Does size matter?

[Mobhack]

For WW2 battles where I am using a straight-leg based core with no great use of tank riding or mechanised forces, then I find that a width of about 80 hexes is fine. About 80 hexes tall is also aout the maximum for a leg Bn.

- A battalions assault frontage would be about 1500-2000 metres wide in reality. (~30-40 hexes). 80 hexes deep allows for that with plenty of area for flanking etc. 50-60 hexes deep would be entirely justifiable as a map depth for a leg bn based force in the assault or defence, maybe 80 if a meeter?.

- the bn would be 2 companies up front, one (or more if a 4 coy bn) held back in reserve (500m or more behind the 1st line coys). Applies equally to the defence and assault. (In a meeting engagement then it may deploy 1 coy forwards, 2 back in echelon on the point coy flanks in an "arrow" formation)

- a leg bn would be expected to fight through a depth of about 2000 metres (40 hexes) or so in the assault as a maximum. 80 hexes deep allows for 40 hexes max to fight through, and 40 or so turns is usually sufficient for that. Area would be about similar for the defence.

So - I like an 80 by 80 square map when I am playing WW2 campaigns with a realistic core force ( 3 leg rifle companies that march and one supporting tank coy, plus attachments). It is really a little wide for the defend and assault missions, but that gives the AI (and me) some room to use the flanks, and I have to allow for that in the defence too by maybe by spreading out a bit more thinly than I would prefer.

If I am playing with a tank bn core (3 armour coys and a rider coy or mech coy as the core) then I would prefer the stock map size, and possibly a deeper/wider than stock one for meeters.

Thr really large map sizes are useful to have for scenarios, or if you have an armoured brigade based core (6 or so tank coys and 2 rifle coys, I have done a campaign with that using firstly BT tanks and then T-50s/70s/SU-76 and other second-line Soviet light kit. BTs on a huge map can run rings round the Nazis, just be careful when crossing the wide open spaces ! ).

When we get to MBT and all-mech infantry being more common (and with the faster vehicles) then I may go to larger map sizes for a bn task force based core, especially post the 1980s.
Cheers
Andy

[m113apc]

My favorite battles are with the biggest maps, and with the maximum amount of units that are possible, but this doesn’t mean that I have great numbers of frontline units, with frontline support. There may be 2 to 3 heavy coys (mixed), with some supporting specialized platoons (such as engineers), and with mobile supporting AA and arty.

Why?
My forces are then often stretch thin, for me this is a challenge, since I have to choose my deployment with care, which units will provide flanking support, where to deploy my support units and so on.

Very often I will face numerous enemy units with few units of my own. I then have to decide if I should rush some support from my other objectives, to hold, delay or destroy these enemy units.

I have often experienced enemy breaches between my main areas, and I have often had to engage enemy units between my main areas as I rush units between the "no mans land". This has also resulted in loss of my units, since they have been victims of enemy ambush.

This is fun.

[Lt. Ketch]

I ran a 20X30 10 mission generated campaign (AAR - Letters from Stalin's City) and had some fun with it. It got a little dull after a while as it seemed that I was employing the same tatics every time. I then ran a 100X100 and decided that was a bit too big for me. I am happily settled with a 80X80 map with the equivalent of a 3 company battalion w/ support. I may increase it in the later battles if I choose to add another company, but we'll see how it goes.

[Ramm]

Cmon guys, I post on your threads