Yeah CISC vs RISC thing barely makes sens anymore. It could only matter in the context of hand-programmed and low frequency processors. What remains of "it" (at least in some people's mind) that is still relevant today on major ISA is clearly instruction encoding, but you could totally make a CISC with fixed length instruction. You could also make a RISC with (highly) variable length but... just why? And actually why make a highly variable length ISA at all regardless of if the ISA is RISC or CISC? The real reason that x86 has an highly variable length is only historical. When you only decoded one at a time it did not matter that much. So maybe you wanted some big ones for convenience but it would be a shame to make them all big. So the 8086 had instructions of 1 to 6 bytes (up to 10 with prefix?). And then you had 32-bits with 16-bits compat, it seems it went up to 15 bytes, and then stayed at 15 max for AMD64...

Today the most used x86 instructions are not that much different from ARM ones, and in a good number of cases actually even simpler. The simplest way to compare is to simply look at the assembly an optimizing native compiler emits, and lookup for what the emitted instructions are doing.

The micro-ops of processor are actually quite dependent on the ISA. You could do neutral micro-ops, but I doubt this would be very efficient. So you can't really compare the complexity of ISA by the number of micro-ops issued, because among different arch and microarch the micro-ops are themselves more complex on some point and less on others, with tons of similarities with (core instruction set of) the ISAs they implement.

Complex instruction for backward compat, special, or intrinsically difficult operations, are transformed to a potentially very high number of micro-ops, often looked-up in a ROM.