Eric's choice again, and he wanted to revisit GMT's Commands & Colors: Napoleonics, specifically the new Spanish expansion, which adds the, umm, Spanish to the British, French, and Portuguese from the original game. I'm rather partial to C&C:N, having played it with Eric previously, although it was never blogged, so I was more than happy to give it a whirl.
Not a great deal in the way of new rules, the biggest is the addition of rules for the Spanish guerrillas, which allow the Spanish player to get chits which may be played to cancel the French player's card, effectively making him miss a turn. The Spanish themselves are just slightly weaker than the British or French, and retreating further when required.
Eric picked the Espinosa de los Monteros scenario, and off we went, with me taking the British/Spanish. I started with a slight push on the right, with a combined British/Spanish force, immediately taking effective fire. This must have caused casualties in the leadership of those units, as they were paralyzed into inaction, and were manhandled by the French. (I didn't get any more 'Right' cards until half way the game.) He jumped out to an early lead in flags.
Instead I started on the left flank, achieving some success in wrecking his right. However, my cavalry advance didn't go so well, and I had to retire with a single block remaining from my two units. I also made a good push in the middle, taking some good ground, and killing units. Eric reinforced from his left, and I had to retire to better ground.
By this time we were at 6 flags each, needing 7 for the win. I had a good artillery card, but was waiting for a good opportunity to use it on a weak unit. That opportunity never came, however, as Eric always had his weakened units screened by strong units. In the end, I decided to risk all, as I played a cavalry charge with my single remaining block, and was able to successfully attack an infantry unit, also with a single block, for the final winning flag.
It was still early in the evening, so we switched it around, and had another go.
This time I played it very conservatively as the French, trying to suck the Spanish on my left into my units in good terrain, having a couple of good defensive cards in hand. However, Eric wasn't having any of that, and gave me no opportunities, playing it equally cautiously.
Instead I tried to press in the middle, scoring some good hits to start with, but then my fire failed completely, as I scored no hits in 10 dice (!). At that point I decided to retire to ensure I didn't lose units, even though he was also weak.
Eric had tried a little advance on his left, but his Spanish militia didn't fare well, leaving a couple of units with only a single block. Eventually I found 2 Cavalry Charge cards in my hand, and I maneuvered my cavalry over to my right, where they were unleashed to devastating effect on the weakened units on that flank, managing to eliminate the 4 units required for the win in a combination of attacks and breakthrough combats.
After this session, I don't think my attitude to C&C:N has changed any. I still think this is my favorite of all the C&C flavors I've played. The continual tweaking that the system has seen has brought it to a pinnacle, removing a few of my little annoyances. e.g. units now reduce the dice they roll in combat as they suffer losses - far better. Whilst I've always enjoyed C&C:Ancients, it's always felt very light and short on the simulation front. C&C:N has rectified that, such that it now feels like a war-game; a highly abstracted one, yes, but certainly a game where you are rewarded for applying general military principles. In an abstract way. Yep, several thumbs up here.
Showing posts with label CommandAndColors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CommandAndColors. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Monday, December 20, 2010
We're not dead yet
Well, after a rather extended hiatus, we're baaaaaaaack!
It wasn't really a hiatus, as such, just that our plan didn't really work out as we'd thought it would. Our OCS Korea game has been going on for most of this year, with (mostly) regular weekly sessions, and we were both taking notes and pics, but we just never got around to writing anything up. Partly that was down to our schedules, but at least on my part there was a certain amount of lethargy and disinclination to actually say much. It's hard to give insights into your thoughts and plans when your opponent is reading.
Anyway, we discussed where to go from here, and the idea of quietly closing the blog was quickly voted down on a 2-0 count. We agreed that the blog works best when we're playing shorter games, and that's what we're going to get back to. Moving forward, we'll get back to focussing on games in the 1-2 session length (i.e. 3-6 hours), unless we can find time for a longer session. That means shorter war-games (hex/counter, block, and CDGs), and (probably) more 18xx. Sounds like a plan, and I'm certainly very comfortable with that mix.
So, the first topic (and, in fact, the above conversation took place while we were playing) is the new GMT release Command & Colors: Napoleonics (BGG entry), the latest in the Commands and Colors series. This game covers the battles in the Peninsular War, featuring the British, French and Portuguese, and a single scenario featuring a small segment of the Waterloo battle. An expansion for the Spanish is currently on the P500 list, and tentatively scheduled for an August production slot. I'd expect to see more expansions for the Prussians and Russians, as well as lots more scenarios covering those armies, as well as some sort of 'Epic Napoleonics' rules/expansion. Sigh, more money sucked from my wallet.
The production is just as you'd expect for a C&C game from GMT; lots of wood blocks; colorful stickers; mounted map; good player aids; all in a bullet-proof box. In other words, up to their recent production standards, which have certainly taken a step up in quality.
I'm not going to go through the whole ruleset, but here, in my view, are the major differences from C&C:A (and others):
Of these, the first is the biggest change, in my view, and one that has been a bug-bear for quite a few C&C players, or potential players. Now those 1-block units are really fragile and mostly useless, and have to be withdrawn from harm's way. The unit/nationality distinctions are an interesting change, and allow for some variation in the way you use your force, with both the composition and side impacting your strategy/tactics.
OK, terrain really isn't a change, per se, but it's just that there is some, often a lot, unlike most of the C&C:A scenarios, where I've seen pool tables with more features. Some of the terrain features are also classed as objective hexes, in the same way that M'44 has. This was, in my view, one of the biggest issues with BC, as often there was no incentive to move forward and get shot at, as the other player would get the first shot due to the move/no fire rules. (In C&C:N you can move and half-fire.) So, that provides an incentive to do something.
C&C:N wouldn't truly represent Napoleonic warfare without allowing foot units to use square formation, and the implementation is interesting. As part of the cavalry melee procedure the infantry unit has the choice to enter square, but to do so, the player has to give up a command card (and you must have more than 2 in hand), which is placed on a holding display, reducing his hand size and, hence, tactical flexibility. Furthermore, the card is chosen at random from your hand. To quote the Guinness advert, 'Brilliant!' With some good cards in your hand, you now have a tough choice to make. Protect your unit, or potentially give up the ability to carry out your plans. Of course, all those that hate the C&C abstraction style will have more reason to hate on the system, spluttering about lack of control, etc. I think it's a stroke of genius!
We played the first two scenarios, both from the battle of Rolica, with me drawing the French each time. The first saw me move to a quick 4-banner position (with 5 required to win) as the dice gods favored me with an embarrassment of dicey riches, seeing me score 4 hits out of my first 5 rolls on his Light Infantry unit. (With 5 blocks and a 1-die bonus they can be pretty lethal, so that turned the good fortune into great fortune.) However, I thought to dash forward with a good card to claim my winning banner, but an untimely flag result on the first combat took his unit out of range of my second unit, allowing Eric to isolate them and bring it back to 4-3, before I did manage to claim that winning banner.
The second scenario, later in the same battle as the French were pushed back, once again saw me with the French. The sides are almost identical, with the Allied forces gaining an extra leader. What makes the scenario interesting is that the terrain provides for only 4 axes of advance for the Allies, with prohibited terrain funneling the attacks. The French, meanwhile, are sitting on a ridge of hills, which reduces incoming ranged fire by 1 die. So, restricted advance options for the Aliies, and a strong defensive position for the French, quite a puzzle. To make it even worse, most of the Allied artillery (which doesn't lose a die for firing into hills) is still stuck at the base line.
Sounds easy for the French player, but my sole artillery unit ran out of ammunition (an early card play by Eric) and returned to my base line. The issue was where to place it, as I was unsure of where Eric's main thrust was going to come, and although my hand had some really interesting cards, I had few section movement cards. In the end I chose to concentrate on the Portuguese on my left flank, but also drew a card that allowed me to redeploy a unit by 4 hexes, so my artillery was able to reduce the Portuguese threat, then move to the center to counter the advance in the center and on the other flank. I had one opportunity for using square, but with a hand of great cards I had to decline, as I had plans, which all worked as I ran out a comfortable winner.
A tough scenario for the Allies, in my view, but Eric felt that he played it wrongly in not bringing up his artillery first and using them to reduce my units. That would have given me a tough choice on whether to hold or force the action. The French bonus die on melee means that closing the action is of use, but is it worth leaving the hills? I'd like to get this scenario back to the table, and try it from the Allied side.
Here's the ending position, which shows the terrain:
(The 2 units at bottom left are Portuguese, one with a leader.)
OK, so what are my thoughts on C&C:N after my first play? As you've probably surmised by now, I really liked this one. I found it more interesting than C&C:A, which was partly due to the terrain providing a more interesting battlefield. However, the bigger factor was unit/nationality characteristics, and how to leverage them in my favor. I know it probably sounds like cult of the new, but so far this is my favorite C&C game. The mix of terrain, characteristics, everything. A great balance, and the continuing development of the C&C system is very evident. In play, I think C&C:N also flows better much better than BC, and has more tactical choices than C&C:A. The choices are tougher, as witnessed by several times in our games, as Eric or I had to take a moment to weigh our options and consider the potential implications. Yes, this will definitely see more table time.
For next time, Eric has requested GMT's Washington's War (BGG entry), the remake of We The People and the first of the CDGs. I've played it once before, so I'm looking forward to getting a second chance to try it. Beyond that, I'm thinking of Fury In The East (BGG Entry), one of the games that came in the MMP Operations Special Edition #3 magazine. But who knows, there are so many good choices out there.
It wasn't really a hiatus, as such, just that our plan didn't really work out as we'd thought it would. Our OCS Korea game has been going on for most of this year, with (mostly) regular weekly sessions, and we were both taking notes and pics, but we just never got around to writing anything up. Partly that was down to our schedules, but at least on my part there was a certain amount of lethargy and disinclination to actually say much. It's hard to give insights into your thoughts and plans when your opponent is reading.
Anyway, we discussed where to go from here, and the idea of quietly closing the blog was quickly voted down on a 2-0 count. We agreed that the blog works best when we're playing shorter games, and that's what we're going to get back to. Moving forward, we'll get back to focussing on games in the 1-2 session length (i.e. 3-6 hours), unless we can find time for a longer session. That means shorter war-games (hex/counter, block, and CDGs), and (probably) more 18xx. Sounds like a plan, and I'm certainly very comfortable with that mix.
So, the first topic (and, in fact, the above conversation took place while we were playing) is the new GMT release Command & Colors: Napoleonics (BGG entry), the latest in the Commands and Colors series. This game covers the battles in the Peninsular War, featuring the British, French and Portuguese, and a single scenario featuring a small segment of the Waterloo battle. An expansion for the Spanish is currently on the P500 list, and tentatively scheduled for an August production slot. I'd expect to see more expansions for the Prussians and Russians, as well as lots more scenarios covering those armies, as well as some sort of 'Epic Napoleonics' rules/expansion. Sigh, more money sucked from my wallet.
The production is just as you'd expect for a C&C game from GMT; lots of wood blocks; colorful stickers; mounted map; good player aids; all in a bullet-proof box. In other words, up to their recent production standards, which have certainly taken a step up in quality.
I'm not going to go through the whole ruleset, but here, in my view, are the major differences from C&C:A (and others):
- Unit losses: the number of dice used when attacking is based on 1 die per block in the attacking unit
- Unit/Nationality distinction: various units get extra dice in combat depending on their unit type or National characteristics; e.g. Light/Rifle units gain a die in ranged combat; British line foot units gain a die in ranged combat if they do not move, and French line foot units gain a die in melee combat
- Terrain: unlike the Ancients battlefields, we now have terrain to deal with, more akin to the Battle Cry and Memoir '44 battlefield
- Objectives: just like in M'44
- Square formation: infantry can form square in the face of cavalry assault
Of these, the first is the biggest change, in my view, and one that has been a bug-bear for quite a few C&C players, or potential players. Now those 1-block units are really fragile and mostly useless, and have to be withdrawn from harm's way. The unit/nationality distinctions are an interesting change, and allow for some variation in the way you use your force, with both the composition and side impacting your strategy/tactics.
OK, terrain really isn't a change, per se, but it's just that there is some, often a lot, unlike most of the C&C:A scenarios, where I've seen pool tables with more features. Some of the terrain features are also classed as objective hexes, in the same way that M'44 has. This was, in my view, one of the biggest issues with BC, as often there was no incentive to move forward and get shot at, as the other player would get the first shot due to the move/no fire rules. (In C&C:N you can move and half-fire.) So, that provides an incentive to do something.
C&C:N wouldn't truly represent Napoleonic warfare without allowing foot units to use square formation, and the implementation is interesting. As part of the cavalry melee procedure the infantry unit has the choice to enter square, but to do so, the player has to give up a command card (and you must have more than 2 in hand), which is placed on a holding display, reducing his hand size and, hence, tactical flexibility. Furthermore, the card is chosen at random from your hand. To quote the Guinness advert, 'Brilliant!' With some good cards in your hand, you now have a tough choice to make. Protect your unit, or potentially give up the ability to carry out your plans. Of course, all those that hate the C&C abstraction style will have more reason to hate on the system, spluttering about lack of control, etc. I think it's a stroke of genius!
We played the first two scenarios, both from the battle of Rolica, with me drawing the French each time. The first saw me move to a quick 4-banner position (with 5 required to win) as the dice gods favored me with an embarrassment of dicey riches, seeing me score 4 hits out of my first 5 rolls on his Light Infantry unit. (With 5 blocks and a 1-die bonus they can be pretty lethal, so that turned the good fortune into great fortune.) However, I thought to dash forward with a good card to claim my winning banner, but an untimely flag result on the first combat took his unit out of range of my second unit, allowing Eric to isolate them and bring it back to 4-3, before I did manage to claim that winning banner.
The second scenario, later in the same battle as the French were pushed back, once again saw me with the French. The sides are almost identical, with the Allied forces gaining an extra leader. What makes the scenario interesting is that the terrain provides for only 4 axes of advance for the Allies, with prohibited terrain funneling the attacks. The French, meanwhile, are sitting on a ridge of hills, which reduces incoming ranged fire by 1 die. So, restricted advance options for the Aliies, and a strong defensive position for the French, quite a puzzle. To make it even worse, most of the Allied artillery (which doesn't lose a die for firing into hills) is still stuck at the base line.
Sounds easy for the French player, but my sole artillery unit ran out of ammunition (an early card play by Eric) and returned to my base line. The issue was where to place it, as I was unsure of where Eric's main thrust was going to come, and although my hand had some really interesting cards, I had few section movement cards. In the end I chose to concentrate on the Portuguese on my left flank, but also drew a card that allowed me to redeploy a unit by 4 hexes, so my artillery was able to reduce the Portuguese threat, then move to the center to counter the advance in the center and on the other flank. I had one opportunity for using square, but with a hand of great cards I had to decline, as I had plans, which all worked as I ran out a comfortable winner.
A tough scenario for the Allies, in my view, but Eric felt that he played it wrongly in not bringing up his artillery first and using them to reduce my units. That would have given me a tough choice on whether to hold or force the action. The French bonus die on melee means that closing the action is of use, but is it worth leaving the hills? I'd like to get this scenario back to the table, and try it from the Allied side.
Here's the ending position, which shows the terrain:
(The 2 units at bottom left are Portuguese, one with a leader.)
OK, so what are my thoughts on C&C:N after my first play? As you've probably surmised by now, I really liked this one. I found it more interesting than C&C:A, which was partly due to the terrain providing a more interesting battlefield. However, the bigger factor was unit/nationality characteristics, and how to leverage them in my favor. I know it probably sounds like cult of the new, but so far this is my favorite C&C game. The mix of terrain, characteristics, everything. A great balance, and the continuing development of the C&C system is very evident. In play, I think C&C:N also flows better much better than BC, and has more tactical choices than C&C:A. The choices are tougher, as witnessed by several times in our games, as Eric or I had to take a moment to weigh our options and consider the potential implications. Yes, this will definitely see more table time.
For next time, Eric has requested GMT's Washington's War (BGG entry), the remake of We The People and the first of the CDGs. I've played it once before, so I'm looking forward to getting a second chance to try it. Beyond that, I'm thinking of Fury In The East (BGG Entry), one of the games that came in the MMP Operations Special Edition #3 magazine. But who knows, there are so many good choices out there.
Back to the fun bits
And, we're back.
I'd like to say I did something interesting in the year it's been since you heard from me on this blog, but (other than a wonderful trip to Europe with my wife for a combo 10th anniversary/40th birthday gift) that hasn't been the case. Mostly, two things have shut down my writing on this blog: I was working on two simultaneous, parallel documentation projects at work that severely diminished any desire I had to write, and Mike and I were playing OCS Korea for most of the year. We discovered that really big games make poor incentive to blog. Various non-gaming life issues jumped up as well cutting us way back on gaming in the fall, and so that left us with a grand total of four posts this year up until now.
Not acceptable.
My work duties have shifted to a new project, and Korea's been packed away (or will be shortly.) We've made it through the end of 1950, and we will complete it at some point. Just not now. After some discussions, we decided we wanted to get back to what got this blog moving in the first place: evening two-player games and what we think about them. So, if you're ready to hear our slightly-informed opinions every week or two again, we're ready to start writing them. Right... about...
Now.
Mike and I got GMT's new Command & Colors: Napoleonics on the table last week. I'd been curious about this one, as I find the C&C system quick and enjoyable, but don't particularly care for Battle Cry – the version of the game closest in time frame to the Napoleonic wars. Also, the Napoleonic era is about my least favorite one to study. As a result, I didn't preorder this game. But, never being one to pass up a good game, wanted to see what it was like.
C&C:N is, frankly, not very different from C&C: Ancients. The production is very similar, and I think they use the same terrain tiles. Readers of this blog will likely be familiar with C&C:A, so I'll highlight the differences between the two games:
There are more differences, but these highlight the major points. Let's just say that playing this game like you'd play C&C:A will cause you to lose. Badly. And that's a good thing. It also much more closely resembles C&C:A than Battle Cry as far as rules complexity goes. And that's a good thing as well. I was fearing this game was Battle Cry with Bicorns. It's actually closer to C&C:A with gunpowder. In all the good ways.
Mike and I decided to start off at the beginning and played the first two scenarios, randomly drawing sides. As fate would have it, I drew the Brits/Portuguese each time. These two scenarios cover positions early and late within the Battle of Rolica. (Apparently the first battle in the Peninsular War involving the British.)
I attempted to push on my right flank with the Portuguese, as my opening hand was right-flank-heavy, but they failed miserably. Eventually, I gained some center cards and began advancing there, trying to focus on using artillery. Mike got to four of his required five flags quickly (three of them thanks to the Portuguese) but after I started forcing the action, pulled back to a 4-3 deficit with victories in the center. Shortly thereafter, Mike got his fifth flag, breaking my position.
As is typical with this game, both of us tended to run out of cards in the sectors where battles were the fiercest, and of course you have no idea your opponent is in the same boat. We felt we had the rules down pretty well, so we moved on to the 2nd scenario. This involves the exact same unit mix (except the Brits get a third leader) but radically different terrain. This one forces the Allies down lanes with impassable hills between them to assault a hill infested with French infantry (and one unit of artillery). Not an easy task.
I lost this one 5-2, I believe, and realized I was doing something very wrong. I'd been playing with the very Ancient approach of leading with the cavalry and having the infantry mop up. Not how it works in the Napoleonic era. You need to soften with artillery, push with infantry, and punish weak positions with cavalry. Particularly when you're assaulting a good defensive position, as you are in this scenario. If I play this one again as the Brits, I'd have a very different plan.
So, I lose two scenarios. I had some poor dice, Mike had some good dice (including five hits out of six dice in ranged combat against a single unit), but nothing earth shattering that would invalidate either play.
Those are the high-level reports of the gaming, but the important bit is what did I think about the game?
First off, it surprised me. After reading the rules (and only the rules – I had not seen any of the other components), I had a feeling it was going to be better than I initially expected, but the gameplay exceeded even those thoughts. Despite how light the C&C series is, this game will make you think. You've got puzzles to solve as well as battles to fight.
Secondly, the game gives the feel of Napoleonic warfare without getting into too much detail. There are bits of chrome to distinguish the varying fighting styles (e.g. the French line infantry get an extra die when in melee against infantry, but the British line infantry get an extra die when firing without moving) but the chrome doesn't get in the way. Exactly the level of abstraction I'd expect from this series.
Eight out of 10 from me, with the understanding this will probably go up as the line is expanded with other nationalities and scenarios.
Finally, a bit of a soapbox moment.
There's already been a bit of talk about “fixing” the game after a play or two because of some perceived superiority in one of the troop types. This is the kind of talk that has soured me on a lot of gaming lately – people make pronouncements about games very early without giving the games a fair shake. This is particularly bad with wargames, as that “fair shake” may involve 20-40 hours of play to really get a feel for what's going on.
Of course, this involved someone who is a self-proclaimed “Napoleonics buff” who has a different idea of how things should go. This is exactly why I was turned off of Napoleonic gaming back when I was a heavy miniatures player. For whatever reason, this particular era has a knack of attracting know-it-alls who are more than happy to tell you you're doing it wrong. As a result, I simply won't play Napoleonic miniatures. It's not worth the angst.
In this era of the internet, these people get a voice a lot louder than they deserve. I've seen many situations where games have been played once, discounted because they didn't meet the expectations of the initial player (who usually has way more time on his hands than should be allowed), and the game is subsequently shuffled off and ignored by a large number of players who'd probably like the game. That early dissenting opinion gets parroted rather than challenged. And there's a lot of games that don't get the table time they actually deserve as a result.
This whole phenomena has completely turned me off the primary boardgaming websites I used to frequent (BoardGameGeek and ConSimWorld). I now no longer go on there except for reference purposes. The interest in finding out about what's coming up has been completely squashed by people who, frankly, are most interested in hearing themselves.
So, while I used to occasionally re-post these blog entries on the Geek, I no longer will. I have no interest in shouting above the din. I will, however, be creating a Twitter account specifically for the blog, and will throw little tidbits up there as they cross my mind. I'll post details when those are available. I'd be more than happy to have you follow.
If you like what I write, great. I hope to be providing you semi-regular content for the foreseeable future. There's been a ton of great new games released in the last couple years, and lots of them are on our schedule.
If you don't, I'm sorry. But I do completely understand. There's no shortage of other game reviewers/reporters for you to read. Thanks for the time you've given us so far. Hopefully, we'll draw you back at some point.
And, with that, the return is complete. Next week's game is Washington's War.
I'd like to say I did something interesting in the year it's been since you heard from me on this blog, but (other than a wonderful trip to Europe with my wife for a combo 10th anniversary/40th birthday gift) that hasn't been the case. Mostly, two things have shut down my writing on this blog: I was working on two simultaneous, parallel documentation projects at work that severely diminished any desire I had to write, and Mike and I were playing OCS Korea for most of the year. We discovered that really big games make poor incentive to blog. Various non-gaming life issues jumped up as well cutting us way back on gaming in the fall, and so that left us with a grand total of four posts this year up until now.
Not acceptable.
My work duties have shifted to a new project, and Korea's been packed away (or will be shortly.) We've made it through the end of 1950, and we will complete it at some point. Just not now. After some discussions, we decided we wanted to get back to what got this blog moving in the first place: evening two-player games and what we think about them. So, if you're ready to hear our slightly-informed opinions every week or two again, we're ready to start writing them. Right... about...
Now.
Mike and I got GMT's new Command & Colors: Napoleonics on the table last week. I'd been curious about this one, as I find the C&C system quick and enjoyable, but don't particularly care for Battle Cry – the version of the game closest in time frame to the Napoleonic wars. Also, the Napoleonic era is about my least favorite one to study. As a result, I didn't preorder this game. But, never being one to pass up a good game, wanted to see what it was like.
C&C:N is, frankly, not very different from C&C: Ancients. The production is very similar, and I think they use the same terrain tiles. Readers of this blog will likely be familiar with C&C:A, so I'll highlight the differences between the two games:
- Ranged fire is more powerful.
- The number of blocks in a unit changes per national characteristics.
- Similar units (say, Line Infantry) fight differently for different nationalities.
- The number of battle dice you roll is a function of the number of blocks remaining in the unit.
- Units down to a single block may not be able to battle due to terrain modifiers.
- There is much more terrain in the game. MUCH more.
- Many of the scenarios involve terrain objectives.
- Infantry can form square
There are more differences, but these highlight the major points. Let's just say that playing this game like you'd play C&C:A will cause you to lose. Badly. And that's a good thing. It also much more closely resembles C&C:A than Battle Cry as far as rules complexity goes. And that's a good thing as well. I was fearing this game was Battle Cry with Bicorns. It's actually closer to C&C:A with gunpowder. In all the good ways.
Mike and I decided to start off at the beginning and played the first two scenarios, randomly drawing sides. As fate would have it, I drew the Brits/Portuguese each time. These two scenarios cover positions early and late within the Battle of Rolica. (Apparently the first battle in the Peninsular War involving the British.)
I attempted to push on my right flank with the Portuguese, as my opening hand was right-flank-heavy, but they failed miserably. Eventually, I gained some center cards and began advancing there, trying to focus on using artillery. Mike got to four of his required five flags quickly (three of them thanks to the Portuguese) but after I started forcing the action, pulled back to a 4-3 deficit with victories in the center. Shortly thereafter, Mike got his fifth flag, breaking my position.
As is typical with this game, both of us tended to run out of cards in the sectors where battles were the fiercest, and of course you have no idea your opponent is in the same boat. We felt we had the rules down pretty well, so we moved on to the 2nd scenario. This involves the exact same unit mix (except the Brits get a third leader) but radically different terrain. This one forces the Allies down lanes with impassable hills between them to assault a hill infested with French infantry (and one unit of artillery). Not an easy task.
I lost this one 5-2, I believe, and realized I was doing something very wrong. I'd been playing with the very Ancient approach of leading with the cavalry and having the infantry mop up. Not how it works in the Napoleonic era. You need to soften with artillery, push with infantry, and punish weak positions with cavalry. Particularly when you're assaulting a good defensive position, as you are in this scenario. If I play this one again as the Brits, I'd have a very different plan.
So, I lose two scenarios. I had some poor dice, Mike had some good dice (including five hits out of six dice in ranged combat against a single unit), but nothing earth shattering that would invalidate either play.
Those are the high-level reports of the gaming, but the important bit is what did I think about the game?
First off, it surprised me. After reading the rules (and only the rules – I had not seen any of the other components), I had a feeling it was going to be better than I initially expected, but the gameplay exceeded even those thoughts. Despite how light the C&C series is, this game will make you think. You've got puzzles to solve as well as battles to fight.
Secondly, the game gives the feel of Napoleonic warfare without getting into too much detail. There are bits of chrome to distinguish the varying fighting styles (e.g. the French line infantry get an extra die when in melee against infantry, but the British line infantry get an extra die when firing without moving) but the chrome doesn't get in the way. Exactly the level of abstraction I'd expect from this series.
Eight out of 10 from me, with the understanding this will probably go up as the line is expanded with other nationalities and scenarios.
Finally, a bit of a soapbox moment.
There's already been a bit of talk about “fixing” the game after a play or two because of some perceived superiority in one of the troop types. This is the kind of talk that has soured me on a lot of gaming lately – people make pronouncements about games very early without giving the games a fair shake. This is particularly bad with wargames, as that “fair shake” may involve 20-40 hours of play to really get a feel for what's going on.
Of course, this involved someone who is a self-proclaimed “Napoleonics buff” who has a different idea of how things should go. This is exactly why I was turned off of Napoleonic gaming back when I was a heavy miniatures player. For whatever reason, this particular era has a knack of attracting know-it-alls who are more than happy to tell you you're doing it wrong. As a result, I simply won't play Napoleonic miniatures. It's not worth the angst.
In this era of the internet, these people get a voice a lot louder than they deserve. I've seen many situations where games have been played once, discounted because they didn't meet the expectations of the initial player (who usually has way more time on his hands than should be allowed), and the game is subsequently shuffled off and ignored by a large number of players who'd probably like the game. That early dissenting opinion gets parroted rather than challenged. And there's a lot of games that don't get the table time they actually deserve as a result.
This whole phenomena has completely turned me off the primary boardgaming websites I used to frequent (BoardGameGeek and ConSimWorld). I now no longer go on there except for reference purposes. The interest in finding out about what's coming up has been completely squashed by people who, frankly, are most interested in hearing themselves.
So, while I used to occasionally re-post these blog entries on the Geek, I no longer will. I have no interest in shouting above the din. I will, however, be creating a Twitter account specifically for the blog, and will throw little tidbits up there as they cross my mind. I'll post details when those are available. I'd be more than happy to have you follow.
If you like what I write, great. I hope to be providing you semi-regular content for the foreseeable future. There's been a ton of great new games released in the last couple years, and lots of them are on our schedule.
If you don't, I'm sorry. But I do completely understand. There's no shortage of other game reviewers/reporters for you to read. Thanks for the time you've given us so far. Hopefully, we'll draw you back at some point.
And, with that, the return is complete. Next week's game is Washington's War.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Oliphants
We pulled out Command & Colors: Ancients Thursday, this time using a scenario and units from the expansion which adds the Greeks and Eastern Kingdoms. The scenario chosen by Eric - I chose the game, and asked for a scenario involving Elephants - was the Battle of Raphia, a battle between two successor kingdoms of Alexander the Greats empire - Ptolemaic Egypt, and the Seleucid Empire. Again, we're in an area of history I have a sketchy knowledge of at best, so check out the links for more info on the history of the battle.
We played the scenario twice - switching sides in between - but both battles proceeded quite differently. In the first battle, the focus of the battle was the flanks - we both opened up with ranged weapons initially (archers and slingers), but the expected clash of the main lines of the opposing armies never happened, as the flanks were always too pressing for either of us to spend much effort on moving the heavy units in the center forward.
The elephants were, as expected, devastating, especially when sent against heavy units - an interesting element of using elephants is they roll dice according to what the unit they are attacking would roll. This leads you to send them up against heavy units when possible. I believe the logic of this is that light units are more maneuverable and would simply avoid contact with the elephants units, while tight formations of heavily armored troops were much more subject to disruption by a charging elephant. Elephants also re-roll sword hits, which can result in very strong attacks if the dice go well.
Elephants are also quite fragile, however - they only have two blocks per unit, so don't require many hits to eliminate. Perhaps more importantly, elephants rampage whenever forced to retreat - this means that they attack with two dice ALL adjacent units. This is great if they're right up against your enemies lines . . . not so good if they elephants are in the midst of your own lines!
IIRC, Eric won the first match with a score of 8-6 or so - it was close, whatever the exact values were.
So we flipped sides, and proceeded to go at it again - the second match being more "traditional", in that the bulk of the battle was the clash of the main lines in the center, with some fighting on the flanks. This was also a close game - the final score of 8-2 may not seem all that close, but at the time I managed to win, I had a total of six (6) units with a single block remaining. So had the dice gone slightly differently, the result could easily have been different in the second battle.
I am finding myself enjoying this game more and more with each play - a sure sign of a game with some staying power, at least for me. The addition of newer units (this was the first scenario I've played with elephants, for instance) didn't add too much to the complexity level. They did, however, increase the number of tactical decisions - elephants are definitely an interesting unit type to use, with devastating attacks but fragile units with the potential to rampage and damage your own side (or anyone in the way, really)!
I'm not sure what's on tap for this week - it's Eric's choice this time, and he hadn't yet decided as we were wrapping up - but I'm sure it will be something interesting, and I look forward to playing.
Until next week, then - happy gaming!
We played the scenario twice - switching sides in between - but both battles proceeded quite differently. In the first battle, the focus of the battle was the flanks - we both opened up with ranged weapons initially (archers and slingers), but the expected clash of the main lines of the opposing armies never happened, as the flanks were always too pressing for either of us to spend much effort on moving the heavy units in the center forward.
The elephants were, as expected, devastating, especially when sent against heavy units - an interesting element of using elephants is they roll dice according to what the unit they are attacking would roll. This leads you to send them up against heavy units when possible. I believe the logic of this is that light units are more maneuverable and would simply avoid contact with the elephants units, while tight formations of heavily armored troops were much more subject to disruption by a charging elephant. Elephants also re-roll sword hits, which can result in very strong attacks if the dice go well.
Elephants are also quite fragile, however - they only have two blocks per unit, so don't require many hits to eliminate. Perhaps more importantly, elephants rampage whenever forced to retreat - this means that they attack with two dice ALL adjacent units. This is great if they're right up against your enemies lines . . . not so good if they elephants are in the midst of your own lines!
IIRC, Eric won the first match with a score of 8-6 or so - it was close, whatever the exact values were.
So we flipped sides, and proceeded to go at it again - the second match being more "traditional", in that the bulk of the battle was the clash of the main lines in the center, with some fighting on the flanks. This was also a close game - the final score of 8-2 may not seem all that close, but at the time I managed to win, I had a total of six (6) units with a single block remaining. So had the dice gone slightly differently, the result could easily have been different in the second battle.
I am finding myself enjoying this game more and more with each play - a sure sign of a game with some staying power, at least for me. The addition of newer units (this was the first scenario I've played with elephants, for instance) didn't add too much to the complexity level. They did, however, increase the number of tactical decisions - elephants are definitely an interesting unit type to use, with devastating attacks but fragile units with the potential to rampage and damage your own side (or anyone in the way, really)!
I'm not sure what's on tap for this week - it's Eric's choice this time, and he hadn't yet decided as we were wrapping up - but I'm sure it will be something interesting, and I look forward to playing.
Until next week, then - happy gaming!
Monday, April 2, 2007
Thunder on the Plains
(Well, a thumping, not really Thunder.)
Tim and I pulled out Command and Colors: Ancients last week. The timing on this was good – with BattleLore on the table the week before, we were both looking forward to comparing the two games.
Tim wanted a scenario that didn't involve all that many "extras." A handful of troops, limited terrain, and no elephants. We settled on Great Plains, the precursor to Zama. This scenario wasn't in the original release – it was added into the 2nd edition. GMT has thankfully posted the PDFs with this scenario on their website, as I have the 1st edition of the game.
I'm going to spare the details on the game. Tim thumped me both times. I think the final scores were 6-2 and 6-3. I could never manage to get cards to pull vulnerable units out of the way, and the dice certainly weren't my friends.
That said, I made some tactical errors with my heavy units in particular, exposing them to double attacks – this usually means you're going to lose the unit that turn. This, of course, usually happened to me.
The important bit, to me, was playing this game so soon after BattleLore. And it reinforced my feeling that C&C:A is simply the better game. Why? Glad you asked. And no, theme really doesn't have all that much to do with it.
1: Leaders. Rumors are some future expansion to BL will include leaders. I hope so – they certainly add to the technical nuances of the game. Our BL contests ended up with units all over creation. In C&C:A, partly due to the Leadership cards and the leaders they require, you end up with more coherent battle lines. It makes the game feel more like a battle, not a WWE-style free-for-all.
2: Evade. The defending side has some choices to make. Do you give up the chance to damage the attacker in order to (hopefully) protect yourself at the expense of giving ground? It's an easier decision when you're facing cavalry and their bonus attack (which is negated by evasion), but what about when it's infantry? Choices, choices...
3: Increased battle back rules. Pretty much anyone can battle back when they don't vacate the defended hex. Not only when "bold" as in BL. It makes attacking much more of a decision, particularly on the flanks where BL units are likely not supported and "bold."
4: Lore. Much of the depth and variance of BL comes from the Lore cards. I certainly agree that Lore adds a lot to the game. However, much of what it adds is in the form of mild "wackiness." Things like units teleporting across the board and such. It doesn't improve your tactical planning as much as put you into a more reactionary mode. It's not a bad thing – I just don't think it makes for a better game.
5: Scenarios. C&C:A 2nd edition has 15 official scenarios, all using the full ruleset. BL comes with 10, no more than half using all the rules. (less than that, really.) Add to this the 21 scenarios in the 1st expansion (+ 3 more if you preordered), the 5 Truceless War scenarios on GMT's website, and the 3 published so far in C3i Magazine, you're looking at 47 officially published scenarios using all the rules. At this point, BattleLore has 22 official scenarios, 5 being Epic battles. This number will grow, of course, and BL has the hundreds of unofficial fan-created scenarios online.
Part of the focus for BL is the DIY aspect – the upcoming Call to Arms epansion certainly brings this to the fore. In comparison, there is the unofficial "Scenario X" rules that allow you to construct battles using 68 different historical armies. Not unlike what DBA does for miniatures.
In the end, it's how the games feel on the table. BattleLore is a very good game, don't get me wrong, but C&C:A just feels more like a battle. It's also more challenging to play well. The Lore cards tweak things around enough in BL that it just doesn't feel "right" at times. It also provides more opportunity for your plans to fail through no fault of your own.
These last two weeks confirmed my ratings on BGG. I have C&C:A as a 9, BL as an 8. And I think they'll stay that way for a while.
Administrivia
No game this week. Tim's off to that invitational-only gaming thing back East. (Which is also why his post appeared so early.) Maybe someday I'll get to go. Of course, it'll probably be some year when I can't.
Tim's choice is next, and as I haven't read his post, I have no idea what it'll be. Plus, whatever he may have decided on will likely change after the Gathering, in any case.
Tim and I pulled out Command and Colors: Ancients last week. The timing on this was good – with BattleLore on the table the week before, we were both looking forward to comparing the two games.
Tim wanted a scenario that didn't involve all that many "extras." A handful of troops, limited terrain, and no elephants. We settled on Great Plains, the precursor to Zama. This scenario wasn't in the original release – it was added into the 2nd edition. GMT has thankfully posted the PDFs with this scenario on their website, as I have the 1st edition of the game.
I'm going to spare the details on the game. Tim thumped me both times. I think the final scores were 6-2 and 6-3. I could never manage to get cards to pull vulnerable units out of the way, and the dice certainly weren't my friends.
That said, I made some tactical errors with my heavy units in particular, exposing them to double attacks – this usually means you're going to lose the unit that turn. This, of course, usually happened to me.
The important bit, to me, was playing this game so soon after BattleLore. And it reinforced my feeling that C&C:A is simply the better game. Why? Glad you asked. And no, theme really doesn't have all that much to do with it.
1: Leaders. Rumors are some future expansion to BL will include leaders. I hope so – they certainly add to the technical nuances of the game. Our BL contests ended up with units all over creation. In C&C:A, partly due to the Leadership cards and the leaders they require, you end up with more coherent battle lines. It makes the game feel more like a battle, not a WWE-style free-for-all.
2: Evade. The defending side has some choices to make. Do you give up the chance to damage the attacker in order to (hopefully) protect yourself at the expense of giving ground? It's an easier decision when you're facing cavalry and their bonus attack (which is negated by evasion), but what about when it's infantry? Choices, choices...
3: Increased battle back rules. Pretty much anyone can battle back when they don't vacate the defended hex. Not only when "bold" as in BL. It makes attacking much more of a decision, particularly on the flanks where BL units are likely not supported and "bold."
4: Lore. Much of the depth and variance of BL comes from the Lore cards. I certainly agree that Lore adds a lot to the game. However, much of what it adds is in the form of mild "wackiness." Things like units teleporting across the board and such. It doesn't improve your tactical planning as much as put you into a more reactionary mode. It's not a bad thing – I just don't think it makes for a better game.
5: Scenarios. C&C:A 2nd edition has 15 official scenarios, all using the full ruleset. BL comes with 10, no more than half using all the rules. (less than that, really.) Add to this the 21 scenarios in the 1st expansion (+ 3 more if you preordered), the 5 Truceless War scenarios on GMT's website, and the 3 published so far in C3i Magazine, you're looking at 47 officially published scenarios using all the rules. At this point, BattleLore has 22 official scenarios, 5 being Epic battles. This number will grow, of course, and BL has the hundreds of unofficial fan-created scenarios online.
Part of the focus for BL is the DIY aspect – the upcoming Call to Arms epansion certainly brings this to the fore. In comparison, there is the unofficial "Scenario X" rules that allow you to construct battles using 68 different historical armies. Not unlike what DBA does for miniatures.
In the end, it's how the games feel on the table. BattleLore is a very good game, don't get me wrong, but C&C:A just feels more like a battle. It's also more challenging to play well. The Lore cards tweak things around enough in BL that it just doesn't feel "right" at times. It also provides more opportunity for your plans to fail through no fault of your own.
These last two weeks confirmed my ratings on BGG. I have C&C:A as a 9, BL as an 8. And I think they'll stay that way for a while.
Administrivia
No game this week. Tim's off to that invitational-only gaming thing back East. (Which is also why his post appeared so early.) Maybe someday I'll get to go. Of course, it'll probably be some year when I can't.
Tim's choice is next, and as I haven't read his post, I have no idea what it'll be. Plus, whatever he may have decided on will likely change after the Gathering, in any case.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Battle of Nebraska
Another game night over at Eric's - this week's selection was GMT's Command & Colors: Ancients (C&C:A), and Eric selected The Great Plains scenario (leading, once again, to the tongue-in-cheek title of my post), where Roman forces lead by Scipio Africanus (probably not yet called that) and Hannibal faced off towards the end of the Second Punic War between Rome and Carthage. We are, once again, in an historical epoch I'm not terribly knowledgeable about, so I won't say much about that side of things. About the game, though, I do have some thoughts, added to by the fact that I had just played BattleLore (what I call a "sibling" to C&C:A - both released in relatively close proximity to one another, as opposed to Battle Cry and Memoir '44, which I call "ancestors"). We played twice - switching sides after the first battle, and managed to get in both games in a bit under two hours, which was nice.
I really enjoyed C&C:A, somewhat more than I did BattleLore, which while a lot of fun, seemed much more chaotic. Here, there was definitely more of a feel of having a good idea of what the possible responses to one of my moves would be - no Lore wackiness. I thought that was a good thing - but I can see room for differing opinions here, as sometimes a lighter, wackier game may fit the bill more (even for me), but in general, I think given a choice between BattleLore and C&C:A, I'll normally go with C&C:A.
Major differences between the two, beyond the absence of the Lore element found in BattleLore (which, while pretty major, seems also pretty obvious):
Leaders are probably the major difference. Leaders are individual pieces in this game, and they have an appropriately significant effect on the game.
Another element is the differences between units - there are roughly the same number of unit types in C&C:A as BattleLore, but the differences between units are greater. For instance, light infantry can attack in close combat with 2 dice (and attack ranged at a range of 2 hexes), while heavy infantry can attack with 5 dice (but only in close combat). Heavy infantry isn't very mobile, but they hit hard, and you think twice before attacking them, since they will likely Battle Back (unless you manage to make them retreat, or score enough hits to eliminate them). And note, the scenario I played didn't even use two of the types of units - I've yet to play with Elephants or Chariots, which are definitely quite a bit different still.
Finally, the command deck seriously emphasizes keeping units in line formation - quite a few command cards (separate from the leadership cards previously mention) allow a line of units all adjacent to advance and attack (if possible).
I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these elements incorporated into BattleLore in the future (especially more unit types), but some I think would be difficult to bring in - the primary effect of Leaders is tightly tied to the availability of command cards that use them. Also, the role of Leaders in C&C:Ancients seems entirely appropriate for the type of battles being fought - they would seem less so for the medieval battles of knights and archers that is the starting point for BattleLore.
In short, of all of the Commands & Colors games I've played (which, at this point, includes all of the published ones - although I've not played any of the Memoir '44 variants published as expansions), C&C:A is the one I find most interesting. I was initially a bit overwhelmed by all the different unit types, but I actually think the blocks as used by GMT are easier to tell apart than the figures used by Days of Wonder for BattleLore (although the flags/banners in BattleLore do simplify this considerably).
With that - I must be on my way. We won't be having a game next week, as I'll be out of town at the Gathering of Friends in Columbus next week. Many games will be played, but none of them with Eric, so I won't be blogging about them here.
In a couple of weeks (after my return), we'll be playing something, but I haven't made my selection yet - I'm thinking of trying another Combat Commander scenario, but I may have some other ideas in the intervening couple of weeks.
I really enjoyed C&C:A, somewhat more than I did BattleLore, which while a lot of fun, seemed much more chaotic. Here, there was definitely more of a feel of having a good idea of what the possible responses to one of my moves would be - no Lore wackiness. I thought that was a good thing - but I can see room for differing opinions here, as sometimes a lighter, wackier game may fit the bill more (even for me), but in general, I think given a choice between BattleLore and C&C:A, I'll normally go with C&C:A.
Major differences between the two, beyond the absence of the Lore element found in BattleLore (which, while pretty major, seems also pretty obvious):
Leaders are probably the major difference. Leaders are individual pieces in this game, and they have an appropriately significant effect on the game.
- Leaders increase the odds of units they are attached to (share a space with), or any units adjacent to that space, of getting a hit. One of the sides of the C&C:A dice is a leader symbol (a plumed helm), and units with leaders attached score hits on the appropriate color, and leader symbols (and possibly another symbol, depending on the unit). So having a leader attached or adjacent ups the odds of a hit significantly. This element makes keeping leaders involved with attack - however, there is an element of risk, as well, as leaders count as victory banners in their own right, so if an attached united is defeated, AND the leader is killed (checked separately), there is the potential loss of TWO victory banners. This tension between wanting your leaders up front and wanting to keep them protected makes for some interesting decision angst during the course of a game.
- Quite a few of the command cards have effects based on leaders or leadership - things like activating a leader and up to three units in a group adjacent to the leader, or that sort of thing. This tends to make you keep your units in cohesive groups, as that increases your options as far as moving and attacking with them
- Leaders allow an attached unit to ignore one retreat flag rolled against them. This can be a big deal, as retreat is much harsher in C&C:A than in BattleLore
Another element is the differences between units - there are roughly the same number of unit types in C&C:A as BattleLore, but the differences between units are greater. For instance, light infantry can attack in close combat with 2 dice (and attack ranged at a range of 2 hexes), while heavy infantry can attack with 5 dice (but only in close combat). Heavy infantry isn't very mobile, but they hit hard, and you think twice before attacking them, since they will likely Battle Back (unless you manage to make them retreat, or score enough hits to eliminate them). And note, the scenario I played didn't even use two of the types of units - I've yet to play with Elephants or Chariots, which are definitely quite a bit different still.
Finally, the command deck seriously emphasizes keeping units in line formation - quite a few command cards (separate from the leadership cards previously mention) allow a line of units all adjacent to advance and attack (if possible).
I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these elements incorporated into BattleLore in the future (especially more unit types), but some I think would be difficult to bring in - the primary effect of Leaders is tightly tied to the availability of command cards that use them. Also, the role of Leaders in C&C:Ancients seems entirely appropriate for the type of battles being fought - they would seem less so for the medieval battles of knights and archers that is the starting point for BattleLore.
In short, of all of the Commands & Colors games I've played (which, at this point, includes all of the published ones - although I've not played any of the Memoir '44 variants published as expansions), C&C:A is the one I find most interesting. I was initially a bit overwhelmed by all the different unit types, but I actually think the blocks as used by GMT are easier to tell apart than the figures used by Days of Wonder for BattleLore (although the flags/banners in BattleLore do simplify this considerably).
With that - I must be on my way. We won't be having a game next week, as I'll be out of town at the Gathering of Friends in Columbus next week. Many games will be played, but none of them with Eric, so I won't be blogging about them here.
In a couple of weeks (after my return), we'll be playing something, but I haven't made my selection yet - I'm thinking of trying another Combat Commander scenario, but I may have some other ideas in the intervening couple of weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)