This deserves some discussion....

[Der Kuenstler]

.....The reason is, in a small battle, you are both going to get maybe one tank. Just one tank. What's going to happen in the game when your tanks meet and he gets your tank first? You are going to lose the game, that's what....

Not always true, i've had many good games where i've lost all my AFV's and still managed a draw and even the odd win. Granted on an open/steppe map things may be hopeless but on an urban or hilly forested map with good use of smoke those big metal coffins aren't so scary.

Now, now...I'm saying that, all else being even, if you lose your one tank, and we both have the same amount of troops, except I have an intact AFV with HE to fire backing me up - and I use it correctly - I'll win. Unless I screw up by not keeping that tank away from your troops, I'm going to win, and there wouldn't be diddly you could do about it....

[10th Mnt Div jdsu]

My vote goes to smaller pts games for beginners.

Something like 800 to 1250 pts enables one to try all sorts of
combinations, keeps the battlefield relatively small for strategic
oversight and enables one to cycle through more games for
learning opportunities. Also, one can than play a TCP game in a
sitting. So fun, but after the initial hook of several months and no
life one just loses the ability to set aside such big chunks of time.

However, like everything else about CM, personal preference
is well... personal preference.

No one size fits all. And certainly, no edict from a cabal of the powers
that be will ensure all newcomers fully appreciate the game.

All we can do is welcome the new, hope they have the desire to improve, and that they can swim with the sharks.

[Zemke]

I will pipe in here, I agree with everything DK said, the principles are the same no matter the how large the battle. I also agree with COL Telvela, new players may get discouraged playing a larger battle.

So lets put this in perspective, new guys you don't have to play 3000 point games, but I also would not play 300 point games either. Stick with 1250 points, about the right number of points to have a enough of what you need without being overwhelming.

Now back to large games, which is my preference, just because I think at the larger level you are now fighting plans and not who is in the better clump of trees or has the higher hill top. It is your vision of the battle vs his vison of the battle, and how you each see the battle unfolding, and this is done in your mind before the first shot is ever fired. You start out with your plan and go from there, and seldom do things go like you hope, your opponent has a vote, a say in events. Be prepared to adjust, as RedDevil said, larger allows you a chance to adjust your plan. An excellent example of this is a game I am playing right now with Andre. Everything I have tried has been stopped COLD, I mean STOPPED. He is kicking the living dog shit out of me. I have had to do some very radical adjustments, and hope I can pull it off, but frankly it will be heaven sent if I can. But due to the size of this battle, 3000 points, I at least still have a slim chance to do something. In a smaller battle it would be OVER, end of story.

Last most here are playing PBEM games, so what is the rush, you got all the time you want to do your turn, so why not go larger, and you get lots more unique toys that otherwise you would not get with small games. But my favorite game is still large TCIP, with time limates, now we are talking realistic pressure. Get some of that if you think you are ready, and I promise one of the most intense CM experiences you can have!

[Fullhouse]

Small = Rewards microing the game principles in how they apply to each unit, carefull meticulous manouvre of each peice/unit. Individual units can sway the game. How one controlls the singular is key.

Large = Rewards meta concepts such as planning and strategy. Individual units are irrelevant compared to formations of units. How one controlls the many is key.

I think these are the two poles. I wonder what the median point level is, at which both princilples might apply equaly.

I think I might now understand why I suck so bad as small battles and do well in larger confrontations. I would like to think I have a good eye for a cunning plan but hate to micro individual units much prefering to paint in broad brushstrokes.

[Soldier]

I've learned the hard way, that smaller battles are my cup of tea to be.
Way too much to think about and work with in anything over 3000 points..
I tend to get bored a rush through my "orders" turn. Units are forgotten and some even on purpose left be. End results are the usual loss of the battle for me..
So for me personally, it's a question of Patience.
I just don't have the patients do do a big game, knowing in the back of my mind, that there are six or more other's waiting for my fast turn return, etc... :-)

[Der Kuenstler]

Yes this game demands a lot of patience. A fast PBEM game will still take a month to play. Advancing up the ladder here takes years. (Probably why not many young guys play it.)

5000 point battles do stretch my patience and attention limits - I try to only play one of those at a time...

[Zemke]

I guess I should read the entire thread before I go shooting off my mouth again, sorry JDSU, I see we think alike as I never read what you had written till now after I posted. Oh and for anyone who has never played JDSU, he is really good.

[Ratzki]

I tend to prefer larger infantry heavy games, as my armor tactics are not the best. Larger points forces seem to fit together better (to me) in reguards to support and such. I can get a company of infantry across some open ground under fire but can't seem to replicate the same tactics with just a platoon.

[PUG]

I think this all started for beginners, so:
For beginners I would suggest that they set up a Quick Battle (QB) Meeting Engagement, being careful to note down all the parameters, against the computer program as the opponent using 1000 points, 20 turns, a medium map and letting the program pick the troops for both sides.
Play that game out and then set up the same game changing only the points to 2000.
If the beginner is comfortable with these 2 games then try the same for 3000 points. If not, then go for 1200 or 1500 points.
If you go with less than 1000 points then a small map may be better.
That should be a good enough exercise to let the beginner know what point level he should try to stick with until he becomes familiar with the terrain, map size, and other major differences.
As all the various parameters are intertwined and they do make a difference the beginner (or any player facing a stronger opponent) should ask to be the one to set up any QBs he plays and when doing so should use those parameters he feels most comfortable with.

[ATCS]

I'm in line with Soldier (and others) on this. Although I have played the larger, 3000+ pt battles, I prefer the smaller ones so far. It's easier to, for lack of a better term, "keep in touch with" each of your units. The huge, battalion sized battles can be intimidating with the number of peeps you have to control. And once your plan goes awry (and it ALWAYS goes awry), man, what a mess.

At least that's been my experience so far. YMMV.