Scenario Size and which sizes gets played more?

[JayTownsend]

Scenario Size and which sizes gets played more!

Interesting thing; I tend to like small, medium, medium-large scenarios the best with about 25-150 counters and 1-4 maps. But some guys will comment they like the larger scenarios. But when you look at what gets played the most, the small and medium size scenarios. I mean just from the ones I designed, I see 1-3 map scenarios get play all the time but when I design something with 4 maps, those scenarios hardly get touched and they take a lot of time to design and format.

I would classify a scenario in these categories: Tiny, Small, Small-Medium, Medium, Medium-Large, Large, Very-Large, Huge-Monster. The number of maps and the number or counters, and the length of the turns in the scenario all factor in to determine the size. For example; you could have a three map scenario but only ten counters and I would call it a small scenario or the reverse; one with one map and 100 counters and I would judge it to be a medium-large.

I guess everyone judges it their own way but the fact is, the guys calling for the very large or monster scenarios hardly play them, at least from the data on the PGHQ site.

[thomaso827]

I like the smaller ones, 2 boards or less and 25-150 counters, 24 turns or less, largely because it fits the space and time I have available to play. I do a lot of solo play on quiet days at work, where I can fit in two boards lengthwise if necessary, where I could manage 4 if they are in a 2x2 arrangement, but time is limited and I have difficulty with anything over 24 turns. The few face-to-face games I have played so far have somewhat followed this, as the other player has had time restrictions that made it hard to play even 20 turns. I look at the 199 turn scenarios in a couple of games and am awed by what that would take to keep up long enough to play. Maybe some day I can get some of those going, but not yet.

Tom Oxley

[larry marak]

Like Thomas, although even shorter lengths is just fine too. The limiting factors on short length scenerios are 1. time needed to resolve assaults 2. movement allowance & 3. fog of war.

Creative goals helps alot in scenerio design. Stafford's commando raid on a Soviet airfield for instance, was a brilliant innovation.

[graydo]

As a newbie I tend to prefer small scenarios although I think as I get more experienced I'll be game for larger scenarios.

[richvalle]

Until recently all I played were larger battles as that is what my face to face PG friend likes to play and I enjoy them. The largeness gives you a lot to look at, options for how to deploy the troops and usually enough time to push forward the battle plan. We never finish them in one sitting so write down the unit positions and take it up the next time we meet.

Recently I've been helping a PGHQ'er learn the system so we've been doing small battles and I've found I enjoy them a lot as well. The turns go fast and the battle moves along at a good clip. Each piece is precious and every loss hurts.

[Matt W]

Jay,

Please don't stop making large scenarios. I personally really enjoy the big battles.

Of course, this needs to fit into the history (or presumed history, as Larry notes of Red & White) of the battle/campaign. It wouldn't be Kursk without several big, tank-heavy battles, thus someone buying a Kursk product would be aghast if there weren't some huge donnybrooks. If there weren't big invasion or large Japanese attack scenarios in Saipan it wouldn't be Saipan, it would be some nameless island conflict. On the other hand a product covering, say, Norway in 1940 couldn't have anything that large by the nature of the conflict and would have to be composed of smaller fare. The large scenarios help define the product and anchor it in history (or, again, in alternate history...). The effort involved in the large scenarios is certainly not wasted even if they are not played as often as the smaller scenarios.

This brings to the fore the need for the designer and developer of those larger scenarios to come up with a scenario that has some level of interest. They have to have actually played the scenario enough to know that, at the end of the scenario there is at least a reason to have played (for both players). While this is true of all scenarios in new products, it is vastly more difficult in the large/long scenario given that large forces and board layout typically give the players an exponentially increased number of options that must at least be considered in the development of the product. Smaller scenarios can generally be understood quickly once the boards and pieces are laid out, but a large scenario may require weeks of study to ensure that the players have the "right" options, the "right" forces, the "right" objectives and sufficient time - but not too much time - to complete the job. This is a huge job and small mistakes or miscalculations can have a huge impact on the result.

Don't get me wrong. I love a nice, clean, short scenario as much as the next player. On the other hand I love some of the more involved scenarios. Daniel and I recently played all three of the Christmas battles from Fronte Russo, which were huge individually and combined took us a LONG time to complete. The ease of the Italian victories in those belies the enjoyment (well my enjoyment at any rate - as the Italian commander) we had playing the games. A stunningly great small scenario will get a strong 4 ranking but will be eclipsed by its larger brethren that carry the same quality

As to which gets played "more", that question answers itself. Smaller scenarios will get played a lot, bigger ones not so much due to the logistics of the player. I think something that needs to be factored into the equation is that playing one of the monsters may take several weeks to complete, during which time one could play 10-12 smaller scenarios. I find that the larger scenarios continue to have a very strong attraction, despite their logistical difficulties in terms of playing time (and continuity!) and playing space. I would always prefer a game that included a mix of scenarios including some larger ones (150+ counters, 4-8 maps) to be a well rounded product. I'm not looking for a huge number of them (more than 4 in a 40 scenario package would be overkill), but I am looking for some if they are representative of the overall conflict.

Something that Mike said in Daily Content years ago sticks with me. That these scenario books can best be considered literature. If you have played some small scenarios, you can read a medium scenario and imagine how it will play. You can continue stepwise towards larger battles until you reach the edge of your physical playing space (or effective playing time). If, as will almost certainly be the case, you reach the edge of your playing logistics before you hit the largest scenarios that doesn't mean that you haven't read them and imagined what they will be like. Heck, we all probably own several monster games with "full" battle/campaign scenarios that have never hit the table. That doesn't mean that we don't read them, dream about them, drool over the prospects of playing them and respect the time and effort that went into their design and development. They also were probably part of the decision to buy the game in the first place.

[J6A]

If I had a regular FtF opponent, I'd probably enjoy the larger scenarios more. As is, I prefer scenarios I can play in a few hours. Less chance of the cats visiting, a chance to play more scenarios, and a chance to play more games. I love PG, and it's certainly not the only game I own.

[zaarin7]

If the system was all on Vassal I'd be more interested in medium sized games. That would be IMHO 3-4 maps, 100-150 counters and 25-30 turns.

[t1M0t8yk]

I tend to like small, medium, medium-large scenarios the best with about 25-150 counters and 1-4 maps.

It only makes sense the largest scenarios see less table time. I'd expect a strong correlation in number of plays with the product of counters times turns.

I've been playing lots of small scenarios because I'm a noob and PG reminds me of Band of Brothers. Both of their combat systems have lists of modifiers. BoB started playing faster when the modifiers became second nature. I'm using the small scenarios to advance up the PG learning curve more quickly. It's a major reason I really like Saipan 44.

Once using the combat modifiers becomes second-nature, I look forward to playing larger scenarios. Larger PG scenarios appear to be more typically combined-forces battles. Combined-forces battles seem to be where the PG system will really shine.

[J6A]

If the system was all on Vassal I'd be more interested in medium sized games. That would be IMHO 3-4 maps, 100-150 counters and 25-30 turns.

I agree. If the system was on VASSAL and I could do PbEM scenarios, I would definitely play bigger ones because they could be done over time. So, who is going to design all of the modules?

Frankly, games I play on VASSAL make me want to play them in purchase, and have led to more than one purchase on my part.