| aercdr | 13 May 2008 1:19 a.m. PST |
I like to see the ebb and flow of a larger battle. It's why I have focused on F&F, even though I have some problems with the system. |
| The Nigerian Lead Minister | 13 May 2008 3:55 a.m. PST |
The last few games I've run and played in have had about a corps on each side, with brigades as the maneuver elements. I find it gives me a nice feel for the battle without micromanaging each regiment. |
Frederick  | 13 May 2008 7:24 a.m. PST |
Grand tactical it is for me – I like the feel of moving divisions around – right now we are gaming what might be the really, really big battle of our campaign, six Confederate corps versus seven Union corps – we played four turns, and the Reb commander (who had a lot of luck with his cavalry last game) found out it is a bad idea to charge veteran Union infantry guns across open fields! |
| gpruitt | 13 May 2008 7:25 a.m. PST |
My preference is to have a few brigades per side, with regiments as the maneuver elements. Probably because I paint whole regiments at a time, with about 12-16 figures per regiment. |
| dmclellan | 13 May 2008 10:29 a.m. PST |
I prefer to run a large division/small corps with about five to six brigades as manuever elements. As I'm playing mostly in multiplayer games these days, this gives each player a decent sized force to play, but doesn't clutter the battlefield with too many troops. DLM |
 Saber6  | 13 May 2008 11:59 a.m. PST |
I want to fight BATTLES! I have enjoyed playing JR with a brigade or two, but the group always want to fight with a DIVISION or two per player. Once I started playing FnF, I never looked back. I LIKE having a Corps or more per player. Plus it starts to look like those American Heritage paintings |
| SeattleGamer | 13 May 2008 2:35 p.m. PST |
I want to engage regiments. Having the 125th Illinois slam into the 27th Tennessee at Cheatham Hill is what the AMC is all about to me. McCook attacking Vaughn (brigade level)just doesn't invoke the same reaction. And Davis versus Cheatham (division level) leaves me uninspired. So as long as the units I am moving about are regiments, I'm good. Would I play a game that moved about brigades or divisions? Sure. But I won't be staging such a game myself. |
| pzivh43 | 13 May 2008 5:43 p.m. PST |
Prefer regimental now, but also really like brigade games. Saber6---Having had a slight hand in developing & playtesting F&F, your comment on the American Heritage pics is spot on. Rich H, the designer, made that same comment and often dragged out the book to review while we playtested! Mike |
| EdHaley | 13 May 2008 6:18 p.m. PST |
I like the regimental size games, mostly because you get to see some of the more colorful uniforms and you get to fight with some of the more famous/noteworthy or maybe just a favorite or one that a relative served in regiment. That's just a preference, however, because due to the popularity of F & F I find most of my gamming is done at the brigade level. I don't think big battles are as much a problem to command as time to fight the battle. Our group is fortuniate enough to be able to leave a game set up and come back to it next week or more. I realize that is probablly the exception and those that want to reach a conclusion in one day or evening have to scale accordingly |
| jawjatek | 13 May 2008 7:14 p.m. PST |
My take is, "The larger, the better." I like to see the table bow under the weight of my hordes of Blue & Gray. |
| SeattleGamer | 14 May 2008 2:10 p.m. PST |
I suspect this poll is flawed in a big way. If the originator wanted to know the SCOPE of the battle and not the SCALE of the units, then some of these answers would make more sense. I answered that I want to be moving about regiments. As long as the stands I am moving represents regiments, then put five of those in a brigade, three of those in a division, and a couple of those in a corp, and that is what I will be commanding, then I'm fine. If an answer of regiments means that the total force I'm commanding is a regiment or two, then that was not my intent. |
