"Do You Like Small Games?" Topic

Do you enjoy games which are typically played in 3' x 3' or smaller?

I like the smaller games, but with more people on a bigger table.

Typically, not as much as games with bigger battlefields.

I prefer smaller games, personally. High troop counts just don't do a lot for me as a collector, a painter, or a gamer, and low figure count means little table, usually.

I also prefer the look of smaller games. cozier, classier, and you don't end up with as much of a mosh pit of pike blocks or tactical squads as you seem to on bigger tables.

A small game like that might be good once in a while but I prefer bigger tables, even if there are fewer figures on them.

Small table? No.
Small forces? Yes.
It seems that when you have "only" a few men or units, you feel more like protecting them. When you have 9 or more regiments at your command, you don't think twice about sacrificing the odd battalion. It's different when you have one or two companies.

I played quite a few games of Gloire, which is supposed to be played on such a table. Also with at most 4 players per side.
Well…..
Instead I had at least 8 players playing "Rescue Roddy McCorley" with a bit more than 4 players per side, just because I liked the concept and mechanics so well.

I am confused.

Occasionally, I would get tired of the small battlefields. 4x6 for FoW is too small for me.

Chris

I like them. Bigger tables for multi-player games though.

Yes. While I like large games, the smaller game is very easy to manage with time constraints. Also, it is a nice way to experience other periods. I play SYW/AWI, ACW, and WWII in large games, but Napoleonic, ancients, and WSS in smaller battles. (DBN, DBA,, OHW)

Small games are fine, but I generally want at least a 4' x 6' table to provide for maneuvering room.

Nope, they feel cramped. I use 4' x 4' for Warmachine/Hordes battles with my 11 year old but when playing historicals I like big battlefields 6 x 8 or 9 x 5 as a minimum.

No

No

I like the small game if it is really well laid out
I also like well terrained massed troops games
Clif

I enjoy both small games and large games equally.

Yes, that is almost all I play on now.

I enjoy small games as a means to learn rules and try things out, but not small tables.

No.

I like very much small games with little troops and relatively small tables. Two or four players and a battle ending in an evening.
Marco

3x3 is fine, although I'm not sure I'd say I prefer them. They are more practical for club night games to keep the amount of stuff to be lugged around to a minimum.

Yes

Sometimes. I like big games too.
Generally, the smaller the game, the more important the back-story/campaign is to my enjoyment.

Yes

Yes…for time reasons alone.

Yes

I play and run mostly multi-player games. I find the optimum number of players for me is 6 to 8. With that many players, I prefer a 6-foot x 10-foot table.

That's what I play on, a 3 x 3 table. I normally play man to man combat skirmishes in 1/72 so the small size table works fine.

No.
3'x3' isn't a small game, its a tiny game.So small its hardly there at all.
6' x 4' is a small game.

6' x 4' is a small game.

To those lucky few who have room for a bigger table, I am sure your are correct.

Sadly, many of us do not.

I like both small games with relatively few units on each side and games played on small surfaces (using small-scale figures), although 3' x 3' would probably be about the minimum.

Small games are obviously easier to set up, fit within the confines of a normal room without having to undertake major furniture moving, and are quicker to pack up afterwards, leaving more time to actually play the game.

Yes, easy to transport the kit and saves stretching.

Over the last 5 years I think I have played about 200 games. About 185-190 of them were on a 2'x2' table (the rest on anything from 2'x3' to 9'x5'). While I had not gamed much on a 2'x2' table prior, I really like it for fast and furious gaming, which seems to be mostly what I have been playing for the last five years! I now find 3'x3' too large for fast and furious. I prefer something like 6'x4' for games longer than an hour. I do like small and large – I like to think of 2'x2' as short stories, and larger (and longer) games as novels.

Yes!

No I scale everything up

3' x 3' is my standard size for skirmish gaming.

A qualified "yes." The appropriate amount of figures for the size of the table being used is the key, regardless of the size of the table. Cramming any size table full of troops and sending them forward doesn't do anything for me.

Yes, I prefer a smaller table with either 28mm skirmish or battles using 6mm figures, with a table size of 3x3, 3x4 or 4x4.

I prefer to play and write for small games, 1mx1m though 1mx2m.

3'x3' isn't a small game, its a tiny game. So small its hardly there at all.

Depends on what you think the game is. If you think it is physical artifacts, then yes. If you think it is decisions … if I have 15 individuals to direct on a 1mx1m table and you give orders to 9 battalions on a 1.5mx2m table, who has a larger game?

I like small.

I've played air combat in less then 3' x 3' and really enjoyed it. Usual table size though is 5' x 6' or 5' x 7.5'.

Not usually. A 4x8 or 5x9 is more common. Mostly it has to do with ground scale for the rules I play.

I'm down with anything but I prefer a small space, since it's more focused.

Yes

Small forces, lots of opportunity for movement – yes.

Anything under 4x6? For me, no.

3X3 and 4X4 work for me as I am more and more gaming in 6mm and 10mm.

I am getting more into playing with that size board. Yes.

4 X 6, 4 X 4, 3 X 3, they all work for me.

Yes

I like being ABLE to play on that small of a table, but I far prefer a lot more maneuvering room.