While it seems ideal to field both combatants with an equal number of brigades, is there special consideration for battles where one army outnumbers the other in number of brigades/independent forces?
For example one army fields five brigades while the other fields eight. In movement and fire, the larger army will be able to continue moving/firing these extra brigades after the small army has finished with its five activations in the alternating sequence.
Is this an acceptable practice? Does this place an unacceptable advantage to the larger army?
I have played this kind of game many times, and yes, the larger army can get an advantage by having 2 or 3 brigades 'spare' after alternate activations. I have never found this a problem and to me it represents an allowable advantage to the bigger army.
Well, we don't always play balanced scenarios, do we? However, for a balanced scenario how about a situation where one side is entrenched and the other must dig them out? Military axioms tell us that the attacking side must have a strength of at least 3 times that of the defender to be guaranteed of winkling them out of their position.
Myself, I prefer to conduct a campaign (solo) and play the battles out as they arise, balanced or not. Right now I'm conducting a WSS battle where the French have a preponderance of numbers but the English/Hanoverians opposed to them are entrenched. Also the French have a variable time limit, as the Austrian and Prussian reinforcements are approaching, to appear at a random time on their flank. At one point, the number of brigades will be equal, but not for long.
I have been going strictly by pre-determined brigades as well, being on each side 4 battalions (except the English, of course.) The French have 8 infantry and 3 cavalry brigades. If I limited myself to grand tactical units (HoW "brigades") of, say, 5 infantry for the French, I'd have to start divvying up their brigades, or have some grand tactical units containing twice as many brigades as others.