Battlefield Width

[w_michael]

All of my multi-player games so far have been with small or very small forces on medium maps. I like the fact that it eliminates the 'end of the world" effect by providing all the room needed to maneuver, so I have never used narrow or very narrow map sizes. The down side is that flanking forces take longer to reach the battle, which is generally in the centre. I was wondering if other players downsize the map for smaller engagements as a matter of course.

[shawkhan2]

Smaller maps favor infantry forces, wider maps favor cavalry forces.

I agree that the world is larger than most maps(:)) and myself favor at least the medium sized maps.

[AEWHistory]

I favor medium sized maps as well, although I like to simulate mountain gaps by setting the map width abnormally narrow. The map generator doesn't really do justice to 'mountains' and it doesn't really end up creating a situation where you have sealed your flanks much of the time, so I simply alter the map. Works like a charm!

[fogman]

large maps encourage/force players to deploy in mostly one thin line, while historical commanders deploy in several lines (in depth) because of the limited command and control they had, and because individual units historically do not have the initiative to wander off on their own.

[AEWHistory]

large maps encourage/force players to deploy in mostly one thin line, while historical commanders deploy in several lines (in depth) because of the limited command and control they had, and because individual units historically do not have the initiative to wander off on their own.

I think you pretty well hit the proverbial nail on the head, although I would say one thing: individual units definitely did "wander" off. Sometimes it was an unauthorized attack, other times it was an undisciplined pursuit like in the game, but I'd wager commanders wanted these units closer by for the reasons you mentioned, such as the lack of command and control, but also the fear that army units would do something stupid and be squandered for various reasons.

[fogman]

what i meant by 'wandering off' is the ability of individual units to set out 'on a mission' so to speak. large maps allow players to deploy in open order to always look for flanking moves, instead of the tight order of historical battles that featured a much more direct approach. In battles with a fair amount of cavalry and light troops, it's more akin to mechanized ww2 warfare than 17th century. so large maps do not encourage players to fight in a historical way (when i ran a tournament a few months ago, 'lords of pike and shot', i specified narrow maps but i saw tercios walking into woods and fighting each other in there!; added to the disappointment were long firing ranges that allow concentration of fire, and really strange pursuit behaviour). it's why i don't play skirmish games, only custom scenarios (the same goes for FoG) where parameters can be readjusted to fit more historical patterns. I think most people enjoy being able to 'outmaneuver' the opposition and overlook historical plausibility (in terms of command and doctrine); personally i'm less likely to compromise on the side of 'fun' (or 'playability' and that's debatable since good custom design can overcome the perceived tedium of precise simulations) because I view wargames as historical re-creations (there's no 'fun' when moves are gamey) while the majority of players consider wargames foremost as strategy games with, incidentally, a historical veneer. and that clearly informs the way this game is designed and presented.