Overlord

[Jason Petho]

What does losses or strategies have to do in either a tactical game of 50 turns or 1200?

I was specifically referring to the suggestion of breaking a large scenario down into a series of scenarios.

When playing the smaller scenarios, a player is limited to the scope of the scenario based on the designers notion of the battle. When starting the second scenario of the series, it may have little to do with how the first battle in the series ended. There are no consequences for your actions in the first scenario when continuing on in the series, unless you're playing a von Earlmann style campaign or a Linked Campaign. Linked Campaigns aren't useful for PBEM, unfortunately.

On the other hand, playing a larger scenario (possibly covering the entire day with 155 -160 turns of daylight typically in France in June - add 6-10 turns if you use the night-day switch at the start of the scenario - no need to manually edit the file) that covers the majority of the battlefield and actions of the day offers the players involved flexibility in how they play and the consequences of those decisions throughout the scenario.

There are a number of scenarios that cover portions of D-Day by themselves. From the para landings and fighting to the mess at Omaha and so on. Alone, they are great scenarios that depict a particular action.

A well designed, larger scenario allows you to play all of those scenarios at once, in one game and see how they interact with each other.

Yes, 1200 turns is out of the scope of the game design, for now.

Jason Petho