Does size matter?

[Ratzki]

Well as long as you are reading this, maybe put a little thought into it and we might just be able to help out with the updated/new infantry combat model for the next PC installment. What size infantry formation does everyone like to play when sitting down to a battle? I find myself always moving to try to get about a battalion or more on the map. It just seems to be about the size that would be minimum to have a good feel during a battle. Any less and I find that you have to play too conservative as just a couple of step losses makes too much of a difference in the outcome. Three companies or so allow for enough units to make a good push and still have something in reserve.
Plus, even at this time, the orders structure makes it easier to deal with more units.
Just curious to see what some others think about this.

[belljack95]

I like keeping it around a company or perhaps a reinforced company when playing. For me, having too many units on the board can be a problem just as having too few. Perhaps adding a way to scale the campaigns or scenarios to allow a person to configure the size of the fight they want would be a nice touch and let each player enjoy the size game they like.

[Mobius]

If I have too many I play too risky with them. I'll might try something that doesn't have a lot of hope in succeeding just to see if it can be done.

[rickier65]

I like company sized battles myself, though slightly more or slightly less work for me. I've played some battles where I enjoyed a larger force, but I think it was in cases where the battlefield naturally developed into two distinct battle areas.

Thanks
rick

[sztartur2]

I like the battalion+ size myself. As I played a lot with Steel Panthers then with CMX1 I got used to that. Company formations for every type of armor, infantry and artillery is a must. Battalion formations for at least the infantry is also a must. Steel panthers is a good example what we would need regarding formations. I am not sure about tank battalions but for myself I would not be sad if that would be included as well.

The way force selection worked in CMX1 was very good.Or Steel Panthers as well.
 

[Ratzki]

For those that prefer the company+/- size infantry battles; would a different command interface be something that may have yuou playing larger formations? Or should we maybe look at different ways of displaying information on the screen. A better overview map, colour coded units that show command structure. Just thinking some.... any ideas.

[madorosh]

A battalion attack was generally done with two companies up, two companies back, so having enough room on a map for two companies seems about right.This would be optimal if/when team/co-play was introduced down the road.

[Jacko]

Bigger maps and more units. Those are essential for the future of this game. The game will gain more depth and more interesting scenarios are possible. But it all depends on performance of course. 

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

For those that prefer the company+/- size infantry battles; would a different command interface be something that may have yuou playing larger formations? Or should we maybe look at different ways of displaying information on the screen. A better overview map, colour coded units that show command structure. Just thinking some.... any ideas.

There might be a need for a command post unit(s) then.

[sztartur2]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

For those that prefer the company+/- size infantry battles; would a different command interface be something that may have yuou playing larger formations? Or should we maybe look at different ways of displaying information on the screen. A better overview map, colour coded units that show command structure. Just thinking some.... any ideas.

There might be a need for a command post unit(s) then.

Absolutely.

And also the chain of command has to be represented. Steel Panthers is doing a good job by the rallying system.

[Yoozername]

There are many bigger issues but I think that the basic 'benefit' of handling larger battles is historical representation.  By that, I mean that those battles that can be fully represented by the units involved is a overall 'value'.

In the East, the actual battles and forces involved can exceed many 'tactical' games.  But if a game can 'marquee' forces and model them...well...goody on that game.

[Enigma6584]

When playing infantry centric scenarios, I like to go up to battalion size formations. With this in mind, I like that the map be big enough that I have to manuever my companies into position and I have plenty of time to do it in. I get "a high" in being able to organize my forces for the attack, slowly move them up into their jump off points, and then committing them as necessary. Slow, methodical and large missions is what I crave.

[wodin]

As a potential new customer which is wholey reliant on the Infantry model in the next game I prefer coy size give or take but no more than a battalion...a battalion is really the max for me.

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

... In the East, the actual battles and forces involved can exceed many 'tactical' games.  But if a game can 'marquee' forces and model them...well...goody on that game.

By maquee'ing forces, are you meaning a more abstract representation of a larger force, or do you mean being able to pick out the best elements of a force?