This deserves some discussion....

[Der Kuenstler]

"...a small game will all ways have more luck involved than a large game..." - Zemke

I read posts here from new players a lot that go something like this: "I'd like to start out with something small - 1000 points or less..." It appears that they think something smaller will be easier for them to manage and therefore win.

Actually the opposite is true. If I were new here I would advertise for nothing but 3000 point battles or higher. Seriously! The reason is, in a small battle, you are both going to get maybe one tank. Just one tank. What's going to happen in the game when your tanks meet and he gets your tank first? You are going to lose the game, that's what. Game over. In a 3000 point battle, you may get six or more tanks and can back up, maneuver,etc. if you lose one. You are still alive that way.

A smaller point battle also puts you on a smaller map, which increases the chance that there will be a terrain advantage for one of you - and Murphy's Law says it won't be you!

"That's too many units to manage!" you say. But really, if you are going to control a platoon, you might as well control a company - they all work by the same principles of movement - there's just more of them. Again, infantry is easier this way, not harder. What are you going to do if your ONLY platoon blunders into a mine field? If you are managing a company you will be OK, you still have others to go around it.

Think about it - in a large battle - you are fighting the other player. In a tiny battle, you are fighting both the other player AND lady luck - she can be very unkind. There's luck in all battles, sure, but why choose to fight where luck is a much bigger factor? The last little battle I played was about a year ago - I lost it.

Then you can think of it this way: win or lose, you'll get more ladder points. Look at our ladder leader's game history - see any byte battles in there? Don't let size scare you when requesting battles - size is your friend!

[Copper]

Personally I love smaller battles. I like getting down and dirty (view 1) looking for every divot that could prove the advantage in the game. Im currently working my way through all battles on BB and AK of 25 turns and under and with a size of small or tiny. BB gainst 95Bravo and AK against MGK... needless to dsay I havent done too well so far but we have only played about 4 or 5...LOL

To say you arent fighting the map in a large battle is misleading.... you are using your terrain in exactly the same way as a small battle.... you just have a chance of losing one tank and being able to retreat the rest whereas in a small battle that one tank could be your chance at glory... LOL

Whoever said infantry were the kings of the battlefield?

Bootie

[Der Kuenstler]

To say you arent fighting the map in a large battle is misleading.... you are using your terrain in exactly the same way as a small battle.... you just have a chance of losing one tank and being able to retreat the rest whereas in a small battle that one tank could be your chance at glory... LOL

Whoever said infantry were the kings of the battlefield?

Bootie

Yeah but a small QB map is much narrower than a larger one - there's more of a chance that your opponent could get a good hill or large clump of woods that you don't get on your side...

[RedDevil]

In a small map, there is less traverse area for regrouping and re-engagment, thus you get 1 maybe 2 shots at your strategy/tactic. After that we know where we will be in 15 turns and in most cases one is either on the VP or trapped behind a hill with no flanking room.

On the larger maps there is an abundance of area to regroup and re-engage at another angle, thus you are presented with 3-5+ chances to try your strategy/tactic.
This gives you a lot of options to tinker with and, IMO only, it increases the % of draws, but players who can see the whole field will prosper against those who look thru the eyes of their men.

[Fubar]

.....The reason is, in a small battle, you are both going to get maybe one tank. Just one tank. What's going to happen in the game when your tanks meet and he gets your tank first? You are going to lose the game, that's what....

Not always true, i've had many good games where i've lost all my AFV's and still managed a draw and even the odd win. Granted on an open/steppe map things may be hopeless but on an urban or hilly forested map with good use of smoke those big metal coffins aren't so scary.

[Ratzki]

I agree with some of what you are saying DK, but to say that more is easier is not the case as your opponent has more as well, and where you might run into one enemy tank with your only tank in a small game, you tend to have to deal with a platoon of enemy tanks vs your platoon of tanks in a larger game. Same with your infantry, yes a single platoon can be messed up rather quickly but so can a company as the amount of opposition rises proportionately. That said, smaller battles require you to be on the ball all the time as small mistakes can be costly. But I think that one can manage a smaller battle easier then a larger one, as your focus is on fewer units with fewer objectives. Larger battles are much more forgiving of small mistakes but your organisational skills are forced to be at the top of your game or a large battle can quickly get away on you, and disaster follows.

[Colonel Talvela]

Whoever said infantry were the kings of the battlefield?

Bootie

I did. And I stand by it. Which is where I also disagree with dk on this specific point:

The reason is, in a small battle, you are both going to get maybe one tank. Just one tank. What's going to happen in the game when your tanks meet and he gets your tank first? You are going to lose the game, that's what. Game over.

I just disagree with this in principle. Now can one tank make or break a game? Sure it can. But I really believe that if you will learn how to play and win with no tanks, you will be a master of this game. In pretty much every game I play, I plan on killing tanks with non-armor units and then using my AFVs - which I have kept protected - to overwhelm everything else with ease. Doesnt always work like that - but that is my philosophy.


Now concerning DKs main point - I definitely agree that small battles allow luck to be a bigger factor. But I still think for people starting out small battles are good. I know I would have been too overwhelmed to try to play a 3000K battle when I was first starting.

I joined the blitz after playing only two pbem games, and if you look at my early games you will see they are almost all sub-1000 games that were played on a small map. I'm not saying everyone should be like me. I'm just saying I dont think I would have stuck with CM playing bigger games.

My play habbits and skill level started changing about the time I started playing Zemke/jdsu a lot. They were brutal teachers, but playing them helped me move up to a higher skill level of play. Which is when I moved up to bigger games.

[The Coil]

"...a small game will all ways have more luck involved than a large game..." - Zemke

See, now I think that's a great reason to start out with a smaller battle against a better opponent. More luck involved = better for the less experienced player. If I'm playing Michael Jordan in a one-on-one game of basketball, I want it to be outside on an uneven court with a bent rim in a heavy rain with 50mph winds and a lopsided ball.

[Skeld (FGM)]

My money would still be on MJ

[The Coil]

My money would still be on MJ

Did I mention that I would also want a big stick?