I went through your posts and notice a similar experience in approach. I create an entire plan, then subject that to a lower level of scrutiny. I think a lot depends on how your terrain flows (to include overall habitat) and the best method to connect pieces together, but I could see chunks being blocked in one acre to a 100 acres depending on purpose, use etc. For example, I have a plan on my piece that takes a macro view, then subjects it to further scrutiny of 3 basic chunks that are tied together. A lot of this is based on topography, environmental conditions, species diversity, huntability and overall animal preference (due to a host of others factors). As a result and in my case, the more huntable areas have more scrutiny and are blocked into smaller chunks to enhance areas of travel, bedding, ingress/egress etc. I think creating everything they need in blocks makes a lot of sense to some degree, but then you have to create interest to move or attract deer and that’s sometimes throws a wrench into the plan or the segmentation of the plan. I have a lot of points in certain areas that create bedding preferences, and in other areas I have steep sides with limited use that are essential dead zones, and I can’t covert those to something that much more palatable for the deer because of steepness (well I probably could but it may not be worth the effort and cost). So a lot depends on the environment you are a playing in. But bottom-line blocks are sensible, especially when you need to segment the volume of work you need to do and most of us are trying to optimize our time and effort and the end result.