Large or small scenario's

[lucero1148]

How many of you out there prefer large to huge scenarios vs. medium to small battles. I prefer large battles/maps because I like playing with large forces and large maps have potentialy more strategic/tactical options.

What's your opinion?

[Bigdog]

Large, oooops that’s what she said I like larger battle for the same reasons. Once you shoot your wad in a small or med. battles the fat lady starts singing

[SurlyBen]

I really prefer the small (or even tiny) battles. It lets me concentrate on a few units, and the action always seems much more fierce. In a large battle I tend to lose sight of the nuances... Epic scope is nice, but I like the tension of having the entire battle focused on a single squad.

Here's where I plug my own small scenario Knife Fight at Cannes. Available at the Scenario Depot under K. If anyone wanted to review it I wouldn't complain too much

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: SurlyBen ]

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: SurlyBen ]</p>

[Andreas]

I like designing and playing tiny-to-medium sized scenarios best. Same goes for playing. The tiny ones are great for a weekend TCP/IP game, when you have an hour or two, and the medium ones are good for PBEM. I don't play the AI (except for testing). Large scenarios are just too unwieldy, and too stressful to control for me to enjoy them. Maximum size is about 4,000 points each, if they come in waves, i.e. you don't end up having to control it all at the same time.

[Fred]

Small to medium and sometimes a huge one; but this IS real work to keep some 100 units under command

But it has a nice strategic feeling to it, seeing how the far left flank crumbles, while the center and right hold the ground...

Fred

[lucero1148]

Small battles are fine and intense, but I still like the large battles for the scale. It really gets you thinking about how strategy can be screwed up on a tactical level and that adds to the excitement for me. True it's easy to lose sight of individual units but you can always replay as needed.

Patrick

[lucero1148]

To clarify- To replay the movie as needed.

Patrick

[russellmz]

small or medium. i hate not finishing a scenario in one sitting

[michael]

For PBEM QBs, I prefer large maps and fewer units (<1000pts). This allows for some serious maneouvering prior to contact so that there's some strategy before the brawl (which is fun too).

The only catch to fewer units, is that once you lose that one great AFV (eg Panther) plus a wee bit more, it's all over but for the killing.

[CombinedArms]

I played a bunch of large ones when I started out, but I definitely now lean toward the small-to-medium class, especially if the scenario focuses on a definite tactic issue or problem.

Managing a couple of battalions of infantry and thirty vehicles, where you have to plot each squad's movement and every team's as well (far more than any battalion commander would actually have to do)--who needs it! At that point, the game starts to become work. I've even experienced situations where I got yet another company of reinforcements when I thought I already had enough forces to win with and found myself groaning, "Oh, God! Not MORE troops to manage." At that point, the game ceases to be fun.

My idea of the right scale is a reinforced company (or smaller) of infantry, with a handful of AFVs (though armor can get heavier more easily because 100-200 points of armor is still only one unit) and maybe a few FOs and a few onboard guns. It might vary with the situation, but that scale (or smaller) is what I tend to prefer.

[michael]

Well put CA! A buddy of mine put together a massive PBEM game. It was taking me over an hour to make each move. Never again.

[manchildstein (ii)]

i like the huge battles for the scope and the small battles for the quick-moving action.

...kind of like breadth versus depth or something... in smaller actions you get to the critical point much more quickly. in huge actions you have to lose a lot of units and (usually) play a lot of turns before that happens...

andy