Easy E wrote:So, do you use a different breakdown? What are differences you see between designing for one scale of game vs. another?
I think there are two different elements of scale.
The first is as you say, the scope of the game. It is about individuals dueling or vast armies crashing on a continental (or even interplanetary) scale?
Depending on how you choose to scale it, you can have a figure represent an individual or an army.
What I think is even more important (because it is so neglected) is for the player to have decisions and options that are appropriate to the given scale.
For example, many historical games have the player sit in the chair of the army commander, yet he also serves at the corps, divisional, brigade and even regimental scale, personally moving each piece of his army across the map.
Sometimes, this is by necessity - one simply can't arrange to have a full command staff participate, so players have to do double duty, but many designers go beyond what is needed to add pointless and fiddly details.
40k is probably the worst offender. As a commander, the player not only hand-selects his force (including the equipment of every soldier and vehicle), but he also has authority over assets that should belong to independent headquarters, like titans, super-heavies, and aircraft.
While it lived, Warhammer wasn't quite as bad, and there the primary weakness was in the various mechanics rather than a disconnect between scale and command authority.
I think the true test of a "serious" wargame is how it approaches decision making. A game that has a big scope but also keeps decisions appropriate to that scope will frequently be easier and faster to play than one that pushing too far down the chain of command.