Can it be to big and is ours?

[BaronVonWreckedoften]

I'm guessing like keeping a snowball solid in hell.

[battleeditor]

No, I don't.

it doesn't take much reading to see that the size of our games is perfectly 'realistic' and produces the kind of command challenges faced by a real general commanding allied forces over a wide frontage.You just have to look at some old battle maps – Blenheim, Leuthen, Waterloo – to see this is true. If it descends into some sort of chaos, that's the result of a lack of clear leadership. not the scenario. It is of course extremely difficult to exercise command across such a wide area, but the problem of large battles breaking into distinct sectors, where the individual commanders hang onto their troops despite calls for reinforcement from other sectors is entirely accurate – the trouble Napoleon had with his marshals is a good example.

If we do have a problem it is partly with depth – a six foot wide table is a compromise so that people can reach the middle – which means that most of our armies form up only one, or occasionally two ranks deep, whereas frequently there were at least two ranks of units plus reserves further behind. This could only be achieved with off-table deployment, and one of the aspects of Ayton is that people want to get their toys out and play.

Secondly, I agree with comments about the lack of flanks, but that's partly compensated by the campaign aspect - if you recall, was it last time or the time before, a substantial force of Prunklanders arrived on the flank (Goat's command) and caused real problems.

This could all be solved, of course, by you all binning your 28-30mm miniatures and restarting the whole thing in 6mm. Transportation and storage would also be dramatically improved.

Where's my tin hat?

[Tim Hall]

"If we do have a problem it is partly with depth – a six foot wide table is a compromise so that people can reach the middle – which means that most of our armies form up only one, or occasionally two ranks deep, whereas frequently there were at least two ranks of units plus reserves further behind. This could only be achieved with off-table deployment, and one of the aspects of Ayton is that people want to get their toys out and play."

That is a very good point. We are governed by our aged infirmities and stubby arms here, but how about a Gilderesque solution, the main table being 6 feet wide, with a space either side for the players, with a single row of tables behind them, but for game purposes the gap is not actually there. Just a thought, it's not like we don't have the space to do that.

[Buff Orpington]

This could all be solved, of course, by you all binning your 28-30mm miniatures and restarting the whole thing in 6mm. Transportation and storage would also be dramatically improved.

And we could use the money we saved to fly Grizz over for a game.

[BaronVonWreckedoften]

That is a very good point. We are governed by our aged infirmities and stubby arms here, but how about a Glideresque solution, the main table being 6 feet wide, with a space either side for the players, with a single row of tables behind them, but for game purposes the gap is not actually there. Just a thought, it's not like we don't have the space to do that.

They did that at the "big bash" Borodino I played in recently. Unfortunately, they (I assume unwittingly) put the gap at the exact point where all the fighting was in the centre, and as luck would have it, the see-saw nature of the scrap meant that we were constantly moving units from one table to the other, then back again; it also caused some perspective problems with charges across the "chasm" that weren't predicted, units being left isolated, and a log-jam of bodies - proving my 3rd Law of Wargames Conventions: there is no aisle so wide that a single wargamer cannot either completely block it, or clear it with a single fart.

Btw, did you mean "Glideresque" or were you going for "Gilderesque"? Either works, IMO.

[Wg Cdr Luddite]

This could all be solved, of course, by you all binning your 28-30mm miniatures and restarting the whole thing in 6mm. Transportation and storage would also be dramatically improved.

Spot on Henry !

[valleyboy]

This could all be solved, of course, by you all binning your 28-30mm miniatures and restarting the whole thing in 6mm. Transportation and storage would also be dramatically improved.

Spot on Henry !

Sorry...
That's not a spot...
its a boil...

And yes I know..
it's on his arse....
And what' s more , for what its worth I know I'm qualified....
But I'm not squeezing that ...

Well err unless you're paying danger money

[grizzlymc]

This could all be solved, of course, by you all binning your 28-30mm miniatures and restarting the whole thing in 6mm. Transportation and storage would also be dramatically improved.

And we could use the money we saved to fly Grizz over for a game.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY

[RMD]

I stand guilty of creating or co-creating many a colossal game (the AB Figures Wargames Weekends at the former ABHQ in Wales, the General de Brigade/British Grenadier Wargames Weekends at the National Army Museum and the Battlefront Wargamers games at Bovington to name a few), so in my opinion a game can rarely be too big...

However... As mentioned by others here, games can occasionally suffer if the games are far too cramped, if the ruleset used can't cope with the size of game and/or if insufficient numbers of players are familiar enough with the rules.

On the AB Figures Wargames Weekends we got over the problem of depth by using three parallel tables - each 16 feet long by 6 feet wide (4 feet wide for one of them). This gave HUGE amounts of space for manoeuvre, to fight L-shaped battles, etc. Nevertheless, during our Auerstaedt 1806 game, the players STILL decided to do all their fighting within a 3-foot square on the central table...

In recent years I've been following a blog where a wargamer built up a historical orbat unit by unit, with exquisite painting. A lovely project and great to follow until he finally did the game... The table was RAMMED full of troops and consequently didn't really reflect what I understand of the historical battle. It seems that they had a great game, but I was really disappointed at the end of such a great project.

That said, a (former) friend once came up to me at Bovington and told me that my game was 'too packed'. He clearly missed the game brief, which clearly stated that the battle ('The Scottish Corridor', during Operation 'Epsom' in Normandy) was historically a nose-to-tail traffic jam and the whole point of the scenario was that the Germans were trying to pinch off the corridor from both sides, while the British were simultaneously trying to expand the corridor to give themselves breathing-space... THAT WAS THE FUCKING POINT!

[Etranger]

.....
That said, a (former) friend once came up to me at Bovington and told me that my game was 'too packed'. He clearly missed the game brief, which clearly stated that the battle ('The Scottish Corridor', during Operation 'Epsom' in Normandy) was historically a nose-to-tail traffic jam and the whole point of the scenario was that the Germans were trying to pinch off the corridor from both sides, while the British were simultaneously trying to expand the corridor to give themselves breathing-space... THAT WAS THE FUCKING POINT!

As Mark says, it was a compressed battlefield. This probably the classic picture from Epsom showing vehicles that are in 'base to base' contact, not to mention what can happen ...