War is boring link

[DRG]

Originally Posted by keif149

I was flooded with junk mail after visiting that web page.
:-/

Interesting....... I haven't received any......did you give them your email address ?

[DRG]

Originally Posted by MarkSheppard

War is boring is...not known for in depth research into what they're talking about.

Well........there has been a spike in game DL's since that article was posted and that "a good thing" (tm)

[RightDeve]

Originally Posted by DRG

Well........there has been a spike in game DL's since that article was posted and that "a good thing" (tm)

Hahaha that's a good thing indeed!
Never underestimate the power of online promotion...

[DRG]

Originally Posted by RightDeve

Hahaha that's a good thing indeed!
Never underestimate the power of online promotion...

Maybe we'll "see" some new faces around here......

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

Well........there has been a spike in game DL's since that article was posted and that "a good thing" (tm)

The more people that discover the challenges of tactical combat vice mere adrenaline rush of FPS the better.

[wulfir]

The article repeats the errenous idea that SPWAW is superior because it was based on SP3 - an idea that in my experience is popular with people that don't play the games much.

This however:

More problematically, scenario designers in the new games often include too many units. Steel Panthers plays wonderfully with 30 to 60 units on each side, as originally intended, but monster scenarios with 200 or more units spread out over a dozen kilometers can be overwhelming.

...would be interesting to hear some opinions on this. Big, small, what do you prefer?

[jivemi]

Prefer something between battalion- or regimental-sized forces. Maybe 50-100 individual units/vehicles/batteries total. Much more than that my Godlike concern for each precious instrument of martial will suffers from compassion fatigue.

[RightDeve]

Originally Posted by wulfir

The article repeats the errenous idea that SPWAW is superior because it was based on SP3 - an idea that in my experience is popular with people that don't play the games much.

This however:

...would be interesting to hear some opinions on this. Big, small, what do you prefer?

Something not too big is best. But even if it's big, so long as unit disposition & hierarchy is explained properly I have no problem playing it. Since i'm such an OCD perfectionist type when it comes to battle planning, I have to know which troop is where and under what command before I can draw up a plan (let alone moving the counters!)

The beginning of a battle is usually the most tedious one for me because of that.

[Imp]

Must admit I would find 30-60 units restrictive.
Will play any size from 20 units up but probably 80-120 is the norm.
Bigger just equates to larger maps & longer game turns 200 units is no issue with the following exception much along RightDeves comment.

Large scenarios especially if using modified units unless they are well structured it just takes to long to identify what you have & where.

Yours are no problem & I will give SAS Troop a nod for his being easy to get to grips with despite often being quite large.

[Steves308]

Depends on my mood that day ;^) I enjoy playing large scenarios, though for my campaigns, I usually will play only a company or two of troops. Larger forces take too long to get through the campaign, especially the Long Campaign in SPWW2.

I will say in a small scenario, you do feel the loss of a tank more than in a large scenario...