|
|
Eric Schlais
United States
Minnesota
|
Commands & Colors: Ancients
» Forums » Reviews
Battlelore player's review after 2 plays
I won't go into the play mechanics, many other talented reviewers have covered those with more detail and knowledge, and I don't think I can offer up anything new. my primary viewpoint for this review is comparing & contrasting C&C:A with Battlelore... my pros: blocks are cool - C&C:A is my first block game, and I don't think it will be my last. I choose C&C:A over Europe Engulfed as a sorta early Christmas present for myself. I am not positive I made the right choice, but C&C:A has been good so far. Unit diversity vs. Battlelore. The green units in C&C:A are much more useful then BL - the small ranged attack makes them nice as cheap and nimble harrassment troops vs. slow heavies. Battleback vs. evade - a great mechanic that again increases green unit strength by upping their survivability vs. more powerful units. Commanders. not my most favorite change vs. BL, but a great addition. Another big plus for me is the canned senarios - I really enjoyed the unbalanced play - to many of the premade senarios in BL feel like each side has the same units. I also really liked the Carthage & Rome have different unit allotments - the 2 sides shouldn't always be balanced IMO. (that is one of my favorite parts of Tides of Iron!) the cheat sheets included with the game are supurb - much better then the cards in BL. the cards are more diverse, (and very high quality) and therefor better then BL. one minor complaint is that I'd like more cards in my hand. It annoys me greatly in both games when you have cards that just don't work. I am going to implement a house rule where you can drop your whole hand for a new one in stead of taking a turn.... (I've used before in BL & all parties liked it!) Cons: the biggest for me is the board. mine is 100% junk. This is my first GMT game, and I don't know if I have been spoiled by DOW & FF, but the game board is very, very disappointing. For $65 I expect a lot more. I was OK with putting the stickers on the blocks, but that board... huge disappointment. this is especially strange considering the great cards and the box that could be used as a foot stool! I expect that I will use my BL board in the future, or buy a BL epic board & toss the C&C:A board in the garbage. dice - I can and probably will buy replacements. I found it ironic that a game featuring wooden blocks would have crud-o plastic dice! Rome having elephants? I have a BA & MA in history, but I can't say that I know a ton about Roman history, but I don't remember ever reading anything about Roman forces containing elephants... what's up with that? Lore: I like fantasy & sci-fi, and I think BL does a great job of implementing fantasy in a great way. Thus far I like it better then C&C:A heros, but I need more plays to decide which I like best. other: I was told by the guy at my FLGS that only 1 side of the blocks had stickers to simulate fog of war. I almost wish that was the case... overall I give the game a solid 8. I played 2 games with my Dad tonight wife my wife & mom made cookies. Considering my Dad hasn't ever played anything more complex then Risk, he was doing great by the 2nd game he was pretty much on his own with a little help from my wife who is very familiar with BL. If he was doing anything wrong he was being a little to aggressive. regarding the whole block vs. BL unit & easy unit recognization. I am not sure I get the gripe some C&C:A players have towards BL. I think both jobs do a great job of distinguishing unit types, though I think BL is easier to read with the flags vs. the very small color/shape symbols on the blocks. I think both work just fine, so I don't understand some poster's feeling regarding the BL flags. I hope the C&C:A expansion packs feature more battle cards. That is one of the failings of the BL expansions IMO. (I have them all except the epic expansion) The new units are very cool, but why not add new lore & order cards? If some variety is good, more is better? overall, C&C:E is a very good game with excellent play mechanics. The manual could use some work (not as well put together imo vs. the DOW/BL manual) but it's not horrible (like say, Arkham Horror). At the end of the day it's different enough from BL to make me glad I have both, and I expect both will see my table often (though I am expecting my wife to favor BL 
Last edited on 2007-12-09 01:35:19 CST (Total Number of Edits: 3)
|
eryn roston
United States
California
|
Nice review! I wrote a similar review ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1313103#1313103) about battlelore from the opposite perspective (BL from a C&C:A perspective). It's interesting to see the issue from the opposite side. Quote: C&C:A is my first block game, and I don't think it will be my last. I choose C&C:A over Europe Engulfed as a sorta early Christmas present for myself. I think you will hear this from some of the more hard-core wargamers but I think that "technically" this is not considered a "block game" (even though it has a million blocks in it). I'm a lil fuzzy on the distinction myself but I think it has to do with stickers on only one side of each block (hidden info) and the block orientation being used to indicate unit strength. See Hammer of the Scots. Quote: the biggest for me is the board. mine is 100% junk. This is a common complaint. Especially coming from a more Eurogame or American-style game background. Initially I had the same response. But I've gotten quite used to it. GMT makes a number of my favorite games, most of which feature a similar or even less substantial map. The most common suggestion is to invest in a piece of plexi-glass. I gotta say...it makes a world of difference. For just a few extra bucks it really punches up the look of the board and makes it lay nice and flat. As far as price versus components, it's important to remember that a lot of the pricing I think comes from the relatively small print runs -- even for popular games like C&C:A. Quote: the cheat sheets included with the game are supurb - much better then the cards in BL. interesting. I actually preferred the cards myself. But they both seem to server their purpose pretty well. Quote: Commanders. not my most favorite change vs. BL, but a great addition. I think this is actually the main reason I rate C&C:A a lil higher than Battlelore. The on-board leaders seem to offer a much richer tactial experience versus the lore system (which are basically off-board leaders). It's true that the lore-cards are pretty exciting. There's a lotta pizzaz there and plenty of fun. But I find the maneuvering of the leaders on the board to be a bit more rewarding and therefore satisfying. Quote: Rome having elephants? I have a BA & MA in history, but I can't say that I know a ton about Roman history, but I don't remember ever reading anything about Roman forces containing elephants... what's up with that? Are you sure it's the Romans that have elephants? There might be roman blocks that depict elephant units, but I don't think any of the scenarios have them on the roman side. As far as I can remember it's only the Carthaginian side that deploys them (and even then it's only in like 2 or 3 of the scenarios.) If the Romans have elephants in their blocks I think it's only for the sake of flexibility. I think that in the expansion scenarios the "roman blocks" are sometimes used to represent other factions. -E
Last edited on 2007-12-09 03:42:29 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
|
|
Yeah, I think the Roman elephants are there for flexibility . . . would allow someone to set up an even battle if they wished.
I'm no historian, but Rome often employed mercenary troops from far and wide. I'd be afraid to claim that they NEVER employed any elephant riders in far-off lands. Especially later in history when Carthage and the rest of Northern Africa was basically PART of Rome. Hmm, this'll give me something to look up later on when I have time.
|
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
|
trigeek37 wrote: Cons:
the biggest for me is the board. mine is 100% junk. This is my first GMT game, and I don't know if I have been spoiled by DOW & FF, but the game board is very, very disappointing. For $65 I expect a lot more. I was OK with putting the stickers on the blocks, but that board... huge disappointment. this is especially strange considering the great cards and the box that could be used as a foot stool! I expect that I will use my BL board in the future, or buy a BL epic board & toss the C&C:A board in the garbage. The board can surprise a few. Then you realize what comes in C&C:A is the "deluxe" version of GMNT maps that most people would be willing to pay $20 for. All my other GMT games come with paper-thin maps. It seems they should consider switching the material they use in the packaging with the map! But fear not, the 2nd and 3rd expansion are each supposed to gome with a "real" board that can replace this board and make us DOWers feel better about our playing surface. Quote: dice - I can and probably will buy replacements. I found it ironic that a game featuring wooden blocks would have crud-o plastic dice! It is a law of balance! DOW has plastic figures and wooden dice so GMT had to give us wooden figures and plastic dice! Go to Valley Games and buy a set or two of their wooden dice. Much nicer.
|
James Griffith
United States
Monkton
Maryland
|
trigeek37 wrote: Rome having elephants? I have a BA & MA in history, but I can't say that I know a ton about Roman history, but I don't remember ever reading anything about Roman forces containing elephants... what's up with that? Rome never got a chance to use them but Rome brought them on Caeser's invansion of Britian but they never saw battle. However, CC:A doesn't have Roman Elephants, just Carthaginian. Overall, I agree with your assessments of CC:A except the Leaders. I think they work better than Lore does in Battlelore. As far as the quality of the component issues, I thinks its just a factor GMT-style wargames. This is one of the few games they make that would be served with a mounted board and as a result of interest in that the new expansions are including a mounted mapboard pieces. .... and the dice suck, get the $5 (shipped) dice from Valley Games, they're great. The funny thing is the difference of opinion on the plastic miniatures vs. wooden blocks. The miniatures seem nicer on the back of a box but after a few games, I much prefer the blocks. I think its a much better game than Battlelore but the presentation is less appealing at first.
|
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
|
trigeek37 wrote: overall, C&C:E is a very good game with excellent play mechanics. The manual could use some work (not as well put together imo vs. the DOW/BL manual) but it's not horrible (like say, Arkham Horror). At the end of the day it's different enough from BL to make me glad I have both, and I expect both will see my table often (though I am expecting my wife to favor BL I'm coming from the same place that you are - BL was my first command and colors game, and I've since played m44 and c&c:a (as an aside, sorta like how the first album by a band that catches my fancy ends up being my favorite amongst a body of work, I'm thinking I am now BL-biased  ). I like them all, and though BL is the only one I currently own, I imagine I'll be getting the others soon; c&c:a first, then m44. Obviously they all have similar gameplay mechanics at their cores, but I really like how the subtle (or not so subtle, depending upon point of view) differences between them help each to capture its theme: victory through superior firepower of m44, on-board leadership of c&c:a spurring each side on to similar victory, the shift to off-board commanding with hands from both the human cunning and mystical etherly power shaping the battle afoot in BL (though on-board heroes appear to be not far off...). Good, fun, tactical games all around. Perhaps I'm an easy sell, but I'm hooked.
|
Justin Nordstrom
United States
Drums
Pennsylvania
|
Thanks for the insightful review. I'll echo what other players have said here about the map--most of my GMT games have paper or "deluxe" (thin cardboard) maps, so I get used to playing on plexiglass. There are several threads about this here on BGG (some players prefer poster frames that you can buy at craft stores). After a while you get used to it and the "thin" maps aren't really an issue. I did want to say a quick word about "block" wargames and your comment about EE and CC:A. I would say a block wargame has identifying information on only one side of a playing piece to create some kind of fog of war (think stratego or EE). If this type of game sounds interesting to you, I don't think CC:A is a good fit. While it's an excellent game, CC:A isn't meant to be a fog of war game (I'm afraid you got some bad advice from your game store contact). It might be interesting to try playing this way, but you could pick up several second-hand block wargames for reasonable prices here on the BGG marketplace or just through shopping/trading. I found EE to be unusual for block wargames, because of its sheer size and length of gameplay. It's an amazing game, but I think other block wargames are more compact and play in one sitting (about 2-3 hours, some even less). My favorite is Hammer of the Scots, but there are several to pick from. The best source for someone getting started might be the Columbia Games website: they publish a dozen or more block style games. http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/cfg/allblockgamei...One last thing about Roman elephants. The gray (Roman) pieces are sometimes used for other nations...in GMT's "Truceless War" scenarios, they are used to represent rebels within Carthage, for instance. I paged through these scenarios (still no gray elephants) but the point is that these units could very well represent Nubians, Arabs, Indians, or whatever. If you're interested, the GMT Truceless War scenarios are here: http://www.gmtgames.com/living_rules/CC%20Truceless%20War-2....I'm glad to hear you like CC:A (fast becoming a favorite for me). Try out the other block wargames too if you get the chance... Justin
Last edited on 2007-12-09 09:10:53 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Eric Schlais
United States
Minnesota
|
Hmm... I didn't realize fog of war was part of being a block game... I've looked into Hammer of the Scots, and it is definitely on my radar, but it seems like there isn't much replayability... Looking at the map it looks like there isn't much diversity. thanks for the heads up regarding the plexi glass, that's a great idea! I think I will probably be ordering the expansions - does anyone have experience with the map that is included with them? is it a step in the right direction? A couple of things to add to my review - I like the retreat system better in BL. Twice so far I've had light horse (move 4) be destroied because 2 flags are rolled against them and they have to retreat off the board. Am I misinterpreting the rules: I read them as a unit has to retreat a number of hexes equal to the most it can move for each flag it isn't bold against. I should have added that I like the blocks (for lack of a better term) for the ease of setup/takedown - they are also much easier to move around the board then the minis, though this isn't a big enough reason to choose one game over the other. on a totally different topic - are the maps in Europe Engulfed the same quality then C&C:E? (or worse!?!?)
Last edited on 2007-12-09 09:30:31 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Chris Heap Senhouse
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
|
The maps in Europe Engulfed are a lot bigger, but the same kind of cardboard. The art on them is a LOT nicer than CCA - I really dislike the way the title of the game is smack dab in the middle of the battlefield, for starters. However, and you might realize this already, Europe Engulfed is in a whole different league from CCA. I've played a few beginnings of games and once through the tournament scenario, and the rules are significantly more complicated than CCA. The tournament scenario, which is only 8 turns for each player, took over 3 hours online (which rolls dice for you etc.). The full game is 27-32 turns each, so you are talking way over 12 hours. The rules have lots of exceptions and restrictions, and there are various mechanics for small things like U-boats, naval warfare, bombing, supply, political considerations, Italian morale, etc. etc. Chris
Last edited on 2007-12-09 11:20:38 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Ken Takacs
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
|
The next expansions will hopefully be released later this month. The second and third expansions will include better boards (and they can be put side by side for bigger battles).
|
James Griffith
United States
Monkton
Maryland
|
trigeek37 wrote:
I've looked into Hammer of the Scots, and it is definitely on my radar, but it seems like there isn't much replayability... Looking at the map it looks like there isn't much diversity.
It's not really the place to discuss it but go over to the Hammer of the Scots forum and you'll see this in a different light. There is alot of strategy, replayability, and diverse gameplay. Hammer of the Scots is one of the best light wargames for a reason.
|
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
|
1. The Romans have elephants. As Romans. Look around-- you will find them used, as Romans, in a scenario.
(Anyone care to place a wager on this?)
2. The idea of making up new rules, like "drop hand and replace," after 2 plays is missing the point.
Sure, "people like it." People chafe about the restrictions of the cards. It's still missing the point. One of the best parts of CCA is "make the best of what you have."
|
Justin Nordstrom
United States
Drums
Pennsylvania
|
I wouldn't let the snapshops of the Hammer of the Scots map dissuade you. What might not be apparent from the map is how the different color borders (red and black) have tremendous impact on units' movement. As for replayability, I can honestly say this is a non-issue. Every game I've played is different and varied.
|
Roberto Flaibani
Italy
Roma
|
kduke wrote: 1. The Romans have elephants. As Romans. Look around-- you will find them used, as Romans, in a scenario.
(Anyone care to place a wager on this?)
Cynoscephalae - 197 BC, Philip V of Macedonia versus Romans. Romans have one Elephant unit. The scenario is one of the best in Expansion #1, IMHO.
|
Andy Watkins
United Kingdom
Reading
Berkshire
|
trigeek37 wrote: I think I will probably be ordering the expansions - does anyone have experience with the map that is included with them? is it a step in the right direction?
A couple of things to add to my review - I like the retreat system better in BL. Twice so far I've had light horse (move 4) be destroied because 2 flags are rolled against them and they have to retreat off the board. Am I misinterpreting the rules: I read them as a unit has to retreat a number of hexes equal to the most it can move for each flag it isn't bold against. Hi there, CCA is my favourite game of all time, so factor that into my response, yes I also have battlelore and most of the expansions and enjoy it though it is less "tactical" and more chaotic than CCA because of the magic and lack of leaders and evade rules. The map in CCA sucks, it is rubbish, worst map i have ever seen. Does it function? yes, is it ghastly? YES! Use the battlelore map it is the same but much higher quality (I think the lines are in the right place on battlelore map, but not the M44 map) 1st expansion does not have a map at all. 2nd and 3rd expansions due out in the next few weeks are going to have TWO high quality boards so you can play an "Epic" or "Overlord" type game. Please note the configuration is for a long thin board when joined together, like M44, not the short fat board configuration as in Battlelore Epic The light cavalry that got wiped out by flags? You played the rule correctly, what you PROBABLY did wrong is use the cavalry incorrectly. Against almost everything the correct tactic is to evade. The difference between the two is huge. If light cavalry evade they go 2 hexes same as everything else and the attacker has very little chance of damaging them, can't follow up or battle again, basically waste their turn. Light cavalry in this game are mostly useless. About the best thing they can be used for is to get behind the enemy, block his retreat hexes so that a unit that might ordinarily have evaded from a frontal assault is forced to fight. This is a VERY effective tactic and requires a fast moving unit to pull it off, i.e. light cavalry Andy
|
Eric Schlais
United States
Minnesota
|
andywatkins1963 wrote: trigeek37 wrote: The light cavalry that got wiped out by flags? You played the rule correctly, what you PROBABLY did wrong is use the cavalry incorrectly. Against almost everything the correct tactic is to evade. The difference between the two is huge. If light cavalry evade they go 2 hexes same as everything else and the attacker has very little chance of damaging them, can't follow up or battle again, basically waste their turn. Light cavalry in this game are mostly useless. About the best thing they can be used for is to get behind the enemy, block his retreat hexes so that a unit that might ordinarily have evaded from a frontal assault is forced to fight. This is a VERY effective tactic and requires a fast moving unit to pull it off, i.e. light cavalry
Andy
I must be doing something wrong then. I thought evade only allowed a defender to ignore any crossed swords, but color hits, leader hits, and retreats were all treated like normal. is that not the case?
Last edited on 2007-12-10 13:04:23 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Andy Watkins
United Kingdom
Reading
Berkshire
|
Eric,
No not quite right. You ONLY take notice of the colour hit, which means only a 1 in 6 chance per dice of doing any harm.
Ignore swords, leaders and flags.
I think you will find this makes light cavalry and especially light infantry really useful. Remember though auxillia DO NOT evade even though they are green.....
Andy
|
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
|
My opinion disagrees that light cavalry are useless. They are just fragile, especially if thrown into combat. Especially if thrown in early.
Which is pretty close to what history says about them, as a rule.
Actually, the various strengths and weaknesses of the CCA units are-- again, my opinion-- one of the sharpest parts of the design. Talk to people who have played a few games and you'll hear various units picked on-- there's a thread about how Auxilia are just 'easy banners' and other things about elephants, chariots, you name it.
Like my feelings that the game is "about" playing your hand as best you can, so is it about playing your troop types as best works for them. Some are harder to figure out than others.
I will admit, I certainly wondered about the "great Numidian cavalry" I had read so much about-- which did not seem like a potent weapon in CCA. Ahh, but when used correctly...
Played 2nd Beneventum Saturday night with 4 players. Good, see-saw game. We got a lead as Carthage and then the Romans came storming back. We had about 4 one-block units on our base line, just waiting to die, and a Roman HI and leader (3 blocks left) looking like there was little to stop them. We were only one banner from victory but there were no "easy" ones left on the Roman side, and it looked like a slow, painful road to the 3 banners that the Romans needed.
So we made a desperate gamble, used the light cav that we had mostly kept out of line (and evaded when something attacked them) and cut off the HI, attacking it with light troops and a leader bonus. (Like I said, it was desperate). Except it worked. We got just enough hits and just enough retreats that they couldn't ignore. Could not have done it without the speed of the light cav. (4 hexes is a lot on that small board!)
|
Bob Roberts
United States
Unspecified
|
FWIW the DBM army lists list elephants in the Polybian, Marian and Early Imperial (under Claudius) Roman army lists.
I could probably find more detailed info if I got out of the chair and went digging in the books, but if it was good enough to make the DBM lists I'll buy it.
|
Adam Parker
Australia
Unspecified
|
trigeek37 wrote:
Cons:
the biggest for me is the board. mine is 100% junk. This is my first GMT game, and I don't know if I have been spoiled by DOW & FF, but the game board is very, very disappointing. For $65 I expect a lot more. I was OK with putting the stickers on the blocks, but that board... huge disappointment.
Could not agree more. Got my games (CCA and Exp 1) today and really was shocked by that map. I mean I'm used to GMT's paper maps but at least they lay flat! Plexiglass does work but on a tip elsewhere I went back to my shop and bought 2 Battlelore Epic shrink-wrapped maps. Never played Battlelore before and bless Days of Wonder for those maps - and kudos for creating them unblemished by marketing words and era-specific icons. They're perfect and saved CCA for me. I'd have returned the games otherwise. And that's GMT's "Deluxe" map!
Last edited on 2007-12-29 08:32:43 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
|
|
|
|
Posted Sun Dec 9, 2007 5:42 am
