you some-how suffer no attacks your going to have to recruit more soldiers to re-fill your ranks. Given that ... soldiers will have their own individual HP values, and yes I agree that HP should probably re-fill at the end of the TURN, not the end of the battle, unless they are Cavalry or have some special bonus/spell that allows them to quite sucessfully blitz through battles during the turn at minimalized cost (aka actually healing HP at the end of each battle)

Units with a per-battle turn health regeneration item, should heal after the battle is over as if another turn of battle has passed.