Does size matter?

[Ramm]

What is the vertical and horizontal hex count you use for randomly generated campaigns and battles?

What type of force composition do you typically deploy for yourself on these maps?

Just curious because I want to find some good map/force makeup variations. Knowing some good types from your past experiences will make my process of finding them faster and would be much appreciated. It would be really great if everyone that plays this awesome game posts their preferences. From newb (beginner) to pro so we can see the entire community's battery of response.

Thanks,

Andrew

[Mobryan]

Mostly I've been playing on a 60x60 with one armored and one inf. coy. Works well for me, I prefer a little faster pace anyhow I think I'm going to go up to a 70x60 or 70x70 for my LC, however. The third Inf. company makes things too congested and close, though I don't want to add too much width right now, slow tanks and pedestrians


Matt

[gila]

100x100,I usally only have a mech platoon of inf.and a section of armour some scouts,snipers and SP's.

Alot like hunting ants in a field with a pea-shooter i know,but when you take the last flag they come out looking for you then..

[Imp]

Firstly you are not stuck with the size throghout the campaign at the start of each battle the button for prefs is on screen & you can adjust the map size if you want to.

If you let the computer choose your vision settings & or want room to manouver tactically I would suggest a minimum map size of 80 or 100 square.

Width> base on your forces mobility if mainly on foot might wan't to shrink to speed up contact. If mainly mobile expand.
Also if use short range arty might want to expand forcing you to move it during the battle.
Height> base on number of units the more you have the bigger the map.
2 schools here really if the map is small for no of units it will be a compact battle.
If big for the number of units scouting & finding can catch you out a bit but if go to large starts to make easier as AI is spread out to so you can pick him off in pockets.
As I said adjust to try diffrences but the other important factor is time, use the clock to adjust.
You tend to get quite a lot if set lower for attacks meetings forces you to take risks.
If using a big map means you have to split forces to achieve objectives so helps the AI

[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]

It really depends on what you want out of your experience. Smaller maps play faster, don't have as much manuvering (simplifing things a bit in my opion) and can have a whole lot of bloodshed when artillary is brought to bare. Larger maps taken longer, provide more oppurtunities to try to flank the enemy, but also expose you to flanking manuvers, and are a lot more varied in terrian and avenues of approach.

I also feel that it depends on your confidance. In my own experience, I can handle a smaller map a lot easier than a larger one. I look at a 100 by 100 and think, "Crap, I've got to defend/attack all of this?!" I tend to go a bit overboard trying to get the right stuff and end up losing interest, getting too frustrated, or lost and stop playing. Smaller maps tend to set my mind at ease a bit because I don't have to worry about my AZ platoon being forgotten. I can connect a lot more with my units. As I said, this is my personal experiences and small maps can be just as hard, if not harder to play becuase every unit is critical when you only have 10 unit total.

My reccomendation is to play around with all different map sizes and forces. Even if all you do is choose a size and then buy your forces, you can deploy them and get a feel for how congested or loose the battle will be. Referring to my last post, I just enlarged my map by 10 hexes in my LC to accomidate some additional forces and to give myself some more options of manuvers. I'll problably continue to increase it for the next couple of battles until I find one that is, "too big" and then I'll go back and stay with a more comfortable size. Don't feel like you have to get locked into one size or one force make up. Switch it up and have fun.

[valo2000]

one thing first. Yes it does ;P

I am playing mostly 100x100 maps now because i have 2 overstrength rifle companies.

It is good to have some free room for maneuver imho and some art of the battle should be to find the enemy and prepare an attack on him. on a small map i dont get this. the enemy is simply everywhere.

you can still have thoose 30-40 hexes assault frontage but now it is in a much larger context.

For example one group of units is fighting adelaying action helped by artillery while another group destroys an isolated group of the enemy. with this huge maps you can actually encircle
enemy groups. it is a lot of small battles happening on one map.
this is best for meeting engagements and advance/delay missions

for assaults the frontlines are thinly held in this cases.

[Imp]

A hint here when defending on big maps you do not need to defend everything just the objectives & your arty park. By all means have people out on flanks or forward to cause delays & see whats coming but more often than not pull them out soon after contact & either move them to bolster your main force guarding the flags or position them for an ambush or some such. This slows the attack catching him off guard may well draw arty & can give the impresion you have more forces than you actualy do.
If he sends some people to deal with you they have done there job there is no need for them to stay & get outnumbered.
As you are defending gaining the initative is not really possible but you can throw him off by making him wonder what you are up to which is the next best thing.
Lose control of the battle & you have probably lost it full stop.
Don't set up close enough though that you are a prime arty target you want good interlocking fire & surviverbility to make him pay.

[PanzerBob]

IMHO, size really matters in what you are trying to portray. I for the most part Campaign, however I use varying map sizes depending on the battle and its location. I use bigger maps for open spaces and smaller for the more closed in areas, but this is only a guideline so it can become fairly mixed up as well. I try to think of what my KG's mission is and where is it on the battlefield. I'm I, an armoured Recce in force, or a flank guard or a defending a sector with other units etc, all these factors figure into what your units' Area Of Responsibility (AOR) might be.

80 x 80 does seem to be a good generic size if that is more what you are looking for.

Bob out