Reply To: Does the historical period dictate the minimum and/or maximum size of a battle ?

[limburger 21709xp 1]

yeah … stop saying interesting things 😉
It probably helps connect the forums and discord if we do this more often.

// —

I think the one thing that skirmish games rarely do is make you aware that you are part of a ‘bigger battle’.

There rarely is anything like “if we fail this objective the enemy gets extra reserves on round X” because the alarm got there in time. Although in theory the ‘game over’ in round X could represent that it just doesn’t feel like it.

It may not make much sense pre-WW1 because there is no way of reporting back to HQ in a way that could have additional troops in the next round, but as tech advances that sort of thing should be a potential bigger threat. And it’s not like you wouldn’t want to run away and call your general that you’ve just located a potential weak point, would you ?

You do get a (better) sense when playing some sort of campaign like we did during the FoW bootcamp. It was a bit silly when you consider the size of the operating area and the armies involved, but the concept was there.
Although that kind of applies to battles of all sizes as you can’t exactly play the entire campaign on a single map without needing years to resolve the entire conflict. Zooming in on specific battles makes things more interesting (and faster) to resolve.