Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Commands & Colors: Ancients» Forums » General

Subject: Tacticians cards in C&C Ancients? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
EDG
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmb
I just picked up the Generals/Marshals/Tacticians expansion for Napoleonics and was wondering - does anyone have any insights as to why Tactician cards haven't been done for C&C Ancients as well? Were they deemed to something that could work only for Napoleonics? Is there any particular reason why they wouldn't work in Ancients (if tailored for the setting)? Or have they just not got around to making a Tacticians deck for Ancients yet?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Rogers
United States
Yakima
WA
flag msg tools
badge
Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you.
Avatar
mb
Actually all of the Commands and Colors iterations have a tactics deck now in some form or another* (Medieval’s is a chart of 7 cards but same basic principle). Ancients is the odd design out; which I am perfectly happy with. I feel as a design it doesn’t need a second deck. The core deck is so wonderfully balanced and nicely integrated with the leaders and various units as it is.

*Battle Cry has a fan-made tactics deck.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And, fwiw, solo play is a lot easier without a second deck on each side to manage!
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kent Reuber
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I’m hoping the Medieval system gets retrofitted to Ancients. It would be nice to have a little more variability between nations/periods.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Rogers
United States
Yakima
WA
flag msg tools
badge
Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you.
Avatar
mb
kentreuber wrote:
I’m hoping the Medieval system gets retrofitted to Ancients. It would be nice to have a little more variability between nations/periods.


You think there is more variability in Medieval? I feel there is far less, at least in terms of the base game. Less unit diversity and the charts are identical sans for one card ability unique to each side. Maybe future Medieval expansions will have more diversity but at the moment most of the battles feel redundant with the unit compositions of both sides largely mirroring one another.

If I were forced to retrofit a deck from a previous iteration into Ancients I’d go with Tricorne’s nation specific decks (better doctrinal asymmetry in that base game than in Medieval’s charts). But really, I don’t feel Ancients needs it. The doctrinal differences are largely presented in the unit compositions of opposing forces i.e. Roman mediums vs Barbarian lights, Greek companions and phalanx vs Persian light bows and heavy mounted etc.

I would consider more individual leader abilities though. Like for Hannibal, Spartacus, Pompey, Antony etc. I’d welcome some more diversity and character uniqueness there if applicable. That could easily be in the battle notes w/o the need for extra decks, charts, tokens etc.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
Orleans
Ontario
flag msg tools
John Rogers wrote:
You think there is more variability in Medieval? I feel there is far less, at least in terms of the base game...

Comparing C&CA to C&CM base games, yes. I'd also lean towards adopting the Inspired Actions over having separate decks. Decks risk becoming too random. The IA mechanic along with corresponding army specific actions is more effective (fewer components to misplace) and seems less likely to produce wild swings being limited as they are to a single IA each turn.

John Rogers wrote:
If I were forced to retrofit a deck from a previous iteration into Ancients I’d go with Tricorne’s nation specific decks...
I would consider more individual leader abilities though...That could easily be in the battle notes w/o the need for extra decks, charts, tokens etc.

While the base game only has one distinct Leadership Inspired Action per army - I can see it becoming more tailored to the doctrines and leaders in future expansions. All without needing to release additional decks. Simply use the IA reference sheet corresponding to the period.

I can see it used in Ancients. I'd rather that than the red 50-deck in C&CN. But, if all you need your leaders to do is provide hits and additional dice then I can see why some would rather leave things well enough alone.

Comparing base game to base game - Medieval isn't all that lacking. It's just slightly different which isn't necessarily bad.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Rogers
United States
Yakima
WA
flag msg tools
badge
Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you.
Avatar
mb
Stayed wrote:
While the base game only has one distinct Leadership Inspired Action per army - I can see it becoming more tailored to the doctrines and leaders in future expansions. All without needing to release additional decks. Simply use the IA reference sheet corresponding to the period.


I’ll keep an eye out for that. I sure hope so. But even more so, I’d love to see more asymmetry in opposing forces...

Stayed wrote:
Comparing base game to base game - Medieval isn't all that lacking. It's just slightly different which isn't necessarily bad.


Eh. I think the diversity of units is less in CCM (5 different foot and 5 different mounted) than in Ancients base (same number of different mounted 7-8 different foot). Also the two sides in Ancients seem more often to field different armies vs CCM (14 games in so far) where it feels like mounted vs mounted most of the time, with the biggest difference being one side bow armed. But you actually don’t want troop diversity because infantry kinda sucks (armor and stature rules).

In play (base game anyways), CCM surprisingly reminds me more of M44’s Mediterranean tank battles (but with inspired leadership) than it does Ancients. Feels like a lot of positioning while each side waits for a mounted charge (armor overrun) opportunity or for a fire and close (the latter is a cool card no doubt).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
Orleans
Ontario
flag msg tools
John Rogers wrote:
...where it feels like mounted vs mounted most of the time, ...infantry kinda sucks (armor and stature rules)...Feels like a lot of positioning while each side waits for a mounted charge...

No disputing this at all. It helps that I'm choosing to see it as an appropriate role reversal from Ancients where there the heavy infantry ruled.

I will say that there is a sudden profound sadness when my last heavy cavalry is no longer battle capable.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


New Deck Options - A Discussion for Advancing C&C Ancients
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel [working on TENNISmind]
France
Caen
(from Valencia, Spain)
flag msg tools
designer
My latest game: Big*Bang, a simple abstract about the first minutes of the Universe
badge
My best-rated game: TETRARCHIA, about the tetrarchy that saved Rome
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stayed wrote:
John Rogers wrote:
...where it feels like mounted vs mounted most of the time, ...infantry kinda sucks (armor and stature rules)...Feels like a lot of positioning while each side waits for a mounted charge...
No disputing this at all. It helps that I'm choosing to see it as an appropriate role reversal from Ancients where there the heavy infantry ruled.

I guess this depends on play style, but I never had this feeling of heavy infantry dominating CCA. In fact, in many battles I felt some frustration but on the opposite sense, because HI was too slow to join the heart of the battle.

In particular in Successors battles, where early mounted action on the flanks triggered the clash and decided the battle well before the HI central lines got even into contact. Or light-dominated armies that set screens on the enemy HI line with fire and evade actions.

But this may be not so true with base game only, I don't remember now how it felt before all the expansions came!


PS/ My conclusion is that CCA succeeded in reaching an almost perfect equilibrium between all troop types, foot/mounted, light/heavy, etc, with very few ingredients and rules/exceptions.
8 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Rogers
United States
Yakima
WA
flag msg tools
badge
Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you.
Avatar
mb
franchi wrote:
Stayed wrote:
John Rogers wrote:
...where it feels like mounted vs mounted most of the time, ...infantry kinda sucks (armor and stature rules)...Feels like a lot of positioning while each side waits for a mounted charge...
No disputing this at all. It helps that I'm choosing to see it as an appropriate role reversal from Ancients where there the heavy infantry ruled.

I guess this depends on play style, but I never had this feeling of heavy infantry dominating CCA...My conclusion is that CCA succeeded in reaching an almost perfect equilibrium between all troop types, foot/mounted, light/heavy, etc, with very few ingredients and rules/exceptions.


Agreed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
Orleans
Ontario
flag msg tools
John Rogers wrote:
franchi wrote:
...My conclusion is that CCA succeeded in reaching an almost perfect equilibrium between all troop types, foot/mounted, light/heavy, etc, with very few ingredients and rules/exceptions.

Agreed.

I don't have a problem with that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.