Can it be to big and is ours?

[Purple]

Whilst painting I found myself thinking about us having such an enormous wield on the table.
Can there be to many units on the wargames table? Does our combined massed ranks such as at Ayton games detract from the actual warfare and tactics due to our expanding need for extra width? I think it's likely that we often now field much larger armies unit wise than Frederick did mid 18th century?
Or should we just enjoy whacking down such a huge thing on the table?

[vexillia]

Let the puns and double entendres begin.

[Vintage Wargaming]

When you say width do you really mean girth?

[Wg Cdr Luddite]

I prefer my actions to be short and repeated.

[Buff Orpington]

If you've got it, flaunt it.*
I did actually make a sensible reply but lost it somehow. The size doesn't bother me but maybe we need a CinC to say, "Can you send your cavalry to the far flank where they won't get shot to bits." Maybe he could also manage the reserves off table. That could be done by having a number of tables behind and your reserves could move one table per turn.

*Not within 200 metres of a school obviously.

[Tim Hall]

If I can render a serious reply, I do think that the last 18th century Ayton game, (which I confess I did not take part in.) well the Sunday event at least, was just too massive, with lines of opposing troops on both sides of the table. For me this would have prohibited any exciting flanking action or manouvre other than marching forward to engage in combat. Whilst there is no denying the appeal of a large game, which few of us can replicate in our home set-ups, it is nice to use a large space to get some tactical movement going on as well.

[Jeremy]

I think the addition of a scenario with points attributed to successes other than just killing the opponent would change the game immeasurably, regardless of size. Number of units destroyed should not affect the victory points, rather number of objectives achieved should take the day. I'm a fan of multiple objectives, some secret. For example, my main objective could be to take the chateaux, but my secret objective could be to kill one enemy commander in hand to hand (character back story could be the need to step out of my succesful father's shadow or some similar twaddle). EB's secret objective would be to keep at least one Gateway cavalry unit alive - no one would guess that!

This way the number of troops becomes useful as you can throw them into retaking objectives.

Another thought is that each player starts with a maximum of half his force on the table. He can then decide in which bound the rest come on. The later he delays it, the further down the flank they come on as a flanking move. Bolt Action do this quite successfully. You then dice to come on, it's not automatic.

The old classic "line 'em up and bash" has many inherent flaws, especially as games grow in size

[BaronVonWreckedoften]

I recently took part in a mega-game run by Liphook Wargames Society, refighting Borodino. Whilst it was nice to make the acquaintance of like-minded hobbyists, a lack of knowledge of the rules and the (almost inevitable) "traffic jam" associated with 28mm Napoleonic "big battles" rather spoiled it for me. Of course, it didn't help that the French right wing had to fight its way through dense forest (and was led by a corps commander with a tendency to micro-manage). Having only seen photographs of the Ayton games, I have to say that it looks as though you have managed to keep your battles within the bounds of acceptability and playability as regards troop density. As long as there is room to manoeuvre on the flanks, and you don't take out half your army when the lead unit routs, you should be ok. I wouldn't go much bigger though.

As someone to whom dice are not so much unkind, but downright sadistic (eg the rules being used for Borodino required you to throw 1 or 2, my normal roll when playing FoGR, with 5 and 6 being useless - guess what I threw in 4 of my 5 charges?), I would tend to shy away from "line 'em up and bash" games anyway - there's a quiet satisfaction in the levels of sympathy and kudos for tactical aplomb that you attract when your elites not only refuse to charge into the rear of militia on the lowest possible morale status (not to mention the consequent domino effect on the rest of the enemy force), but actually rout off-table.

[BaronVonWreckedoften]

The size doesn't bother me but maybe we need a CinC to say, "Can you send your cavalry to the far flank where they won't get shot to bits."

Or you could just have a t-shirt made and make Essex Boy wear it all game?

Maybe he could also manage the reserves off table. That could be done by having a number of tables behind and your reserves could move one table per turn.

Given the size of the Ayton hall, a multi-table game would give units more space in which to operate. It also helps that your units are large (by most wargame standards) and hence take up a (more) realistic amount of space on the table, and that pretty much everyone uses the right tactics and formations.

[Essex Boy]

EB's secret objective would be to keep at least one Gateway cavalry unit alive - no one would guess that!

Have you any idea how difficult that would be?