these two games use the same system.

Are they interchangeable with each other or is there a huge difference between the two? Is the fantasy "tacked on" or is it original?

Not really interchangeable, though they use a similar system.

I wouldn't say that fantasy is tacked on in BattleLore, but it is an optional system. You could play BattleLore using straight medieval rules if you like.

They are both Commands and Colours games, but each of the CnC games have quite a few different tweaks and modifications. I weighed them up over 6 months via reviews and rulebooks and went with BattleLore (at least at as the first game I bought).

I really like BattleLore, I think its got the most well rounded and well tweaked battle system of the Command and Colours series (my friend has Memoir and Ancients).

For example... "Battleback" is nuanced in BattleLore, as it only effects "bold" troops, but in Ancients I found it more heavy handed and clunky, as every troop gets to battleback (if you attack them they get to attack you back on your turn) which effectively nullifies tactical choices in my opinion as there is never a good time to attack a heavier unit with a lighter one in Ancients, as they will always turn around and pound you for your insolence on your turn, effectively giving them a free go. But in Battlelore you can actually take advantage of your lighter troops to attack heavier units that are out of position and isolated. Because isolated troops arent bold, they need to wait until next turn to get the chance to attack you.

So yeah, thats one example from Ancients/Battlelore, and there are a few from Memoir/Battlelore, that mean they are not really interchangable in terms of their "feel". The CnC system is quite simple so the small tweaks can make a big difference in my opinion.

By the way the terrain in Battlelore is still as important as in Memoir I think and a big part of the game. And the actual components of Battlelore to me look the best by far.

If you were going to choose one, I'd just pick the one that you like in terms of theme though. They are all good games.

To expound on this a bit: while Lore is technically optional in that the game can be played without it, my experience has been that that is a very dry way to play. For me, when playing BattleLore, having the Lore deck is indispensible unless getting new players adjusted to the game is the goal.

There are the Medieval Lore rules (to which Kent may be referring) that are a fun and completely viable alternative (again, my opinion) to the full war council rules, especially when playing in a more "historical" fashion.

I would not describe any of the adaptations, to date, that BattleLore has made to the C&C system as tacked on, rather as well integrated. Remains to be seen how Heroes and any campaign expansions fit, but I expect them to fit well. For example, the battle back mechanics work well for the thematic purposes of the middle ages warfare, where outnumbering and overpowering the opponent is rewarded, as is sticking together - save for the gambit (or rescue ) of valor that a Lore play may afford. As Dann pointed out, this differs from how the bb is treated in C&C:Ancients, in that Lighter units attacking unsupported (but presumably still in formation) Heavier units there have a much higher immediate risk than a similar situation in BattleLore. Anyway, most of the differences do reflect the theme and don't seem, to me, to be simply tacked on for the sake of having differences.

this may be somewhat helpful. or not...
I own battlelore and have read much about m44.

I hardly got around to using Lore Decks in BL...using mostly just Medieval rules...the game is "ok"

then I found Heroscape, and pound for pound love it way more than the BL C&C system. with that said, I'm intrigued to start playing more BL now with the Lore, as I think it may be "essential"to the theme of the full game. Otherwise it's just a dice fest. But a dice fest with a little M:tG-ish card play is something else.

that's my 2 cents.

To call Battlelore "just a dicefest" is highly simplistic. There is so much more going on, even without Lore. The C&C system can cause a myriad of decisions about when and where, and a general that just moves straight forward without thinking about support will quickly lose. That said, the two games are very different despite their similarities.

I fear I have to disagree here. In my mind the battleback-mechanic in Ancients is far from being 'clunky' and I prefer it. I simply do not comprehend why a heavy armored troop should just stand still and do nothing while being beaten by a lightly armored unit (the better mobility alone of the lighter one is no justification, because better mobility is not the same as a surprise attack which would explain a missing battleback) which is the BL-style.
Besides there are several reason for a lighter army to attack a heavier one: to finish the heavier injured one off, to exploit its positioning at the border of the map, to use a supporting leader (another mechanic, which BL lacks) etc.

I would decide based on what theme you prefer: WW2 or fantasy/medieval.

OK, first, disclaimer: I have not played Ancients. It's the only C&C game I haven't played. Having said that...



The problem is, the CnC system isn't depicting combat at a level where you can really make this argument.

You might as well ask why a unit would not always attack another unit that's touching it, regardless of whether a previous attack took place or not... The fact is that the mechanics of any of these games make this very situation reasonably likely - you may not have a card in that unit's section, you may have a card in the section but more important units to spend the card's orders on. Why wouldn't a unit always be able to attack another unit that's that close, regardless of what cards it's owner has? If you can't comprehend why a unit wouldn't always be able to battle back, then why does this situation not bother you?

Regardless of this point, I can think of at least one valid reason why support would allow a Battleback. For instance, without support the unit is too concerned with accepting the attack and not getting cut to pieces and/or having it's line totally broken to make any kind of effective counterattack. When a unit is supported it has the benefit of friendly nearby troops to relieve that pressure (or, alternately to put that pressure on the attacking unit), allowing it to make an effective counterattack. Effective is a key word here. These units represent a sizable number of "men" and an effective attack is not one or two guys swinging their swords at one or two guys in the opposing line but is the entire line of soldiers making an effective and concerted attack on the other line of soldiers. Commanding and controlling that many people into doing that effectively while under serious attack/pressure is NOT a simple task. A good chunk of the premise of the CnC system is showing the difficulties of command and control at this level of combat, so this really isn't a stretch, IMO.

Back to strictly mechanics, and again, not having played C&C I really can't say how it plays, but my gut reaction is to prefer Battlelore's method. The realism of a unit taking, or not taking a counterattack is hard to argue either way so even discounting that, the BL system encourages units to try to stay together, which results in the player needing to make interesting choices. Do the three green units abandon the red with their faster speed? What are the advantages and disadvantages to each unit of doing that? I find that this comes up in many of the BL games I've played and I would really miss this if it were handled the way C&C handles it.



I'd agree here. Of course the other possibility is to get both. The two systems have their similarities and in addition to which theme is preferable there are subtle differences in the gameplay. I'd say that maneuver in BL is more important while in M44, the use of terrain is more important. This is not to say that manuever is not important in M44, just where I see the focal point of each system.

Also worth noting is complexity. If you fully trick out both games, they're at a similar level of complexity, though I think BL is probably slightly more complicated at that level. If you take each base game by itself, BL is a full level above M44 in terms of complexity.

This interpretation of how the CnC system works is a little too simplistic. The CnC system is more abstract than most wargames. Just because there is no battleback does not imply that they are standing still doing nothing. Perhaps their defense was taken into account during the other units offensive roll.

I prefer to look at the units as a measuring stick for the change in morale and damage between the two units -- not necessarily an absolute (such as hit points).

I don't know if this explanation makes sense to everyone or not -- it's hard to type what I'm trying to say.

Geoff

I have been told that medieval troops were not typically that well trained as compared to ancient troops. From what I've read, this difference is the reason that bb has to be earned in BL whereas it's automatic in Ancients.

Sounds plausible, though I really don't know.

Sure, it depicts ancient battles at an abstract level - at the cost of details and maybe realism. - I don't mind the latter and I am really fond of the CnC-series for its accessibility and fast playability. - Therefore you could always argue which element of reality should have been taken into account and which sacrificed on the altar of playability (and fun). So a game can handle battleback either way or the other. I just don't see how CnC:A's is more 'clunky' than BL's.



Well, I have always imagined that units standing in adjacent hexs are not necessary 'touching' or engaged in melee combat, just so close to engage if commanded. Hence I do not have a 'touching'-problem (ok, that was verbalized clunky...). I would only be bothered if I would assume units engaged in melee combat and units don't are in identical positions. But I guess depicting the fact that melee combat is taking place by moving the two attending units in one hex would have seemed 'clunky' to me. So I am satisfied with the way CnC:A handles it.
I too have imagined that the 'fog of war' and the problems of command and communication in a frentic battle are the reason for the command cards.



This is the reason the BL-rules provide and I have got no serious problem with them and it is by far no 'stretch'. I simply prefer CnC:A's battleback for the mentioned reasons (e.g. one block of infantery attacking 4 blocks of heavy armored infantery next to another 4-block-heavy-unit and the attacked one is not bold and organized enough to at least try to counterattack does not persuade me too much).



You have to consider all this in CnC:A too.



I agree and if complexity is an argument you should take the quoted statement into account.

Enjoy your games!
Philipp

Clunky was probably a poor choice of words by the fellow who started this particular sub-discussion. I do agree with him in in principle... I like BL's system that encourages units to stay together to get bonuses and I don't think I'd like it as much if one of those bonuses were automatic for all units all the time, but clunky is not the word.



And I fully admit to not having played it yet, though, as it's the only CnC game I haven't played I'd really like to. Still, I'd assume it's definitely got plenty of depth in comparison to the others, consensus seems to be that it's the deepest of the series and I assume there must be a reason for that.

All I'm saying is I like the battleback system in BL because of the way it encourages units to move in support of one another and I wouldn't like BL as much if it worked the way that C&C does.

Hey, I did not intend to sound as resolute as I might have. Sorry about that.
I wholeheartedly agree with you: I like that encouragement too. In CnC:A it is done amongst others by granting boni to units connected to units with leaders.

Likewise.



This sounds good and makes me want to try it even more. A friend of mine owns this one so I'll definitely get a chance to give it a run sometime.