<i>Commands & Colors: Ancients</i> is a simple wargame that tries to emulate the battles of Rome versus Carthage. It succeeds in evoking some of the feel of the era, but misses on too many points to call it "historical" in any serious way. A worthwhile game for new wargamers and gamers looking to dip into wargames.
Some people would argue that the game is actually -more- realistic because of the randomness of the cards. The idea is that a general's orders may not actually get out to the field due to unforeseen circumstances (messenger delayed or killed, a unit commander doing his own thing or misinterpreting orders, etc.).
__________________
Currently Playing: Shadowrun, D&D 4e
Some people would argue that the game is actually -more- realistic because of the randomness of the cards. The idea is that a general's orders may not actually get out to the field due to unforeseen circumstances (messenger delayed or killed, a unit commander doing his own thing or misinterpreting orders, etc.).
What he said.
I haven't played C&C, but I do have Memoir '44, and I think the card system makes even more sense in an ancients-context. I actually think that the cards are a clever mechanic that gives you the command problems of the era without adding a lot of complexity. You want to charge the enemies open right flank with your cavalry, but havent got an attack card for your left flank? Well, maybe your Nubian ally does not want to follow your orders, or didn't see or hear your signal, or the messenger got lost (as said above), or the cavalry has lost cohesion on teh march... Lots of situations covered, for very little effort.
However, shouldn't that be the exception to the rule, instead of the rule? The cards would be better placed (in my opinion) as quirks of fate instead of determining your entire fate. I believe Worthington Games "Clash for a Continent" uses a die roll mechanic to determine activation points, which I think works much better than relying on the luck of the draw.
Seeing as how it is a fairly light wargame, it's a good design. Yes, it adds a bit of luck, but I think it might put too much in there for my taste.
The level of randomness compared to reality is a matter of debate, but most games give the player far too much control, which I think causes many long time wargamers problems when coming to any game that takes some of that control away from them.
The main difference between the Commands & Colors system and other wargames is that you can't really formulate a strategy until after you've seen your initial card draw, and you have to be willing to modify that strategy not just in reaction to your opponent's moves, but also to the cards that you continue to draw.
I've found that the majority of the time the winner will be the one who best adapts his strategy to his resources, ie. the cards in his hand. That's very realistic from a commander's perspective.
All that said, for me the strength of C&C isn't as a realistic simulation, but as a fine game playable in a short time that often gives a good feel for the type of conflict it's portraying.
For some folks, having it be more like a game and less like a simulation is a selling point. Like me, for instance: I want a fun, sit-down game with plastic minis, not an 8-hour investment.
But I will say: thank you for calling out what specifically worked and didn't work for you. That helps other readers make the best possible choice. So it's a good review, even if I had the exact opposite take on it that you did.
__________________
"Never fear, Mr. Mandela. I, Winston the Talking Mouse, along with Osama bin Laden and the Loch Ness Monster, will get you out of here!" - my favorite 7th Sea game ever
I don't have it in me to get upset over a formatting change on a message board where I talk about pretending to be an elf.
I'm a long time grognard, but I happen to love the Command and Colors series. My 9 year old and I played a game last week of Memoir '44 and it was a blast. It was a tense game that was decided on the last unit activation of his turn (and if he hadn't won it then, I'd likely have won the next turn).
I happen to like the cards aspect of the game, but then I'm a fan of fog-of-war games. Like others have pointed out, in C&C:A it seems to increase the realism.
One thing I found with Battle Cry, the long out of print American Civil War game in the family, is that while the game didn't fight like a Civil War game, the end results were often fairly realistic (as long as you didn't take casualties literally, but also considered them to represent men who ran off, or had to pull out due to a lack of ammunition, or who just stopped fighting). It's also the first game I've seen that makes some of the more lopsided battles fun to play.
I just don't have the patience to haul out a game and play it for six hours at a stretch, or over a long weekend, any more. C&C:A is fast to play, easy to teach, and is now my go-to game.
Linear Mode
