Game: Commands & Colors: Ancients Expansion Pack #3: The Roman Civil Wars

Thread: Re: A brief review of EPIC ancients one on one

Commando719 — 2008-11-08T22:39:45+00:00

One other bit:
We've noticed that, with a larger amount of banners to be had in the EPIC/Armageddon game, the temptation to "cherry pick" is lower. (We think of "cherry picking" as making structurally unsound attacks to 'pick off' a banner.)

So, that's another advantage of EPIC scenarios, at least during the main battle phase!

Thread: EPIC Scenario X

Commando719 — 2008-11-03T14:41:06+00:00

Colleagues,
As you know, Carole and I have been seeking additional EPIC scenarios. We've adapted "Scenario X" to suit. Our adaptation is below--it is simple, even simplistic, but so far it has performed well.

0) Use two boards in Epic setup.
1) Use the setup/deployment rules as given.
2) Double the number of terrain tiles used for setup.
3) Double the number of non-leader units for each army. (This may exceed the blocks available in the game, we substitute as needed.)
4) Add one additional leader (we think the scenario X rules call for 2 or 3 generals in all cases; there's a bit of ambiguity in our reading of the rules) -- making 3 or 4 leaders total.
5) Use the "Armageddon" definition of "Command": Command = cards in hand + # of living leaders on the board.
6) Victory is 10 or 12 banners, by agreement.
7) As always, we play "tournament style" to resolve unequal army strengths.

Our first game was Neo-Assyrian (Chariots!) against Alexandrian Macedonian (Phalanxes!). In both games, the Assyrians didn't stand a chance--but tournament style evened the overall tournament out.

Any commentary on this adaptation would be very welcome.
DHJ

Thread: Re: Published Official Epic scenarios on CCAncients.net

BradyLS — 2008-10-25T17:04:01+00:00

Nor is there grid system that labels the hexes.

However, folks could simply pick up counting the hexes along the rows where the standard map leaves off.

Thread: Re: Published Official Epic scenarios on CCAncients.net

Caesar — 2008-10-24T08:15:37+00:00

Allen is right...
GMT printed C&C:ANCIENTS logo only on "standard size" board.
If you flip a couple of maps to create an "Epic size" board, you will notice that NO LOGO is present over there!!
(I've played an EPIC scenario yesterday night, so I'm sure about this).

Thread: Re: Published Official Epic scenarios on CCAncients.net

kduke — 2008-10-23T19:28:18+00:00

Why not?

Thread: Re: Published Official Epic scenarios on CCAncients.net

AllenDoum — 2008-10-23T17:18:02+00:00

One note: The Epic boards do not have the game name on them.

Thread: Re: Published Official Epic scenarios on CCAncients.net

Barry Kendall — 2008-10-23T14:26:14+00:00

Thanks Alessandro. Good stuff!

Thread: Published Official Epic scenarios on CCAncients.net

Caesar — 2008-10-23T13:50:06+00:00

Hi Guys,
I've added to CCAncients.net Scenario Database the first 4 Official Epic scenarios by GMT Games.

Here you will find direct link:
* EPIC01 Cannae (216 BC)
* EPIC02 Ilipa (206 BC)
* EPIC03 Raphia (217 BC)
* EPIC04 Zama (202 BC)

Hope you'll enjoy playing them.
Alessandro

Thread: Re: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

franchi — 2008-10-21T07:00:58+00:00

Thanks, I had been using the Roman blocks for the Spartans, but "true" Spartans do look better!

A pity that Columbia blocks, very easy to buy, are not GMT's size...

Thread: Re: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

Sokadr — 2008-10-20T23:53:37+00:00

I used your fine example, franchi. However, for units, I just used regular sized blocks painted black instead of the banner sized blocks. Great labels for the Spartan units, btw.

Thread: Re: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

Profesor Mora — 2008-10-20T19:36:13+00:00

Another idea will be to use two armies by default in all battles, the ones with more blocks (grey and red roman armies).

GMT could add enough red and grey blocks to cover any epic battle and any army.

This way we could play all epic scenarios with a limited numbers of blocks.

Thread: Re: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

franchi — 2008-10-20T19:03:11+00:00

Sokadr wrote:
About a year ago I decided to create the Spartan Army (details are in the Greek CC:A expansion files) for my CC:A games...
The Spartan Army turned out great, btw!
Where? I have been searching in Exp#1 folders and couldn't find anything.

I made one Spartan army, mostly with the banner blocks plus some spare ones spray-painted black:

]]>
The details are HERE. I would like to see other "Spartan solutions"!

Thread: Re: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

BradyLS — 2008-10-20T18:38:56+00:00

BTW, bags of C&C:A blocks go for $20 for EACH army from GMT. At this time, bags for EXP #1 are not available. Don't know when they will be...

Thread: Re: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

Sokadr — 2008-10-15T02:18:37+00:00

About a year ago I decided to create the Spartan Army (details are in the Greek CC:A expansion files) for my CC:A games. After going through all my extra blocks, I determined I needed only a few of certain types to complete the new army. I called GMT and discovered they will only sell the blocks in the groupings available for the existing games. I compared and learned I would have what I needed (and more) from the bag of blocks sold for the third expansion. Not too efficient on our end but I can understand why GMT does it that way.

The Spartan Army turned out great, btw!

Thread: Re: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

BradyLS — 2008-10-12T06:25:26+00:00

I learned awhile ago that if you want to buy spare stuff (blocks, cards, boards, etc.) from GMT, the best thing to do is call or email with a specific request and ask for availability and price--even if you don't see it listed anywhere. They'll reply with a 'yes' or 'no' if the item is available and give a price. If you already have an account with them, then it's easy to conclude a sale.

Generally, spare parts ain't cheap from GMT. But I've purchased enough spare parts to make each expansion in my collection for C&C:A a standalone game. Pricey, but well worth it, IMO. Purchasing spare blocks and stickers for epic would overtop that considerably.

I like the Columbia blocks idea, but maybe I'll just go ahead and sticker up the spare blocks from the C&C:A sets I already have and have them available for Epic...

Image

Gameluis — 2008-10-11T23:03:38+00:00

Although forgotten or even unknown to most people, actor Stephen Boyd has appeared in several games´ covers

Thread: Re: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

Thunder — 2008-10-11T15:42:58+00:00

To expand on your idea, it would be great if GMT offered blank blocks in the Epic Expansion exactly for this purpose. The blanks could sub in for any unit.

2 Archers in a hex and two blanks, or 2 Med Infantry and the same two blanks. As long as you had enough blanks of each size, this would work great.

Hmmm, Columbia Games offers spare blocks for sale, maybe they are compatible. I can't find spare blocks for sale on the GMT website.

Peace

Thread: Re: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

franchi — 2008-10-11T12:39:33+00:00

BradyLS wrote:
Rather than filling out a unit with the requisite block type, bring it up short a block and insert a block of a similar type in the fourth space. In play, it should be the unit's first casualty.Brady, good idea.

I played yesterday my first Epic scenario:

]]>
Like I said here, one of the few cons I found was the mixing of the four colors when lines penetrated (see the Seleucid left flank in the picture). But your idea may introduce other kind of confusion, with different troop types (and sizes for elephants) in the same hex.

A similar solution would be to complete the units needed with blocks of the same type but of the complementary color, that would be the unit's first casualty, as you propose. So the army front row would be of a uniform color, and the other color blocks in the back rows would disappear after the first combats.

Next Epic will be even better!

Thread: Re: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

harzal — 2008-10-11T09:28:30+00:00

Not a bad idea.

Too sad GMT and Mr. Borg are changing the rules for the Epic scenarios so they can sell us a new expansion (number 5) for $55 which brings nothing useful but the new manual and scenarios and a NEW set of Epic cards that will be quite hard to replicate.

Thread: Block substitution for Epic scenarios

BradyLS — 2008-10-11T06:56:54+00:00

I've wanted to pull the trigger on buying enough blocks and stickers so that when I play epic scenarios, I'll have all the pieces I need for whatever armies are facing one another. However, I can't justify the cost. And sometimes it's a bit of a hassle to dig through a second or third set of blocks to round out a side's forces.

But I have hit upon a solution that works pretty well for extending the forces for folks like me that just have one of everything: block substitution.

Probably many of you do this already, but the concept is simple enough. Rather than filling out a unit with the requisite block type, bring it up short a block and insert a block of a similar type in the fourth space. In play, it should be the unit's first casualty.

For example: Don't have enough bow units? Take a bow blocks from each of three bow units and fill the fourth space for your four bow units with a slinger. Or a penny or whatever.

Just be sure to let your opponent how you are rounding out your forces and learn how he may be rounding out his, too.

Short on elephants? Heavy chariot blocks might work.

Short on Heavy Infantry? Insert some war machine blocks or perhaps some spare Mediums.

Bow Cavalry are good for extending Light Cavalry units.

Spare Light Foot are good for auxilia while spare slingers and bows can round out one another.

You get the idea.

Image

franchi — 2008-10-10T19:10:02+00:00

Ready for solitaire Epic Raphia! I need a longer table...

Thread: Re: Hard Mounted Board

AllenDoum — 2008-09-22T19:41:45+00:00

dwrigley wrote:
thank you for that recommendation ... I will go for #2
Your welcome. You realize that you are already sliding down a slippery slope, don't you?

Thread: Re: EPIC Elephants

kduke — 2008-09-22T18:36:11+00:00

Someone just reposted this on CsW and it seemed like a new question again. I was surprised to find we (including me!) were talking about this last July.

Part of me thinks the "choose to rampage" thing just can't be right. It's too much of an advantage.

But, there are times when it would certainly be a good thing to be able to choose a unit to retreat. That's one of the key elements in those "may choose to ignore a flag" situations-- sometimes you don't want to ignore the flag and are happy to move.

This could be the case in the initiative roll too.

Part of me thinks having an elephant in a spot where its rampage would be a good thing suggests that section will be a high priority anyway- Elephants with lots of enemies around them tend to not live very long. So, to some degree, we might not see the question happen very often.

Lacking an official ruling to the contrary, I'd have to say that the owner gets to choose which unit retreats.

HOWEVER, there has just been a question about something similar which eventually pointed out that, if you got 2 flags on an elephant, it does NOT "rampage twice," but just does the normal rampage and then has to retreat 2 hexes. That gave a new perspective...

When elephants get hit with a flag, they rampage, THEN retreat. If they got hit by 2 or 3 flags, they rampage once, then retreat however much they're supposed to retreat.

Ergo, Rampage and Retreat are, to a degree, separate actions. Which means, in this case, there is nothing in the "must retreat one unit" rules for Epic that SAYS the elephant has to rampage first.

Seems a pretty clean way of handling the situation... choose the elephant if you want to (if it's retreat is blocked, that still might be to your advantage), but no rampage in this situation.

Thread: Re: Hard Mounted Board

kduke — 2008-09-22T17:18:37+00:00

#2 is a very useful and interesting addition (some very good scenarios).

#3 is good to add to #2-- extra board, Epic, and many more good scenarios (including some of the Rome V Barbarian battles you probably expected to find in #2.)

The Battlelore board is actually suitable for play as well, altho the reverse side is not-- their "epic" uses a different board combination, giving a battlefield a little wider and a little deeper, where CCA epic is the same depth but twice as wide.

GMT may simply SELL the board as a stand alone item, for that matter.

But you really are getting a lot of good things in Exp #2.

I would agree with the previous- just getting Exp #3 would be of much less value... and probably a lot of frustration.

Thread: Re: Hard Mounted Board

dwrigley — 2008-09-22T16:31:03+00:00

thank you for that recommendation ... I will go for #2

Thread: Re: Hard Mounted Board

AllenDoum — 2008-09-22T15:32:37+00:00

You would be better off with #2 than #3 if you were only getting one. #2 contains two full armies, the barbarians and the red Roman army, and scenarios. #3 Only contains additional blocks for both the gray and red Roman armies, and the scenarios could not be played with just those blocks and the ones you already have.

Also the Epic rules in #3 require both boards, and blocks from the other expansions. They could not be played with just the base game and #3.

Thread: Re: Hard Mounted Board

jearles — 2008-09-22T10:59:52+00:00

Yes, both Expansion #2 and Expansion #3 include a mounted gameboard. The two of them can be combined for Epic scenarios.

Thread: Re: Hard Mounted Board

Stargaze — 2008-09-22T10:57:49+00:00

Sure. It has the basic board on one side and half of the epic board on the other.

Thread: Hard Mounted Board

dwrigley — 2008-09-22T10:35:57+00:00

Is the board in this expansion suitable to replace the thin board in the base game?
After only a few plays, the base game board is looking a little dodgy from all the reverse bending it receives.
I have thought about a plastic cover ... but too much of that and I might become a war-geek

Image

Antz — 2008-09-05T17:24:48+00:00

Sheet 2

Image

Antz — 2008-09-05T17:24:06+00:00

Sheet 1

Image

Antz — 2008-09-05T17:22:56+00:00

Sheet 1

Thread: Re: A brief review of EPIC ancients one on one

Commando719 — 2008-09-02T15:57:58+00:00

Greetings, Alessandro,

Thank you for your comment, and thank you for providing the link to the Armageddon scenarios.

We have played two of the scenarios, both "tournament style": Cannae and Indus.

In Cannae, the tournament was a complete tie: 8 to 7 (Romans) versus 8 to 7 (Romans again). Very tight battle in both cases.

In Indus, I (Scythian) used the chariots and elephants (with the aid of Mounted Charge and Order Heavy cards) to devastate the Seleucid heavies, causing no end of consternation and table pounding on Carole's part. Scythians won, 6 to 4. Carole, taking the Scythians, proceeded to ALSO destroy the heavies in the center, using...of course...two Mounted charges! She won, 6 to 3. The tournament came down to ONE flag!

Obviously, I highly recommend the Armageddon scenarios!

DHJ (and CLP)

Thread: Re: A brief review of EPIC ancients one on one

Caesar — 2008-09-02T07:37:16+00:00

Commando719 wrote:

Overall, we give the Epic scenarios a major "two thumbs up", and encourage others to give them a try. If, someday, we manage to get six more buddies to help us play the official way, we'll let you know.

Hi Dean,
your review was complete and really well done.
Good Job.

By now I haven't tested Epic scenario yet, but I have to say that you gave me a boost to try it as soon as possible.

In the meantime you should have a look at this link
http://www.ccancients.net/Maps/ARMAGEDDON/index.html
ARMAGEDDON is a sort of "editing" of some official scenarios (by Richard Irwing).
These scenarios double the number of units and are played on a larger map.

You could browse the maps online and also download PDF version of each.

Let me know if the "fit your needs".

CIAO
Alessandro

Thread: Re: A brief review of EPIC ancients one on one

kduke — 2008-09-02T05:05:35+00:00

The dynamics of the true multi-player version really make for an interesting game (altho you will likely find the time increases still more.)

When you get the chance, let me recommend two changes.. (this is assuming you play the full "4 per side" way).

1. Give every player a leader. Some scenarios do not spread the leaders out evenly-- there are two with FOUR leaders but not all of the 3 players gets even one. Fix that, and the simplest way is to just GIVE each player a leader and let him/her put the leader anywhere in the section they control. If you have a 4th leader, let the overall commander handle that one, and place as desired. (That can be extra interesting.)

2. Give every player the option for the "initiative" roll if NO unit in their section is activated by any of the cards played. There are certain cards which-- per the rules-- negate the option for section leader initiative and it's a bitter pill for the individual player. It's one die for a chance to activate one unit and maybe hurt yourself-- not a big thing, but it helps mentally.

Little things that keep in mind that we have 16 eyes watching the board and 16 hands looking to roll dice, but only 4 of each are controlling the cards.

Thread: A brief review of EPIC ancients one on one

Commando719 — 2008-09-01T21:52:26+00:00

A review from Dean and Carole about our experience with Epic ancients in "one on one" mode:

Preface: We're old hands at the C&C system, from Battle Cry to Memoir to Ancients. We both agree that the system works best in the "Ancients" genre. We've not tried the multi-player version of Epic (yet!).

And now we come to Epic scenarios: In sum, we're entirely taken by the Epic scenarios. Carole: "They have brought to life what these battles were really about." For myself, I can hardly imagine going back to a single board game.

So we'll start with CONS and then describe PROS of Epic.

CONS:
- Longer set up time. We use the Plano tackle box solution to storing and finding units, which helps, but we estimate that set up easily takes twice as long, and requires a bigger table, of course. It can get a bit tedious.

- Attention to cards. The Epic scenarios demand that you really pay attention to the cards in your hand and how you might use them. In that sense it is less obvious what card to play, hence a little slower.

- Fewer scenarios. We've commented on this before, and we can only assume that over time this will improve.

- Cards shift in relative importance. Call this a CON, I suppose. "Double time" used to be a lot more useful in a single-board game. We have to "re-learn" how to value particular cards.

PROS:
- Game time. We'd estimate that an Epic game takes maybe 1 to 1.5x as long to play. So: Bigger game, but not a lot more time commitment.

- Card/hand management. The ability to play three/draw two in Epic creates the strategic trade-off: Burn cards and reduce your future options OR save cards? Play a single card and ignore sections of the board? And so on. This feature adds a layer of strategic depth to the game that wasn't there before, and is a big plus factor.

- More tactical options. This is bit hard to explain, but the larger space to maneuver combined with multiple card plays means that the tactical situations are more complex and interesting. We've spent more time worrying about flanks and maneuvering cavalry in Epic games than in single-board games.

- Luck evens out. It is not uniformly the case that "more die rolls implies that luck evens out" (For the statisticians out there, consider the Polya Process, among others.) But, it appears that the luck element *is* reduced by the larger board size and army size. We're not entirely of uniform opinion on this point. We play with the suggested two decks, and clearly there are more die rolls overall--so luck is still a factor in any particular game, but I think its role is reduced and Carole is skeptical on that point.

So far we have always played "tournament mode"--switch sides and count total number of banners in both games to determine the overall winner. This mitigates the Epic scenarios' major two weaknesses: Its set up time and the fact that scenarios are not always balanced. (We agree, of course, that a scenario that replicates history may not be "game balanced". Tournament mode simply solves this for us.)

Overall, we give the Epic scenarios a major "two thumbs up", and encourage others to give them a try. If, someday, we manage to get six more buddies to help us play the official way, we'll let you know.

Image

nerotora — 2008-08-24T21:23:23+00:00

Colline Gate

Image

nerotora — 2008-08-24T21:22:41+00:00

Colline Gate

Thread: Re: Additional Epic scenarios and vassal Epic? (posted also in CC:A base game)

nerotora — 2008-08-23T19:54:39+00:00

As far as I know there are no epic scenarios available for VASSAL.

I don't remember if C3i, the official GMT magazine has offered any epic scenario. I think not.

I have not tried the epic version of the game yet but I am looking forward to. Especially after reading comments like yours.

My impression is that only a minority of players have so far tried epic scenarios and they are not as popular as the standard ones.

In any case I would also be very much interested in a list of all the available epic scenarios.

Thread: Additional Epic scenarios and vassal Epic? (posted also in CC:A base game)

Commando719 — 2008-08-23T14:01:28+00:00

Greetings, fellow ancients gamers,

Having now played several Epic games (1 on 1), I may never go back to a single board--the level of strategic gameplay has increased dramatically, adding card/hand management decisions and greater tactical depth to an already great game!

Which leads to the dilemma: Where can one find additional Epic scenarios?

I have the four provided in the expansions, and I have the ones posted on http://www.thewargamer.com/ccancients/.

Are there any other sources of Epic scenarios that I have missed?
And, additionally, has Epic ancients been implemented in vassal?

Thanking you in advance for any guidance,
DHJ

Thread: Re: So what's the best EPIC game to play??

Dave Sokolowski — 2008-07-20T05:37:11+00:00

Excellent! Many thanks to my fellow Ancient players.

I shall be sure to update with a session report. Cheers!

Thread: Re: So what's the best EPIC game to play??

kduke — 2008-07-19T14:07:34+00:00

I would also second Raphia, for the same reason.

Epic games last significantly longer than regular scenarios, and while you could still do the "play each side and add banners" style, I think that will happen less with Epic.

When you look at number of leaders, command/card hand and units on the board, this one is the closest of the first 4, with Zama not far behind.

Thread: Re: So what's the best EPIC game to play??

Minedog3 — 2008-07-19T09:14:48+00:00

I have to recommend Raphia for 2 reasons;

1. It is a close game, my game and a review of a Spanish game both came out 13:12 (but different sides).

2. Both sides have Elephants.. Elephant vs Elephant, how cool is that..

Thread: So what's the best EPIC game to play??

Dave Sokolowski — 2008-07-19T04:38:50+00:00

I'll have the glorious privilege of having 8 players available to play an EPIC game in two weeks - what's the best one to play? I've not had a chance to play any of them but have all the expansions... any recommendations?

I cannot wait to play this game with my friends. We're all ready...

Thread: EPIC Raphia

Minedog3 — 2008-07-18T01:59:35+00:00

Played a 6 player game of EPIC Raphia last night, where the Seluccids take on the Ptolomaics. Elephant to Elephant combat.

Firstly, a warning. On the scenario card the text is all correct, but the block colours in the centre army inventory is reversed. The Seluccids are Brown & Tan, the Ptolomies Blue & Red (but we used Grey). Draw on arrows.

Initial action concentrated on the flanks and the Ptolomies drew ahead 3-0 on the basis of two Mounted Charges ( in essence this was a Sel:Move Light Units, Ptol: Mount Charge, Sel: Mounted Charge, Ptol: Counterattack (Mounted Charge).

So we had elephants charging everywhere, rampaging and generally doing stuff. The centre was still on both sides (as part of my children's bedtime strategy).

As the dust settled, the score was 6:6 with the Seluccid right flank looking thin, and the leaderless left flank running out of cards. At this point the children were abed, the elephants mostly destroyed, so time for the centres to move up. A Double time closed the Seluccid Heavy Infantry with the Ptolomy front line, followed by a Move Heavy Units (one to each flank, 5 in the centre). I've rarely seem a more devastating assault. 4 Seluccid Heavys absolutely routed the 4 Ptolomy Heavys, annihilated one with 5 hits, put a hit and 4 retreats on another. Nothing left in front of them, which was a pity as my Clash of Shields card was therefore useless.

At this point it was 11:10 Seluccid way, and the Ptolomies moved across all three fronts, and killed off stray units on the left and right. There was a tense moment when a Light Cavalry could have advanced and battled with the right result, but as it turned out the Ptolomies came up short at 12:11. It was now go for broke time, and with few decent cards to play, a move 2 units on both flanks and a counterattack in centre (4 units). The bowmen on the left flank ganged up to surround and destroy a Auxillary, and the centre Heavy Infantry managed to catch and destroy a damaged Medium Infantry. Selluccid victory 13:12.. doesn't come closer than that.

This was our first Epic Scenario, and I really enjoyed it. It is a bit more "wargamey" than most C&C Ancients which are over just as you start to get momentum. We actually had time to attack on the flanks, recoil and reform, and then drive up the centre.

Thread: Re: EPIC Elephants

Minedog3 — 2008-07-18T01:32:12+00:00

kduke wrote:
I believe the FAQ says that elephant stampede works normally with all adjacent units.

can't see it at http://www.ccancients.net/Rules/FAQs/units.html
or http://www.thewargamer.com/ccancients/modules/Official_Ancie...

kduke wrote:
Elephants can attack other elephants and have a specific die roll number when they do (altho I have never seen it in a game so far).

yes, 3 dice when they attack other elephants. No problem there and done it often. The "realism" question is whether elephants can rampage and trample other elephants. Rampage is 2 dice, and is not a "CC attack" as such. The rampage rules provide no exception, so we presume they do. Just seems weird.

kduke wrote:
The intriguing part of your question is that the owner can CHOOSE which unit retreats, which might make for an interesting situation.

Seems contrary to choose to rampage, but pretty sweet if you can manage it.

Thread: Re: EPIC Elephants

kduke — 2008-07-17T22:52:28+00:00

I believe the FAQ says that elephant stampede works normally with all adjacent units.

Elephants can attack other elephants and have a specific die roll number when they do (altho I have never seen it in a game so far).

The intriguing part of your question is that the owner can CHOOSE which unit retreats, which might make for an interesting situation.

Thread: EPIC Elephants

Minedog3 — 2008-07-17T18:35:30+00:00

In EPIC battles, if a field commander has no card he can roll for initiative.

If the initiative roll is a flag, he must retreat one unit of his choice.

If he chooses an elephant, does the elephant rampage first?

Do elephants rampage against other elephants? The rules make no except so we presumed so, but seems a little odd to "trample" other elephants.

Thread: Re: First impressions of a game using the "epic" setup

kduke — 2008-07-17T03:49:19+00:00

Not to mention the whining and taunting phases.

Thread: Re: First impressions of a game using the "epic" setup

BradyLS — 2008-07-11T07:52:08+00:00

In an 8-player Epic game, the overall commander is the one driving card play. Generally He may play 1, 2, or 3 Command Cards from his hand and issue them to his subordinates in the three sections for execution. Subordinates that do not receive a card may roll a die to see if they may activate a unit, retreat a unit, or take a casualty from a unit.

Less often, the overall commander may play a single card which may allow him to activate units equal to his command directly from among all or particular units across the board. In this case, if the player in a section has no units activated by the overall commander, he must stand pat.

...So there are occasions of down-time for players in on some turns. That's not all bad. New players can watch and learn and experienced players may sometimes offer a bit of advice to a neighbor.

Thread: Re: First impressions of a game using the "epic" setup

BrenoK — 2008-07-11T04:30:48+00:00

kduke wrote:
And you say you're glad you did not buy "expansionS"- plural? So-- because you found Epic not to your liking, you're glad you did not get Rome v. Barbarians? Say what?

Well, to play epic you need both #2 and #3 expansions... Sure, some other things come in those expansions, but the ability to play with two maps is definitely what comes to attention first, I think, when a person reads about these expansions. At least that was the case with me.

I said that playing with 8 people sounds silly because this is by no means a heavy game, I don't see all 8 people being entirely engaged on the match at all times. In the battle of Ilipa the romans barely moved his middle section (since his was weaker than the opponent's), so that player would just sit and watch, mostly (unless there's something my manual-reading friend didn't tell me about this).

Thread: Re: First impressions of a game using the "epic" setup

kduke — 2008-07-10T10:28:11+00:00

Yeah, if we were scoring this posting, I would deduct points for reading the suggested way to play the game and dismissing it out of hand. They say do X. You say "it's absurdly silly," and then knock the game as being weak.

You're missing the point.

While there are folks who play Epic with just 2 (and in fact, I've read several postings from people who do it that way and say they like the game MORE), it is the interaction of multiple players which is the core of the game's purpose. Played with only 2, OF COURSE it's "more of the same only bigger." Duh!

Try Diplomacy with just two and let us know how much you like it!

And you say you're glad you did not buy "expansionS"- plural? So-- because you found Epic not to your liking, you're glad you did not get Rome v. Barbarians? Say what?

Yes, many of the new scenarios are quite good. The barbarian army is very different from the others and an excellent addition to the system. And RCW's extra blocks, terrain, and scenarios (both for the civil war and additional barbarian battles) are definitely worth the small additional price.

Thread: Re: First impressions of a game using the "epic" setup

Minedog3 — 2008-07-10T08:54:39+00:00

BrenoK wrote:
(he also said that the manual recommends playing this with 8 people, which is absurdly silly).

that would cut down on the setup time..

Thread: Re: First impressions of a game using the "epic" setup

AllenDoum — 2008-07-09T05:30:01+00:00

BrenoK wrote:
(he also said that the manual recommends playing this with 8 people, which is absurdly silly).
Actually, playing with 8 is what is reccommended for the Epic game. Haven't yet had that opportunity, but I am certainly looking forward to it. I think it would be a good way for 2 experienced players to introduce the game to up to 6 newcomers.

Thread: Re: First impressions of a game using the "epic" setup

BradyLS — 2008-07-09T03:17:11+00:00

BrenoK

I'm sorry Epic C&C:A wasn't for you. I can understand if the set-up time and the "more of the same" feeling put you off. I think that's why a big chunk of the Roman Civil Wars expansion has enough of the good things you do like: a number of great, new single-map scenarios!

Another set of dice and cards with this set would have pleased me. (Just as I'm sure it would have displeased others.) As it was, I went ahead and got them and am glad I did.

A friend also prefers Epic with just two players. But I think a full table of eight players of mixed C&C:A experience makes for a very exciting time. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth as a section collapses. But there will be much rejoicing, too! Part of the fun. Some like it. Some don't.

My friend who doesn't care for Epic with more than two has played the epic scenarios enough that we now do some hidden setup games. Just take your forces in an epic scenario; put a curtain across the center of the board; put any lights and elephants you have that you want on the third row; and the rest go behind raise the curtain and begin the game.

Maybe folks have to be big fans of the C&CA system to appreciate Epic. I don't agree that "it's more of the same," however, I just understand the feeling for those that think so. I hope you give it another shot!

Thread: First impressions of a game using the "epic" setup

BrenoK — 2008-07-09T01:23:32+00:00

So, a friend of mine here is a big fan of C&C:A. Having just bought the new expansions, he called me to invite me over for an epic match.

I'm not too impressed. We played a match of the Ilipa Scenario. The setup was a pain in the ass (I already dislike the setup for normal CCA, this is even longer, since you have to put in blocks from many different colors) and gameplay was only "just as good" as the original. The ability to play more cards in a turn (section cards), was cool, but didn't add to the game as much as it seemed it would.

The battle was won by the romans, at 13-5. Another thing about epic scenarios is that with the higher VP count the losses don't feel as painful. Not only do you have a lot of other troops to "make up for it" (they don't all come into play at the same time, you can only move some of them with each card, so having 4 or 10 doesn't make as much a difference in the short-term) but the actual VP is worth less when you have to reach more. The tension of it is somewhat dissipated. Maybe there's a reason why CCA is short, because it's great that way. The extra minutes of the epic game aren't anything special, just the same thing. Just more of a good thing can make a thing less good.

Of course, that may be because the battle was really one-sided. I'd give it another shot, but I'm glad I didn't buy these new expansions. Sure, the mounted board is nice, but surely isn't enough for the price tag. Also, my friend said that they recommend having two decks of cards when playing it, but don't include it in #4 expansion... (he also said that the manual recommends playing this with 8 people, which is absurdly silly).

A quick glance at the new "normal" battles peaked my interest, though. Some of them look really cool.

Thread: Re: The best plano solution: how to keep everything in ONE box - Now with pics!

hancock.tom — 2008-07-02T10:18:26+00:00

FYI, plano doesn't sell the 6133 anymore, but the 6233 is basically the same model upgraded a bit.

Another thing: There are a couple of different 3449 boxes out there. The 3449-5 is what I would recommend for CCA, but the 3449-7 would work too. The only difference is additional compartmental dividers.

Image

GeneSteeler — 2008-04-23T02:51:33+00:00

Setting up Zama BC 202 - Epic. Rome vs. Carthage

Image

Teliis — 2008-03-31T18:25:47+00:00

Everything you get in the box, minus the spare blocks and stickers.

Image

franchi — 2008-02-24T14:36:07+00:00

My home-made Spartacus, Vercingetorix & other Barbarian Leaders.