Scenario size. What do you prefer…

[Abbott]

I am interested to know what the community prefers concerning the size of battles fought within CMBB.

Map size, troop size and turn limits.

[Greenman]

Small to medium maps, 1500-2000 points (max), and 25-30 turns.

Anything larger slows down my system. Anything longer is no good for PBEM play.

[jgdpzr]

With the more robust infantry model found in CMBB, I find I am enjoying the smaller, infantry-heavy engagements in the 1000-1500 range. This wasn't really the case in CMBO, where some of my favorite scenarios were the huge, sprawling armor-heavy battles.

[Uber Spurhund]

Medium sized map, 800 - 1200 points, and 40 to 60 turns. I find that with the new infantry rules the pace of the battle is slowed considerably, therefore I like to have all the time I can get.

[Jussi Köhler]

I prefer small-medium sized maps, 700-1500 point battles. No armor-only, mechanized or infantry are my favourites...

Jussi

[MrNoobie]

I prefer small-medium sized maps, 700-1500 point battles. No armor-only, mechanized or infantry are my favourites...

the same here except for the no armor one, i like armor battles and hate big maps

[Stingray]

Small to medium map, 1500-2000 pts, 20-30 turns.

Tiny to small ("Byte" sized) Battles are my cup of tea.

Combined arms if possible, please.

[Zakalwe]

I prefer company to battallion scale engagements for blind PBEM play. The point tally is unimportant, as a well-designed lopsided battle can be very good. Medium maps are fine, but map size is not very important for me if the battle is otherwise interesting. Duration can also be variable, since I have some very patient friends who are quite willing to spend the first 20 turns seeking contact, but at times it can be great fun to open a match with a bang.

Since you were the one to inquire, Abbott, I'd like to point out that 'A Cold Winter's Morning' has just about the right size/scale/time ratio for a PBEM match. I just posted a (mostly positive) review at the Scenario Depot, BTW.

Zak

[ November 15, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Zakalwe ]

[MasterGoodale]

I haven't played anything bigger than tiny so far but I am pretty sure I will enjoy tiny, small, and medium only because I am better able to focus more closely on each unit and remain organized. Once and a while I will probably try a very large battle, but only in PBEM (I wouldn't be able to stand the AI for that long). And I need plenty of turns to manuever!!

[Bartokomus]

i think 3000pts on a good size map is about right; i have found that cmbb has redeemed the Meeting engagement, as out of the 15 or 20 PBEM scens i have played they are by far the most enjoyable. i also enjoy the forced being committed piecemeal, as long as they are out of LOS of the enemy.

[jmbunnelle]

I enjoy small to medium. Can't handle the huge ones because there is way too much going on and I don't have the time to view each turn again and again to catch everything.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by MasterGoodale:

I haven't played anything bigger than tiny so far but I am pretty sure I will enjoy tiny, small, and medium only because I am better able to focus more closely on each unit and remain organized. Once and a while I will probably try a very large battle, but only in PBEM (I wouldn't be able to stand the AI for that long). And I need plenty of turns to manuever!!

Are you ready for PBEM play?

[Pingu]

Still learning the game so I like to create random tiny maps in the editor, usually rural, with hills and lots of cover.

Then import this into a complete random mix of forces with between 500 and 1000 points and 25-30 turns.

[akdavis]

Big maps only in the case of fully mechanized engagements. Otherwise, Small-medium, 800-1200 points, 30-40 turns.

[Eden Smallwood]

Large every once in awhile; otherwise smaller. Huge forget it- I couldn't play it if I wanted to. The main issue I have was not directly asked, but close enough- too many scenarios want to give me an absolute minimum of time.

Perhaps it's the pedigree of CMBO, I don't know, but I'm currently just aborting a scenario which it looks like I barely have time to *walk* my troops to the VL in that many turns, let alone take it from an enemy.

If I don't have time to show due caution, let the nature of the displacement unfold, adjust myself accordingly, implement and finally conquer, (with a bit of being routed along the way!), then how else is that battle going to be interesting for me?

Eden

[ianc]

Smallish I think: 1000-2000 points depending on what types of units are bought.

Large scenarios are just too unwieldy and difficult to manage given the lack of a roster or an easy way to visualize and find your forces on the field.

Do like them large maps though...

ianc

[Abbott]

Perhaps it's the pedigree of CMBO, I don't know, but I'm currently just aborting a scenario which it looks like I barely have time to *walk* my troops to the VL in that many turns, let alone take it from an enemy.

I have found a good rule of thumb to use while designing CMBB scenarios is to add 5 more turns then one would with a comparable CMBO scenario. Along with the variable turn ending option it seems to work out well.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Small to Med. 700-2500 pts. But I will play almost any size.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Greenman:

Small to medium maps, 1500-2000 points (max), and 25-30 turns.

I have to agree with Greenman here. These monster scenarios are hard to handle, IMO. Not because of any hardware issue. It's just too hard sometimes to watch and handle all that is going on in them. It is too easy to miss something important like when you play one of them clickfest RTS games.

[Zarquon]

I've just began my first two CMBB PBEM's. Both are 2000 pts, medium size maps, one Axis, one Allies. Everything else is set to random.

Sounds silly, unless you try it. I would never have played Finns vs. Soviets in an extremely cold winter night in '41. You've got to do with what you've got.

[Rob Murray]

Tiny to small maps. It's too easy to get lost on large/huge maps. I've found that with big games I tend to loose track of some the units ( ie. machine gunners ) & end up leaving them idle for long periods of time. Then when I can really use them; they're too far away from the action to be of any use - have this tendency with CMBO as well.

[PiggDogg]

Greenman & Le Tondu,

You guys have stolen my thunder. For me, 1500-2000 point BB games between about 22 to 30 turns are about best. The reasons are as follows:

There are enough forces so that the game will probably not turn on one single mistake. Of course, two or more mistakes may doom one.

The games are small enough so that they can be handled relatively easily. However, they are not too large to become tedious and too time consuming to give orders. For me, games much over 2000 points are just too much of a bear to give orders, and thus the enjoyment to tedium ratio begins to edge to the unfavorable side.

Cheers, Richard

[ November 15, 2002, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Hans]

Depends

For PBEM I prefer 700-1200 on a large or huge map, Armour, 25-30 turns.

In me versus the AI I like 300-700 points medium maps with +25% to the computer all random and I see if I can handle what the machine throws at me.

In general I like the smaller battles so I can enjoy and 'know' my troops tribulations.

[JPS]

Medium or large map, 800-2000 pts, 30-40 turns.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by ianc:

Large scenarios are just too unwieldy and difficult to manage given the lack of a roster or an easy way to visualize and find your forces on the field.

ianc

Always with the negative waves, ianc!

No roster for you. No roster ever.

My gods, how I hate you. I can't believe you never come into the Cesspool anymore, where I could properly spit upon you.