I think I'll reproduce this below, since there is more information about COTA improvements, trends, and how the system compares to other games people are familiar with.
Both the HTTR and COTA AARs were relatively small scale both in terms of duration (2 days or less) and number of units involved (around 50) on one side. Both games come with much larger scenarios that go from 8-12 days with with hundreds of units. When I say units, I mean counters here with the smallest in scale being companies, support weapons platoons, or tank squadrons. The highest level HQ on the map would be the corp.
At the moment, the only thing limiting scenarios being even of larger scope are:
(1) CPU cycles ... as you know this results in many more calculations for pathing, LOS, and combat resolution as map size increases and unit counts go up.
(2) The UI might require some more filtering tools and OOB improvements to further reduce clutter. HTTR had added friendly unit filters and a small counter view and enemy intel filter. COTA further refined the filters and added an OOB display along with an ability filter and manage global messages.
COTA took a further big step towards a future day of much larger scenarios by adding a realistic supply system. Less of an issue for small scenarios, but as they get larger, realism would be further reduced without supply routes and movement of supply via the road network.
So, the system is inherently and highly scalable both from a UI point of view and a game mechanics point of view.
(1) It does not suffer from being unable to scale up like the Combat Mission series due to exponential work load on the player as unit counts go up. With HTTR/COTA, the work load for the player increases gradually despite vastly increasing unit counts.
(2) It does not suffer from having to abstracting low level combat and leave the details to imagination like in Victoria, HOI, and HOI2. You can command at the high level, but can follow the battle at a much lower level of detail; similiar to CWBR.
(3) It does not require a two level game system coupling two disparate levels such as the Total War series, Close Combat 4/5, and the upcoming Combat Mission Campaigns.
(4) Although sometimes, I have to admit wishing I could watch some of this in 3D. 2D and counters is much easier to scale and one could argue more realistic when one contemplates command at higher levels.
Back to my AARs ... Well, given how much work it takes to compile notes, do screenshots, and write them, that accounts for why I pick the smallest scenarios to use. Otherwise, everyone would be playing the game before I even completed my AAR! Also, I like small scenarios, they are very easy to illustrate the games flexibility in terms of allowing micro/macro management side by side. Finally, small scenarios are better for writing tutorials. Another one of the testers, Gary, likes to do AARs, but he generally prefers large scenarios for his AARs. His AARs tend to focus more on the battle itself and less on the game play.
Never more! (I've had enough. Sliterine has raised mediocrity to an art form!)