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!

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.

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.

• 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
  

Battling Back is somewhat similar, but it's always an option as long as you are not eliminated (or forced to retreat), regardless of whether you are supported. Support (two adjacent units) does give you the ability to ignore retreats, however, which is a big deal in C&C:A, as retreats make the unit move one full MOVEMENT, rather than just a hex. This is especially important for cavalry, as they move quickly, but also retreat quickly when forced to.

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.