Big or not so Big Thats the Question

[Rabidbvr]

I have been playing CM for over a year now and still find it hard to get into a game of 500pts or 1000.... alot of people will say thats lame i have to admit i do like a small game company strength at a max with a small amount or tank support... perhaps its from the days of my youth playing sqd leader or painting 1/72 figs etc most of the time i read of large battles and got thinking is it just me who likes the smaller battles your views please...

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Not sure what the hell you said, but Bigger is Better imho.

[Rabidbvr]

I guess what i was trying to say small scale actions are my thing.... wife telling me to get of pc missed a whole line out of post...

[Gpig]

Heh heh.

I think you may have indirectly provided the "reason" for your preference for smaller games.

Sounds like "life," and you are usually married to it for same.

Gpig

P.S. That is the single most important reason that I LOVE small games 500 - 1000 pts. If I were to play larger games, I'd soon be single.

[junk2drive]

stay married for thirty years. she wont care how long your battles are. and get two computers.

[Gpig]

So . . . I just need to hang in there for another 23 years, and then . . .

BFC should have a pretty freakin' awesome game, by then.

(Not that it ain't already . . .)

Gpig

[Znarf]

For playing, I enjoy the 1000-2500 point range. Still small enough to be manageable, but big enough for an unexpected swing in the battle.

Every once in a while I take on a monster battle, however, and usually when it is over I find myself taking the CMxx CD out of my drive for a couple of weeks. Too much of a good thing.

For designing, I must say that while making smaller battles is easier, building that monster scenario is an enjoyable challenge. Unfortunately it takes forever, especially when you have a job, a wife, a child, and you need to shower and eat. I currently have a massive 2km x 2km Volturno river scenario in progress, and another large scale 1.2km x 1.2km dynamic flag armored engagement. It will be months before they are done. The problem is playtesting - it takes a while to playtest a 100 turn battle, revise the OOB and map, test again, repeat.... you get the idea.

[BigMik1]

I love the big battles, bring them on!!!

BigMik1

[phil stanbridge]

I've just been playing an 8000 pointer and its awesome - you have to use almost totally different tactics when you're trying to organise a larger force - or rather I do : - )

[Kobal2]

Size don't matter, or so I'm told

I too tend to like smaller battles, with a company sized inf force and a handfull of AFVs - more and I get confused and/or sloppy

[Sergei]

I like it either way. In a small scenario you can pay more attention to your troops, but you also need to, because the loss of one AFV or spending your artillery support on a wrong target can spell defeat. Play is also faster, although because of the previous point this isn't always the case - you can spend more time on fewer forces.

In a huge scenario there's more happening all the time, but this can be overwhelming and you can miss events around you. There's more tactical freedom, as you can have substantial reserves at hand, but you might get too sloppy with your handling of forces and not use them to the best effect.

[Brent Pollock]

...which is one of the things I like about big scenarios...I tend to think of it as Operational FOW. I find it neat to sometimes get away from the micromanaging and boost the chaos/luck factor.

Anybody else other than me missed some stuff on big maps because you'd focussed on a scetion of the map for a few turns and had forgotten to check quiet sectors? I've had a few PBEM games wherein I went back to old files to figure just when the mess started :eek:

Originally posted by Sergei:

[snipped by Brent]

In a huge scenario there's more happening all the time, but this can be overwhelming and you can miss events around you. There's more tactical freedom, as you can have substantial reserves at hand, but you might get too sloppy with your handling of forces and not use them to the best effect.

[Other Means]

oh yeah. the worst happened to me in a massive CMBB scenario. playing the Russians i had that many AFV's i was just setting one waypoint where i wanted them to be. they were going the wrong way around trees, going down AT covered roads, blowing up for no real reason i could see when i fianally checked and showing up in action piecemeal. my own fault but there was just too damn much. 3000pts is about the biggest i play.

[Joachim]

If there is time, I prefer the bigger ones. Current PBEMs include one with approx 10000pts - for each side. Only a fraction of the units move each turn while most give overwatch.

Vs AI I usually play a campaign with a core of about 2200pts plus aux troops, resulting in 3000 or 5000 pts defences or 2000-5000pts attacks. They take some time, but I'd rather play a big battle per week than 3-4 small ones.

Gruß

Joachim

[GoofyStance]

To loosely quote Abraham Lincoln, "... (L)ike shoveling fleas across a barnyard. Not a half of them get there."

That's my opinion of large battles, with hordes of infantry waiting dumbly for my micromanaging orders. I know a lot of folks relish the variety and flexibility offered by such scenarios, but I'd much rather play a small scenario so I don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time issuing orders for each and every unit. Especially since - with my luck - half of them will at some point go off on an unexpected tack, or sit down and refuse to go further. Plus, my memory isn't quite sharp enough to keep track of all those units The last time I played a medium-sized scenario of some 25 turns, I realized at the end that I'd forgotten all about a platoon of infantry back around Turn 5. They stopped per orders in a wooded area, out of sight, and sat whittling sticks for the remainder of the game. Oops. Turns out, I didn't really need their assistance to win vs. the AI.

[Kong]

I prefer large - huge. I can understand why folks play and enjoy small fights but I find it much more interesting and entertaining to play big ones. I am in the midst of a monster right 120+ turns HUGE map and am loving it. I really think you have to change your thinking when you play really big battles. I look at big battles as equivalent to 2-3 regular ones. As there can easily be 2,3,4,5 individual battles occuring at one time in large ones. Set-up can be killer in the big ones and traffic management is usually a pain in the arse but I still love 'em!

[imported_no_one]

Anybody else other than me missed some stuff on big maps because you'd focussed on a scetion of the map for a few turns and had forgotten to check quiet sectors?

Almost never.I have worked out a way to have two windows of CM open at one time.The last movie file in one,and the orders pahse in the other.Think you missed something?Alt-Tab to the movie,then back.

I also really enjoy the larger battles,they are just more realistic,and will make you learn twice(maybe three times??)as much about CM as you would in smaller battles.

The trick is though,the scenario designer had better know what he is doing.If the forces arent properly provided for,gamey swarming and map edge hugging tactics can pay off on really large battles.

Always provide transports for the defenders guns,and for the love of god,always give the defender TR-freaking-Ps :mad:

This brings up a question.Will the AI properly use TRPs?

[ June 30, 2004, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: no_one ]

[dalem]

The game is designed for running a company plus support and that's what I like.

To each his own.

-dale

[Joachim]

A handy trick to keep track of units is either selecting the whole screen - you can easily see highlighted units - or increase unit size.

A piece of paper with info about your plts and hvy wpns helps, too.

Gruß

Joachim

[Joachim]

Originally posted by no_one:

This brings up a question.Will the AI properly use TRPs?

Create a scen, lock TRPs, put a few heavies in the AI OOB then show them a few tanks on their TRPs.

Then you'll know.

Gruß

Joachim

[Vanir Ausf B]

I won't play anything smaller than 2000 pts. The best thing about playing with large forces is that the luck factor is minimized because the loss of any one unit is less likely to be decisive.

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by Joachim:

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

This brings up a question.Will the AI properly use TRPs?

Create a scen, lock TRPs, put a few heavies in the AI OOB then show them a few tanks on their TRPs.

Then you'll know.

Gruß

Joachim </font>

[MikeyD]

Just last night while testing out a building mod I constructed a super-tiny scenario of one sniper vs one sniper! I only made the thing in order to view the building i was working on, but it was fun skulking my lone sniper from building to building, wondering if he was going got get whacked before he spotted his adversary.

[Sgabuzzino]

Sniper pistol fights are always entertaining.

[eichenbaum]

I believe the ideal size of the scenario has something to do with the amount of time the player wants to put in it.

Multi-player scenarios should be small especially when played by PBEM. But if you're into a battle with AI a huge one can bring a lot of joy.

Just looking at the amount of points does not tell you something about the size of the battle. 1000 points of infantry will be very different then 1000 pts of Tigers.

Nils