I use a design principle I call "skirmish command and control" for games. The basic idea is one "figure" (a mini, base with several mins, chit, or whatever) for each command decision space for the player. So, in an actual skirmish where a player has ten soldiers for which he makes individual maneuver and engagement decisions, there would be ten minis. But where one order is issued to a five-man fire team, there would be two. All ten with one mini for squad level C2, and so on.
This is obviously not an "absolute and immutable law of the universe" for the game. There are subtleties and dynamics to span of command. It's a principle or general guideline to not have minis on the board unless a player is actively doing distinct things with them for a reasonable part of the game.
This approach has an effect on ground scale. If I am playing a company level game, then the base of a mini reasonable represents the area occupied by a company. And the terrain would reflect that. If the company level game were played with 28mm figures on 1" bases, I wouldn't necessarily dictate a different scale for buildings, but I would use terrain that represented the effect on decision making – open lanes of transit, congested areas, and places to get bogged down.
This also makes it easy to fit a lot of different types of game on a 3'x4' table.
On a scale of 1-10, how much do you like this approach?
1 – I want a bucket of minis on the table, no matter the command situation
5 – A few extra minis for table dressing is OK, but don't overdo it
10 – I like the Spartan nature of a game without lots of clutter
7 for me. It's a good approach that has lots of benefits to me, but it's not the be-all, end-all.
