What number of turns do you prefer in your SB scenarios?

[TheBigRedOne]

When choosing a scenario, does size matter?

[fastphil]

Size matters but is relative to the size of the map, the forces engaged, the placement of objectives, the victory conditions and the historical setting. I usually prefer small to medium scenarios with turn length short if I am the defender and long if I am the attacker.

[IronX]

I lean towards 16-20 turns since most scenarios I make are medium sized. Small and large scenarios would be on either side of that.

[Rabbit]

Scenarios with a very small number of turns tend to force the attacker into a headlong assault which reduces the amount of strategy they can use and the same is pretty much true of the defense. Increasing the number of turns definitely works against the defense, but it seems there are a whole slew of mechanisms by which the scenario designer can offset this. They can stagger the appearance of the attacker's troops and have them come into the battle as reserves, they can start the units closer to the edge of the map and/or use a larger sized map, they can provide the defense with additional units, decrease the value of the objectives, increase the victory point requirements, etc. I personally much prefer scenarios that give a few initial turns to allow both sides to develop their positions so that more strategic options are available and so the attacks/defenses don't fall into a predetermined choreographed routine. I love the cat-and-mouse aspect of trying to guess how the opponent is setting themselves up and I don't think the shorter scenarios really allow for that.

As an aside, I have only played AotR and ES, so I don't know if this has been implemented for any of the other versions, custom scenarios, or mods, but I would love to see the "rest" option start being used more (such that units can regain some effectiveness when they sit out of the action for a couple of turns).

[Mad_Dog]

I prefer shorter, but a lot of the interesting scenarios in WW and SAW are pretty long, over 15 turns, so I end up playing a lot of longer ones.

[Rook]

I prefer the option of manuvering, which can only happen if you have a greater amount of turns (e.g. high 20's to 30s).

Rook

[TheBigRedOne]

When I first got into SB, I much preferred the shorter scenarios, probably because I was impatient. Now that I've played quite a bit more, I see the benefit to having a slightly longer type of game 16-20 turns, to allow for maneuver, but also short enough that it doesn't put the defender at the total disadvantage.

The big thing that a lot of players may not take into account is having to play on the defense, since I'd imagine most solo players take to the attack. If you're defending a town/villiage, you don't have a lot of room to move and the longer the scenario can go, the tougher it will be to hold those positions.

I do think that with the progression of the SB series over the last several games, the designers have really taken the defender into account and has balanced the scenarios out well enough that you can go 16-20+ turns and still have a viable defensive strategy that just isn't 'sit in place and shoot.' Some of the older titles playing on defense wasn't a whole lot of fun simply because you pretty much waited for the onslaught.

[Dazooz]

Don't forget that if a scenario becomes too long, the effectiveness of weapons becomes quite poor.

Sometimes a good defense is knowing how long to wait before opening up!

[IronX]

That's a very good point. The longer the scenario, the more I find myself trying to reduce the number of times a unit fires.

[Rook]

Concerning units specifically, your current turn in a scenario doesn't equate to current levels of efficiency IMHO for two reasons:

a) Start and duration of unit-to-unit engagements;

b) Possible regeneration of efficiency with respect to scenario parameters (I personally like to fudge this variable with my Marines :cool:)