PG-HQ Forums

When you look at the scenarios that get played, it seem like the smaller to medium size scenarios get played more than the larger to huge scenarios.

I prefer smaller to medium size scenarios but like to play larger scenarios every once in awhile as well, so it is nice to have the choice.

Anything over 6 maps is usually out. 1-4 maps is perfect.

For face-to-play, Matt and I can typically play a 20 turn, 80 pieces (more if there are transport units) in one session. Depending on the number of difficult decision points, that number may go up or down. Panzer Lehr 1 & 2 for are two examples of scenarios with lots of difficult decision points.

I prefer larger scenarios if soloing but the choice of scenario is dependent on my availability in the near future (7-10 days). For example, I've had very little time to play this past month and thus played two small scenarios from Kokoda Trail and one midsize scenario from Elsenborn Ridge.

One thing for certain is I am more risk averse in smaller scenarios.

Table space and my attention span keep me from playing anything larger than a medium size scenario.

Solo, 4 maps and down are easily accommodated. A 6 mapper can be accommodated with some whining and disruption of other games being played. Larger than 6 remains theoretical at this point although possible in some configurations.

With Daniel we have focused on 1-4 maps and have only had scenarios span more than one session once (I think). We can usually play 4-5 hours at a time and there is a desire for closure...

To answer the question directly, all sizes are the best. I find the quality of the scenario with force, map configuration, VC's and SSR's more of a draw rather than number of maps. I too have a table space restriction with my regular table, but if the scenarios look interesting I will find a way to play them. There has been a number of nights eating else where from the dining room due to a large scenario in play.

For me, the desired scenario size, as Alan says, is dictated more by the interest in the subject than map size. In fact, I think that I have the following tendencies:

When playing SOLO - Smaller scenarios - not necessarily map size but counter and number of turns seem to dictate what I play - as I have to play in spurts and I don't usually like the games to go on and on and on.

When playing FTF or SKYPE - Any size scenarios - Since these are planned play times, I can set aside the 4-6 hours a session so that I can get bigger ones in. example: Alem Hamza: Right Flank. This was a larger scenario with a large number of turns. Vince and I played it over 4 sessions, each session taking 4-6 hours. It was an epic scenario and I had a lot of fun playing it.

For me, map size is not a problem. I have a ping-pong table in the basement that doubles as my wargaming table, so I can even play a full Cassino scenario if I had to!

I don't know what the size criteria is, so I chose medium. I think the game works best with a regimental/brigade size combat team, say 30-50 units on a side. Map size of 3 or 4. That's what I usually think of as "medium". And yes, size does matter.

Does size matter? , am I on the wrong forum...whats going on

Joking aside I love big scenario's but for me really its all about quality, that means a interesting situation, clear scenario rules, and good VC giving a chance for both sides to win.

I'm severely space limited, and as such 2-maps are the limit. I can theoretically do a 4 map, but would have to evict SWMBO's projects (tougher than getting the Soviets out of Stalingrad).

After our first 1,000 plays I analyzed, among other things, the map distribution for all scenarios vs. played scenarios:



When we hit 5,000 plays in the next month or so I'll re-run all those calculations and we'll see if there have been any changes, but I wouldn't expect there to be to great a shift on something like that (how often do you buy new tables?)