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!