Jump to content

Dou You Like Large Or Small Scenarios?


Recommended Posts

Which do you prefer. For me small to medium scenarios are best because if the battle gets huge and stuff gets hot, I have a delayed time panning miles over to the other side of the map to prevent a breakthrough. I know I can ctrl-click the area to get there faster but I can't manage the battle without constant pauses if it's a huge map.  I would rather just control a medium force breaking into or defending a smaller area. Casualties rise and vehicles become destroyed if i can't manage the area.

 

Lag, I also have a problem with the scenario if it is huge the game gets some massive frame drops but still playable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably cos I learned originally on CM1 which was able to feature maps up to 8Km x4Km I have always preferred huge maps/scenarios.  The additional advantage is that mobility can become a vital aspect of the game.  (ie;  Halftrack and trucks can be used the way they should be - not sent close to the front lines etc.) 

On a huge map there also becomes a genuine reason for vehicular recon.  On a small map you may as well not have any recon or light vehicles, or dismount em all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer is yes.

I like a variety, sometimes small sometimes large. Actually come to think of it I usually have a variety of sizes on the go at any one time. Playing WEGO means those large scenarios take time but you can treat them more like a few smaller scenarios combined into one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always play WeGo and prefer medium battles from a video making perspective as it allows a decent turn around for uploads but also tends to have more variety in equipment and terrain than a small battle which in my mind makes for a more interesting watch. 

I would however really enjoy a playing a huge battle that perhaps lasted months but I may end up losing some subscribers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer small to medium scenarios but large maps. Small maps are fine for infantry combat but if there're some armoured vehicles, they need more space for maneuvering. But yes, in general I prefer to have less units on the map, because with the level of micromanagement of CM, commanding a large force, would become too tedious and would also distract me from  the tactical aspects of the combat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Medium mostly. But on occasion I will play a large or huge game. You have to go into these with a different frame of mind than when you are player a smaller one. Almost like playing at an operational level, the scenario may carry over into a few days (or evenings) of gameplay. Generally these can be very rewarding in the end. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like them all. but as pointed out , the larger maps generally allow for aspects you cannot do on smaller maps.

The secret is, what are you trying to portray.

you do not need a huge map for city street fighting, actually a large city fight on a map too big  becomes less enjoyable to me.

a infantry only battle generally does not need a very large map to depict what is needed.

but a battle where recon or maneuvering is a focus, then of course that map has to be large enough  for that to be allowed. 

 

The secret is not what the size of the map is, but the right size for what type of battle it is.

I recall designing a scenario where the offence needed to select one of three avenue's of approach. the terrain was such that once committed to a choice, there was no time to change or shift to the other options.

the map was very large due to this, the tournament round started and many players just quit when they opened the scenario because the size intimidated them.

but in truth, the map had about the same number of units as any medium battle and  was focused on one or two battles the size most players were accustomed to.

Many that played it praised it as one of the best they ever played. But I had to smile how many just did not even try to experience something they were not accustomed to.

 

So in the end  what I am saying, they all have their place. Just depends on the mood I am in.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 12, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Ivanov said:

I prefer small to medium scenarios but large maps. Small maps are fine for infantry combat but if there're some armoured vehicles, they need more space for maneuvering. But yes, in general I prefer to have less units on the map, because with the level of micromanagement of CM, commanding a large force, would become too tedious and would also distract me from  the tactical aspects of the combat.

Agree 100%. Generally, I would go along with most of what has been posted here. I prefer medium-sized battles where the attacker is a reinforced company or so, but on a large map. If the attacker is a full battalion or more, set up and play can quickly become a tedious grind, but a reinforced company on a large map allows some combined arms tactics, which I like. I generally avoid MOUT scenarios; just not my cup of tea. I also tend to avoid battles on heavily forested maps where you spend all your time creeping around trying to avoid ambush.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely find the sort of scenario I most like, which is a large or huge battlefield with a very small number of forces. That way the attacker has various points at which to attack, and the defender has to spread their forces and try to anticipate where the attack will come from. Nothing more exciting for me than having a tiny ambush/lookout force encountering the enemy and assessing their strength, and me as commander having to ration out reinforcements from my small reserve to plug a gap...

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1   That also works when one is attacking.   I love having a huge map and starting with recon forces, then having major forces available, but having to decide on transport to the best locations to conduct an attack while simultaneously having to assign sufficient forces elsewhere to defend.  And also having enuff forces to allocate reserves.  (It's a major reason why I still play CM1.  YOu can have up to 8Km x 4Km and more than a Regiment(!) on each side with a few companies of AFV's and many transports and Recon AC's etc.)

BTW:  If anyone is interested, a CMBB "Birthday Bash 13" tourney on a 3Km x 3Km map with above size forces on each side is just starting and has open slots at WeBOB:  https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/webandofbrothers/invitiation-to-participate-in-bb13-round-4-t19054.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 1:25 PM, Erwin said:

Probably cos I learned originally on CM1 which was able to feature maps up to 8Km x4Km I have always preferred huge maps/scenarios.  The additional advantage is that mobility can become a vital aspect of the game.  (ie;  Halftrack and trucks can be used the way they should be - not sent close to the front lines etc.) 

On a huge map there also becomes a genuine reason for vehicular recon.  On a small map you may as well not have any recon or light vehicles, or dismount em all.

Me too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...