As a rule of thumb, an interesting game would provide the player with roughly 10 different units for which decisions have to be made each turn. That would imply the game should scale 2 levels up to reprsent an entire force.
E.g. if the total force on the table is a company, which roughly has 3 or 4 platoons, each having 3 or 4 sections, you end up with 9-16 sections. In the rules, a section should then be a single, undivisible playing piece, without any further granularity. This also corresponds to “real life” where a commander might provide stipulations in his orders 2 levels down, but not 3.
As a player, I am now in command of each of these 9-16 sections. Whether I am taking up the role of 9 different section commanders, or a single company commander, is irrelevant for the gameplay. I play all those roles simultaneously, and communications between them happen in my head.
But, am I really a section commander in this game? Probably not, since I can only decide where a full section is being placed, typically the prerogative of the platoon commander. But, if I have to act on my own initiative with my section when surrounded, then, yes.
Am I the company commander in this game? Most likely yes, since I get to decide where my platoons are being placed. But also no, since I do not have to worry about any coordination happening with other company commanders on my flanks.
So, you take up different roles in thegame, but typically only specific tasks of the real-life equivalent depending on the role. But combined, it provides for a good game.
- This reply was modified 5 years, 11 months ago by Phil Dutré.
Tiny Tin Men Blog: http://snv-ttm.blogspot.com/
Wargaming Mechanics Blog: http://wargaming-mechanics.blogspot.com/