Does size count?

[Hans]

I noted at the Scenario Depot the following sizes of the downloads there:

22 Tiny

95 Small

206 Medium

79 Large

44 Huge

Now that is what the designers have put out, the question is what size is wanted by the player?

[Rokossovski]

My own preference is for large MAPS, in order to allow for a decent amount of flanking and maneouver. I am less particular about the size of the FORCES, although roughly battalion or reinforced battalion sized outfits work nicely.

[Warmaker]

The listing I believe refers to the size of the participating forces for both sides. I myself like large maps but medium to small sized forces. I'm very happy commanding an infantry company or maybe even a company of tanks/panzers. With Batallion levels my attention gets too stretched out somewhat. Regiments? No way... besides, my computer can't handle regiments of fully mod'ed units running around.

[Hans]

Lets rephrase the question

Maps size

Point size ( number of men )

[Sergei]

I wish there were more of the smallest battles, 15 minute clashes that don't require big sweeping maneuvers to get into contact. I do like medium/large battles, but there are plenty of them already.

[Cpl Carrot]

I am a big fan of the smaller battles myself.

Cpl Carrot

PS wish that sig would go away

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Cpl Carrot:

PS wish that sig would go away

And just how much would you be prepared to pay for that? Okay...

[IntelWeenie]

I like the smaller battles, too. It makes it much easier for those of us with kids & early jobs to play a quick game or two after the kiddies are tucked in.

[Quinxi]

I also prefer the smaller battles. Having a large map for moving on is fine but having too many units becomes "work".

[Stingray]

Small is good

[Hans]

So who plays the large and huge ones?

[Col Deadmarsh]

I find it a pain just to move around a big map--even by left clicking on points. A 2000-3000 point game on a medium map is usually large enough to flank your opponent if that's what's needed but it isn't so big to become a nuisance.

[dieseltaylor]

Huge map preference. You do not have to utilise all the space but it does provide less certainty than having hard edges to your battlefield.

Also it does mean you as the commander do have to seriously consider your force mix and tactics in light of soft flanks. All those who buy ubertanks relying on the edge of the board to cover their flanks in advancing really have to worry about their tactics.

Speedy and light units are a justifiable buy and with 3000 points tanks bogging is not the critical game losing disaster it can be in small games. Flags can be spread or centralised and given the distances between it can give some interesting decisions on whether you go for all or not and how heavy a deployment you make for your objectives.

With 3000 you get a battalion inf , 3 platoons plus artillery and light stuff so you are using reasonable size assets without having to go short.

Its the best scale IMHO

[Sgt. Schultz]

I prefer medium to large maps to allow more flanking opportunities, as well as the plethora of VLs that comes along with the bigger fields of battle.

3,000 points is my favorite. If life would calm down a bit, I would prefer Regimental and even the occasional Divisonal battle, although those would have to be Ops with a 3rd party placing the forces for my opponent and myself.

[Sgt Bonehead]

I'm surprised to hear I'm not the only one who prefers smaller battles. But then again, I'm part of the kids-n-jobs crowd, so I can definitely relate to the time pressures.

I really like battles that are 20 turns or less on defense, 30 or so on offense. I tend to be a very deliberate player, which kinda bites me in the a$$ on offense unless it's a long scenario.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I'm definitely in the family and work category, but I love huge maps with anything from company size to reinforced battalion size combatants. I have no use for small battles.

No doubt, I'm in the minority, but I like spending many turns carefully reconnoitering and manuevering.

[BigDork]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Speedy and light units are a justifiable buy and with 3000 points tanks bogging is not the critical game losing disaster it can be in small games.

Speak for yourself. I'm finding it's hampering me right now in our PBEM.

I personally usually stick to medium size maps. But it depends on what kind of a battle I'm playing. If it's all infantry I don't want the map too big. All armour battles are definatly going on bigger maps. A 3000pt game on a huge map seems to be working out pretty good but I also like a 300pt game on a small map too. Just depends on what I'm in the mood for and how much time I have.

[ August 16, 2003, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: BigDork ]

[IntelWeenie]

I started playing on medium maps over the weekend (still staying at 500-600 pts) and I think I like it even better. The extra space really opens up a lot more possibilities for the attacker without making it too big an area to defend.

[Flipper]

I'll take a small map 400 point all inf(random forces) battle any day :cool:

[Becket]

Originally posted by BigDork:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Speedy and light units are a justifiable buy and with 3000 points tanks bogging is not the critical game losing disaster it can be in small games.

Speak for yourself. I'm finding it's hampering me right now in our PBEM.

</font>

[Andreas]

I prefer designing smaller battles these days. Small being about 1-2 coys plus some support as a maximum force for an assault, with correspondingly low defenders.

Reasons for this preference are that they are much easier to design right, I believe that CMBB works better with them than it does with large battles, and I can focus on what interests me most, the depiction of tactical problems, or how solutions to them worked. Basically real-world tactics with real-world kit in the real-world environment of CMBB. The only thing where I go away from small is in battle length. I am by now reasonably convinced that battles with less than 30 turns are almost not worth playing. Too often they just turn in an exercise in frustration.

[Hans]

Yes the smaller scenarios are more interesting in my opinion for the following reasons:

1. You can 'learn' and know the forces you are using.

2. It is easier to play-test, a 700 pt 30 turn small battle is easier to test than a 5000 point 50 turner.

3. If the battle turns against you you don't have to suffer for as long!

4. Less daunting to redo, to try again.

5. More challenging in that small losses on either side can completely change the situation.

Turn wise I think in some situations a time restrict aids play. In general I find the battles are tending to be longer, from 24 to 34 in a quick survey of my own small scenarios.

Last note, I find it very difficult to design battles at the tiny level, tough.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

small forces (<1000 points), medium maps.

these days i play mostly with infantry divisions, so there is no need for huge spaces on the sides. it's far too frustrating and disappointing to move infantry around large maps.

[ColumbusOHGamer]

Originally posted by Hans:

So who plays the large and huge ones?

I have a huge one to play with...

Seriously, I mostly play the smaller ones just because I can finish them off sooner. But if I'm playing a well designed scen, then I like the map to be large. Nothing better than thinking you've flanked your opponent on a large map only to have his reinforcements flank you!

[Chad Harrison]

I prefer the two extremes of the list. Either small battles, or very large ones. Small being defined as 1200 points or less, and large as over 4000 points. I dont care too much for the 1200-4000 point range.

As to actual map size, if its a small battle, I like the map VERY small {small setting for the QB}. If its a huge 5000+ clash of titans, I like them large or huge {in the QB setting}.

Chad