|
| FlyXwire writes: |
I think instead of small vs. large (units), a distinction can be made for where a knowledge and utilization of combined-arms tactics starts to function in games. Artillery or air strikes can literally smother skirmish scenarios – therefore, these assets are often eliminated as game components – in order to have a skirmish game. The downside – gamers don't study or learn combined-arms tactics employed on the [real] battlefield (it's been termed as a myopic consequence of gaming style). Member Tgunner just today posted in a thread linking a video about combined-arms tactics for Cold War-era combat - It discusses the recon mission, securing overwatch positions, preparatory fires/strikes, AA-cover, and concealed approaches on a battlefield (before the "main event" might even occur) – these are all tactics/elements to be fully used for success. By their nature, skirmish games are most often just a small element of a distilled-down battlefield. Yes, this is entertaining, legitimate wargaming, but it's a limited experience too. |
Rating: 
247 hits since 17 Jun 2025
Pacific Sky Games 
of Pacific Sky Games writes:
PSG Perspectives uploaded a blog post to discuss Skirmish vs. Large Unit Formations: Who Wins the Wargame War?
Today on PSG Perspectives, we're diving into the epic showdown between skirmish games and large unit formations, and why both deserve a place on your tabletop… even if one of them takes a lot more space (and patience).
