Originally Posted by
Sox
It's simple, with only 75 men per side we already struggle to present an adequate frontage on a lot of these maps, if you open them up even more then it will be impossible. It's game mechanic versus reality, to present the illusion of civil war combat, with so few players, you have to rely on them standing and fighting not running around the map for 70% of the game time. Making the maps wider will mean players will spend more time manouvering then they'll spend actually fighting.
Lets use Sunken Road as an example. With 75 men it's almost impossible to defend that position witout having to constantly shift troops along the line, & nine times out of ten the Union gain a foothold on the right because the Confederates could not/did not shift men over there in time to defend it....now imagine if that was wider. Wider maps would mean an end to cohesive fighting and a shift to a game mode where you are just running around maps until you find a gap. Now I realise that Sunken Road is an extreme example, but none the less it still holds true for any map in WoR. This is an FPS game, not a war game, and while tactics are important to a certain degree we have to remember the limitations imposed by the nature of the game. The attacking team in WoR rarely has to worry about maintaining a solid front line, because the ticket system does not really allow for counter attacks, in reality this was not so. However, in WoR any gap in the 'front line' of the defender can be readily exploited by the attacker.......hence with 75 men the defenders rarely ever have enough men to defend their entire front, and thus you have a 'game'.
Yes it still requires manouver, but to a 'limited' degree, widen the maps and the balance/cohesion is lost.