In C&C:A the deck and the scenarios were designed together so that starting out, you should be able to use every card in your hand. You will almost always have light, medium, heavy troops. Guys in Left, Center and Right. Foot and mounted. Leaders within reach of each section, etc. You might get short changed on one or two of those things, but in general, the scenarios are designed to work well with the deck. At least starting out. If you pull all your troops out of a section, or get all of a certain type of unit killed that's your own damn fault.
Memoir 44's deck and scenarios do NOT appear to be designed with this in mind. At least the intro scenarios appear not to be. Your starting positions might be such that many cards in the deck are useless.
What I find ironic, is that in C&C:A, they do start to get more restrictive as an added challenge. For example, in the 4th scenario, Carthage has nothing but cavalry. Two wings of light, and a center of heavy. This shafts you on 9 cards in a 60 card deck. Now granted this particular round went well for me. I started off with Command Heavy and Mounted Charge and won in three turns. But even had it not, I very rarely play a game of C&C:A where people start off within killing distance of each other either. So you have a little time to try to cycle out useless cards at the start of the game.
In the game of Memoir 44 I played, before I even got an action, the single infantry unit I had in the center was killed by opposing units that started right next to him. Now I'm not sure what the quantities of cards are in Memoir 44, I can't seem to find a list. But I have to wonder how what proportion of the deck that rendered useless for me. And I'm pretty sure that's the way the scenario was designed to play out. Why else would they put a bunch of allied infantry next to a single axis infantry alone.
Oh, I have a serious contribution to the thread as well.
I've been reading some interviews of wargame designers and some favourites lists and Advanced Squad Leader comes up quite a lot. The normal channels for games I usually use don't carry anything ASL and looking at the publisher's page it seems it's divided up into many different modules and starting sets. Does anyone have an experience with ASL and have strong opinions about it? I'm wondering if it's something I should seriously investigate if I want to get more into wargaming. My friends seem to have collecting eurogames down to a science so I'm free to explore more niche areas of the hobby.
Oh, I have a serious contribution to the thread as well.
I've been reading some interviews of wargame designers and some favourites lists and Advanced Squad Leader comes up quite a lot. The normal channels for games I usually use don't carry anything ASL and looking at the publisher's page it seems it's divided up into many different modules and starting sets. Does anyone have an experience with ASL and have strong opinions about it? I'm wondering if it's something I should seriously investigate if I want to get more into wargaming. My friends seem to have collecting eurogames down to a science so I'm free to explore more niche areas of the hobby.
Advanced Squad Leader is basically the nerdiest of the nerdy nerdy wargames. We're talking get out your 42 different modules to figure out how to shoot in this particular sub-phase of the turn stuff. Is that what you're looking for? I think a lot of the less neck-beardy folks are slowly moving toward more streamlined, approachable systems.
I was thinking it might be interesting to dabble, at the very least. You know, have that one game that sort of freaks the other games out a little bit and so needs to be off on its own shelf.
But if I take your meaning, I think I will be hard pressed to ever get someone in my area to play it with me and my efforts to branch out would likely be better spent elsewhere.
Actually I'd be tempted to make an Empire-buildy limited-action-selection section for TI, Eclipse and Dominant Species. Maybe Through the Ages too.
I think that makes more sense than putting Eclipse, Core Worlds, and Cosmic Encounter in the same category, which would be "games that happen in space."
I was thinking it might be interesting to dabble, at the very least. You know, have that one game that sort of freaks the other games out a little bit and so needs to be off on its own shelf.
But if I take your meaning, I think I will be hard pressed to ever get someone in my area to play it with me and my efforts to branch out would likely be better spent elsewhere.
I really don't want to discourage you if you want to try it, but I think it's really not for most people. I've also heard several times that it's almost pointless to try to learn the rules on your own. You really need someone who knows how to play to help.
I mean, hell. There's basically three separate games that are the "starter sets." You have to play three different 'games' to learn the game.
What is this I don't even.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Long-time ASL player here.
The Starter Kits actually do a really good job of breaking down and teaching the rules. Of course, they do this in part by cutting out tons of quirky little rules. Finding someone who can teach you would also be a good, as long as you're not easily frustrated.
FairchildRabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?"Registered Userregular
Darkewolfe speaketh the truth. It is very difficult to get into ADVANCED SQUAD LEADER due to the extraordinarily heavily layered complexity of the rules, which is not helped by the publisher having allowed several of the most important expansions to have gone out of print. Your best bet for trying the game is to find a gamer or gamer group who already play the game and can introduce it to you. There are a number of ASL-based small game conventions every year which would be good opportunities to do so.
while Memoir 44' does have a frankly shocking lack of elephants, C&CA drives me nuts because chariots do not work that way.
I think Battlelore is my favorite. Though it does kind of suck having to print out your own manual (the currently available version has english and french cards and pieces but only a french manual).
Thanks for the input on ASL. I think I will stick a pin in it for now since I doubt I'll easily be able to find someone up here that plays it already. Personally, I'm not intimidated by rules (or I would likely be in a different profession) but looking around the actual cost of obtaining the logical starting point, starter kit #1, I'm reluctant to give it a go just yet.
Besides, it doesn't seem to have any elephants in it either.
In C&C:A the deck and the scenarios were designed together so that starting out, you should be able to use every card in your hand. You will almost always have light, medium, heavy troops. Guys in Left, Center and Right. Foot and mounted. Leaders within reach of each section, etc. You might get short changed on one or two of those things, but in general, the scenarios are designed to work well with the deck. At least starting out. If you pull all your troops out of a section, or get all of a certain type of unit killed that's your own damn fault.
Memoir 44's deck and scenarios do NOT appear to be designed with this in mind. At least the intro scenarios appear not to be. Your starting positions might be such that many cards in the deck are useless.
I agree with some of what you say, but I think some is off the mark.
I certainly prefer the way that C&C:A operates as a game -- I consider it more fun and interesting than M'44. Even the introductory scenarios for C&C:A just have more going on, and they can play out in a more dynamic way.
However, M'44 is a tight and tuned minimalist WWII simulator (or at least it evokes it, since some will complain about the moniker "simulator"). It is a GREAT game in its own right. It's a testament to the system overall that you can even ATTEMPT to have basically the same rules govern a WWII battle and an ancient Greek battle. If M'44 is a bit simpler, it's also MUCH more broadly popular.
My point is that one's enjoyment of a particular game in this system really shows where one's interests lie. I had no idea I was going to like C&C:A so much, but some combination of mechanics + theme makes it one of my favorite games. On BGG there were some people defending that they owned MANY of the games in this system, because each one gave them a unique and irreplaceable experience. I've been really tempted to get C&C:N for this reason (but avoiding it only because it's another big investment and it's another 2-player game).
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Played my first solitaire game of Rune Age. First scenario, played as Humans. Got my butt kicked.
Loved it. I think I may have played it wrong in a couple ways, though.
For instance, when you take a non-player controlled neutral city, do you only need match the strength amount in the bottom right? Or do you need to match the strength amount in the bottom right plus the extra defense amount (the number in the little castle) as well?
Grr. Can't find it because it was in the old thread. What was the thread's consensus on Zombiecide from looking?
I just went over this myself, and all I can say is that, as someone who generally dislikes zombies, and has hated every existing zombie game he's played, I am VERY interested. It seems like there's more of a game there than just a theme and camp, which is huge. Not to mention the volume of bonuses you get at present ... I can't imagine it's a bad purchase. I'm actually going to support it right now and pick up a few extra figures. $150 is brutal, but hell, they genuinely managed to hook me ...
For instance, when you take a non-player controlled neutral city, do you only need match the strength amount in the bottom right? Or do you need to match the strength amount in the bottom right plus the extra defense amount (the number in the little castle) as well?
The former. The auto-defense bonus only kicks in during sieges.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Might as well make something of it. City of Thieves is getting a print expansion. Looks like it'll be incorporating some of the bits that have shown up in the printable expansions like equipment.
PMAvers on
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
while Memoir 44' does have a frankly shocking lack of elephants, C&CA drives me nuts because chariots do not work that way.
I think Battlelore is my favorite. Though it does kind of suck having to print out your own manual (the currently available version has english and french cards and pieces but only a french manual).
I haven't playe C&C:A but am a huge nerd for Classical and ancient stuff. Care to elaborate on the chariots so I can maybe save the money I'm otherwise very close to spending?
Might as well make something of it. City of Thieves is getting a print expansion. Looks like it'll be incorporating some of the bits that have shown up in the printable expansions like equipment.
It looks interesting but sadly I have had little interest in playing Cadwallon and another game because they were the few my father enjoyed to play when I got them
0
Options
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
while Memoir 44' does have a frankly shocking lack of elephants, C&CA drives me nuts because chariots do not work that way.
I think Battlelore is my favorite. Though it does kind of suck having to print out your own manual (the currently available version has english and french cards and pieces but only a french manual).
I haven't playe C&C:A but am a huge nerd for Classical and ancient stuff. Care to elaborate on the chariots so I can maybe save the money I'm otherwise very close to spending?
I'm not sure what RiemannLives is specifically referring to, but chariot warfare was not a central feature of either Greek or Roman warfare, so even if you don't like those mechanics they represents a comparatively small part of C&C:A.
Also, your comments actually remind me of MY hesitation before committing to the game (I am a bit of a graecophile, too), because the cost is not trivial and I would rather have a few good games than break the bank for a great one. But in retrospect I can only say that it's one of the best boardgame purchases I have made. It's my premier 2-player game.
jergarmar on
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
0
Options
Custom SpecialI know I am, I'm sure I am,I'm Sounders 'til I die!Registered Userregular
Hey dudes, free money if you want to get a board game. Amazon local has a $25 voucher at Yoyo.com for $12 again, they have a decent selection of games at OK prices. http://local.amazon.com/snohomish/B007S1KWYI
Honestly I have no clue what people are talking about when they say chariots don't work that way. I'm completely ignorant of how they worked in the first place. However I can say C&C:A is the most fun in a 2 player game I've ever had. I actually finally just won copies of the 3rd and 4th expansions on eBay. So that's all of them now. Yeah Iaid a premium for the oop expansions but it was so worth it. Honestly I think it all averaged out. I paid about 20 over retail for 2 of the expansions and 20 under for the other 3.
I've never played C&C: A myself, but, I enjoying nerding out about historical warfare so I did a little research.
Julius Ceasar on British chariots (as according to wikipedia)
Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the meantime withdraw some little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry; and by daily practice and exercise attain to such expertness that they are accustomed, even on a declining and steep place, to check their horses at full speed, and manage and turn them in an instant and run along the pole, and stand on the yoke, and thence betake themselves with the greatest celerity to their chariots again.[11]
Also according to wiki the Romans didn't use chariots for warfare at all. Likewise with the greeks.
while Memoir 44' does have a frankly shocking lack of elephants, C&CA drives me nuts because chariots do not work that way.
I think Battlelore is my favorite. Though it does kind of suck having to print out your own manual (the currently available version has english and french cards and pieces but only a french manual).
I haven't playe C&C:A but am a huge nerd for Classical and ancient stuff. Care to elaborate on the chariots so I can maybe save the money I'm otherwise very close to spending?
Chariots were the backbone of armies of the eastern mediterranean and mesopotamia (what we would now call Greece, Crete, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Egypt etc...) from the 17th century BCE until the 12th century BCE (aka the middle and late bronze age). This period includes New Kingdom Egypt and the Hittite empire (the two sides in the battle of Kadesh) and "Mycenean" Greece. Anyway, just wanted to make a note about the time because it is a lot earlier than what we usually think of as the "ancient greeks". Chariots as weapons of war, as opposed to transportation or prestige, go obsolete at the end of the late bronze age (so after 1100 BCE or so they are an anachronism).
Anyway, the problem with how they are used in C&CA is that Chariots were never useful in melee. And certainly were never used to charge an infantry formation. They are extremely lightweight and fragile vehicles built for speed. Their use in warfare was that one of their crew had another new invention: the composite bow (usually 1 archer and 1 driver, though Hittites sometimes used larger chariots with a third man carrying a shield). Their speed allowed formations of chariots to keep out of reach of infantry while tearing them apart with arrows (also note that this is hundreds of years before the development of hoplites and other heavy close-order infantry formations).
Chariots and their horses were absurdly expensive and so the professional chariot armies of the bronze age were quite tiny compared to the size of population they served. At the height of their power, the Egyptian New Kingdom could field something like two or three thousand chariots at maximum by drawing on the full resources of their empire.
edit: in later times they were sometimes used as transport to and from the battlefield. By the time of the earliest classical greeks (eg: when the Illiad and Odessey were being written) that is about the only role they would have had.
RiemannLives on
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
while Memoir 44' does have a frankly shocking lack of elephants, C&CA drives me nuts because chariots do not work that way.
I think Battlelore is my favorite. Though it does kind of suck having to print out your own manual (the currently available version has english and french cards and pieces but only a french manual).
I haven't playe C&C:A but am a huge nerd for Classical and ancient stuff. Care to elaborate on the chariots so I can maybe save the money I'm otherwise very close to spending?
Chariots were the backbone of armies of the eastern mediterranean and mesopotamia (what we would now call Greece, Crete, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Egypt etc...) from the 17th century BCE until the 12th century BCE (aka the middle and late bronze age). This period includes New Kingdom Egypt and the Hittite empire (the two sides in the battle of Kadesh) and "Mycenean" Greece. Anyway, just wanted to make a note about the time because it is a lot earlier than what we usually think of as the "ancient greeks". Chariots as weapons of war, as opposed to transportation or prestige, go obsolete at the end of the late bronze age (so after 1100 BCE or so they are an anachronism).
Anyway, the problem with how they are used in C&CA is that Chariots were never useful in melee. And certainly were never used to charge an infantry formation. They are extremely lightweight and fragile vehicles built for speed. Their use in warfare was that one of their crew had another new invention: the composite bow (usually 1 archer and 1 driver, though Hittites sometimes used larger chariots with a third man carrying a shield). Their speed allowed formations of chariots to keep out of reach of infantry while tearing them apart with arrows (also note that this is hundreds of years before the development of hoplites and other heavy close-order infantry formations).
Chariots and their horses were absurdly expensive and so the professional chariot armies of the bronze age were quite tiny compared to the size of population they served. At the height of their power, the Egyptian New Kingdom could field something like two or three thousand chariots at maximum by drawing on the full resources of their empire.
edit: in later times they were sometimes used as transport to and from the battlefield. By the time of the earliest classical greeks (eg: when the Illiad and Odessey were being written) that is about the only role they would have had.
I totally get what you're saying, but it could be argued that this is how they play out in C&C:A. First of all, the light version of the chariot (esp. with archers) is simply not in the game. The heavy chariot as melee shock-troops (before cavalry was widespread) certainly existed and had historical uses, especially by the Persians, at least by some accounts (and some accounts claim a scythe to make them even more fearsome in melee).
As to their effectiveness, they aren't very powerful in the game. They have 2 blocks, making them weak against light ranged units (which can also evade), and a weaker battle-back, making them juicy targets for even medium units. I think I read a strategy article once that said something like, "Don't expect to get more than one attack out of them."
My only complaint is that it would be nice to see the chariot "fleshed out" a bit (like the light chariot you describe). Maybe they do in an expansion, I don't know. But I get the impression that they are in the game almost intentionally as a throwback to older types of warfare, which were becoming obsolete even by the time of the Greeks.
UNRELATED EDIT: The OP has all the pictures up, has links to previous versions of this thread, and some cleaned-up sections. Still need to do Eclipse (and maybe an empire-building section), but other than that, if you think there's an OMG GLARING OMISSION post it here or just PM me.
jergarmar on
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
I dunno, I think Memoir '44 is a silly mess precisely because it tries to apply ancient warfare rules to WWII.
That, and the the game is 35% luck, 60% scenario predestination. You can determine which side will win pretty much just by looking at the setup (whatever side gets more cards, is dug in, and has a better flank spread). After that it's just whoever gets the better die rolls and cards with almost no decision on the player's part since there is nearly always a "best" move given your cards and position. There desperately needs to be some kind of mechanic in play to mitigate useless cards. One player can spend the whole game getting recon cards for flanks he's not at or units he doesn't have while the other player can get all assault and all out attack cards.
On top of all that the victory system is ridiculous. First to kill 6 units wins, regardless of starting numbers (given that number of units moved is also fixed regardless of total size, you have a war game where superior numbers doesn't matter for anything other than cause a traffic jam). The pinnacle of all boardgame silliness is the idea that the Confederacy wins if it scores 5:6 casualties against the Union. That's something that would make Steve Jackson blush.
MrBody on
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
edited May 2012
I know Greeks and Romans didn't use chariots, but I figured the game might cover battles from earlier periods as well. Also knew chariots were mostly used for archers, so it's a bit disappointing if the game paints them as heavy shock cavalry.
Oh well, hasn't totally put me off the game, it will just be something I'll explain to my opponent in a tedious manner whenever I'm feeling extra spergy (I won't actually do this).
So I took my money out of OGRE, and stuck it in Zombicide instead, because their bonuses and promise of over a hundred mini's reeled me in. It's looking really good.
While Zombicide looks neat, if I had to pick between the two I'd totally do Ogre since it sounds like there'll only be the one print run.
"This edition is a labor of love for Steve and the team. It’s highly underpriced for the huge amount of material it contains, and we expect to print it once and only once.
This edition will be printed to order. We will take advance distributor orders, print them, and ship them. We will have few, if any, available for re-order. Please talk to your retailers and order enough stock to let them offer this great deal to their customers."
EDIT: Oh, neat, The Cheap One Himself giving a lecture on game design and "the meaning of fun."
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
I guess Ogre would have a better resale value after you ran it out ... but I dunno. Zombicide just seemed fun ... Ogre has a neat premise, but I just do not trust anything with Steve Jackson's name on it.
I like the idea of ogre, but if the game is that damn great, why isn't it been printed more, or why do I only hear about a few people here liking it? I don't know. Also while it comes with a shit load of content, I worry that it's too limited.
edit: Considering they are selling PDF's of the new rulebook, I have to see that they will continue doing so afterwards and I can work on things that way and make my own boards.
DiannaoChong on
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited May 2012
You don't hear about it because it's a niche game and the last release was 11 years ago. It's not really a judgement of quality so much as popularity, and a hex-and-counter sci-fi game is never going to be high on that chart.
Posts
In C&C:A the deck and the scenarios were designed together so that starting out, you should be able to use every card in your hand. You will almost always have light, medium, heavy troops. Guys in Left, Center and Right. Foot and mounted. Leaders within reach of each section, etc. You might get short changed on one or two of those things, but in general, the scenarios are designed to work well with the deck. At least starting out. If you pull all your troops out of a section, or get all of a certain type of unit killed that's your own damn fault.
Memoir 44's deck and scenarios do NOT appear to be designed with this in mind. At least the intro scenarios appear not to be. Your starting positions might be such that many cards in the deck are useless.
Shit now I can never play it again without being disappointed...
In the game of Memoir 44 I played, before I even got an action, the single infantry unit I had in the center was killed by opposing units that started right next to him. Now I'm not sure what the quantities of cards are in Memoir 44, I can't seem to find a list. But I have to wonder how what proportion of the deck that rendered useless for me. And I'm pretty sure that's the way the scenario was designed to play out. Why else would they put a bunch of allied infantry next to a single axis infantry alone.
I've been reading some interviews of wargame designers and some favourites lists and Advanced Squad Leader comes up quite a lot. The normal channels for games I usually use don't carry anything ASL and looking at the publisher's page it seems it's divided up into many different modules and starting sets. Does anyone have an experience with ASL and have strong opinions about it? I'm wondering if it's something I should seriously investigate if I want to get more into wargaming. My friends seem to have collecting eurogames down to a science so I'm free to explore more niche areas of the hobby.
Advanced Squad Leader is basically the nerdiest of the nerdy nerdy wargames. We're talking get out your 42 different modules to figure out how to shoot in this particular sub-phase of the turn stuff. Is that what you're looking for? I think a lot of the less neck-beardy folks are slowly moving toward more streamlined, approachable systems.
But if I take your meaning, I think I will be hard pressed to ever get someone in my area to play it with me and my efforts to branch out would likely be better spent elsewhere.
I think that makes more sense than putting Eclipse, Core Worlds, and Cosmic Encounter in the same category, which would be "games that happen in space."
I really don't want to discourage you if you want to try it, but I think it's really not for most people. I've also heard several times that it's almost pointless to try to learn the rules on your own. You really need someone who knows how to play to help.
I mean, hell. There's basically three separate games that are the "starter sets." You have to play three different 'games' to learn the game.
The Starter Kits actually do a really good job of breaking down and teaching the rules. Of course, they do this in part by cutting out tons of quirky little rules. Finding someone who can teach you would also be a good, as long as you're not easily frustrated.
I think Battlelore is my favorite. Though it does kind of suck having to print out your own manual (the currently available version has english and french cards and pieces but only a french manual).
Besides, it doesn't seem to have any elephants in it either.
Granted, they aren't war elephants, but you can't have everything. (And the baby is so cute!)
I agree with some of what you say, but I think some is off the mark.
I certainly prefer the way that C&C:A operates as a game -- I consider it more fun and interesting than M'44. Even the introductory scenarios for C&C:A just have more going on, and they can play out in a more dynamic way.
However, M'44 is a tight and tuned minimalist WWII simulator (or at least it evokes it, since some will complain about the moniker "simulator"). It is a GREAT game in its own right. It's a testament to the system overall that you can even ATTEMPT to have basically the same rules govern a WWII battle and an ancient Greek battle. If M'44 is a bit simpler, it's also MUCH more broadly popular.
My point is that one's enjoyment of a particular game in this system really shows where one's interests lie. I had no idea I was going to like C&C:A so much, but some combination of mechanics + theme makes it one of my favorite games. On BGG there were some people defending that they owned MANY of the games in this system, because each one gave them a unique and irreplaceable experience. I've been really tempted to get C&C:N for this reason (but avoiding it only because it's another big investment and it's another 2-player game).
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
Loved it. I think I may have played it wrong in a couple ways, though.
For instance, when you take a non-player controlled neutral city, do you only need match the strength amount in the bottom right? Or do you need to match the strength amount in the bottom right plus the extra defense amount (the number in the little castle) as well?
I just went over this myself, and all I can say is that, as someone who generally dislikes zombies, and has hated every existing zombie game he's played, I am VERY interested. It seems like there's more of a game there than just a theme and camp, which is huge. Not to mention the volume of bonuses you get at present ... I can't imagine it's a bad purchase. I'm actually going to support it right now and pick up a few extra figures. $150 is brutal, but hell, they genuinely managed to hook me ...
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
The former. The auto-defense bonus only kicks in during sieges.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Might as well make something of it. City of Thieves is getting a print expansion. Looks like it'll be incorporating some of the bits that have shown up in the printable expansions like equipment.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
I haven't playe C&C:A but am a huge nerd for Classical and ancient stuff. Care to elaborate on the chariots so I can maybe save the money I'm otherwise very close to spending?
Another game with Elephants: Bombay
The elephants carry cubes. On their backs. Cause they're plastic.
It looks interesting but sadly I have had little interest in playing Cadwallon and another game because they were the few my father enjoyed to play when I got them
I'm not sure what RiemannLives is specifically referring to, but chariot warfare was not a central feature of either Greek or Roman warfare, so even if you don't like those mechanics they represents a comparatively small part of C&C:A.
Also, your comments actually remind me of MY hesitation before committing to the game (I am a bit of a graecophile, too), because the cost is not trivial and I would rather have a few good games than break the bank for a great one. But in retrospect I can only say that it's one of the best boardgame purchases I have made. It's my premier 2-player game.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
http://local.amazon.com/snohomish/B007S1KWYI
Julius Ceasar on British chariots (as according to wikipedia)
Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the meantime withdraw some little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry; and by daily practice and exercise attain to such expertness that they are accustomed, even on a declining and steep place, to check their horses at full speed, and manage and turn them in an instant and run along the pole, and stand on the yoke, and thence betake themselves with the greatest celerity to their chariots again.[11]
Also according to wiki the Romans didn't use chariots for warfare at all. Likewise with the greeks.
Chariots were the backbone of armies of the eastern mediterranean and mesopotamia (what we would now call Greece, Crete, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Egypt etc...) from the 17th century BCE until the 12th century BCE (aka the middle and late bronze age). This period includes New Kingdom Egypt and the Hittite empire (the two sides in the battle of Kadesh) and "Mycenean" Greece. Anyway, just wanted to make a note about the time because it is a lot earlier than what we usually think of as the "ancient greeks". Chariots as weapons of war, as opposed to transportation or prestige, go obsolete at the end of the late bronze age (so after 1100 BCE or so they are an anachronism).
Anyway, the problem with how they are used in C&CA is that Chariots were never useful in melee. And certainly were never used to charge an infantry formation. They are extremely lightweight and fragile vehicles built for speed. Their use in warfare was that one of their crew had another new invention: the composite bow (usually 1 archer and 1 driver, though Hittites sometimes used larger chariots with a third man carrying a shield). Their speed allowed formations of chariots to keep out of reach of infantry while tearing them apart with arrows (also note that this is hundreds of years before the development of hoplites and other heavy close-order infantry formations).
Chariots and their horses were absurdly expensive and so the professional chariot armies of the bronze age were quite tiny compared to the size of population they served. At the height of their power, the Egyptian New Kingdom could field something like two or three thousand chariots at maximum by drawing on the full resources of their empire.
edit: in later times they were sometimes used as transport to and from the battlefield. By the time of the earliest classical greeks (eg: when the Illiad and Odessey were being written) that is about the only role they would have had.
I totally get what you're saying, but it could be argued that this is how they play out in C&C:A. First of all, the light version of the chariot (esp. with archers) is simply not in the game. The heavy chariot as melee shock-troops (before cavalry was widespread) certainly existed and had historical uses, especially by the Persians, at least by some accounts (and some accounts claim a scythe to make them even more fearsome in melee).
As to their effectiveness, they aren't very powerful in the game. They have 2 blocks, making them weak against light ranged units (which can also evade), and a weaker battle-back, making them juicy targets for even medium units. I think I read a strategy article once that said something like, "Don't expect to get more than one attack out of them."
My only complaint is that it would be nice to see the chariot "fleshed out" a bit (like the light chariot you describe). Maybe they do in an expansion, I don't know. But I get the impression that they are in the game almost intentionally as a throwback to older types of warfare, which were becoming obsolete even by the time of the Greeks.
UNRELATED EDIT: The OP has all the pictures up, has links to previous versions of this thread, and some cleaned-up sections. Still need to do Eclipse (and maybe an empire-building section), but other than that, if you think there's an OMG GLARING OMISSION post it here or just PM me.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
That, and the the game is 35% luck, 60% scenario predestination. You can determine which side will win pretty much just by looking at the setup (whatever side gets more cards, is dug in, and has a better flank spread). After that it's just whoever gets the better die rolls and cards with almost no decision on the player's part since there is nearly always a "best" move given your cards and position. There desperately needs to be some kind of mechanic in play to mitigate useless cards. One player can spend the whole game getting recon cards for flanks he's not at or units he doesn't have while the other player can get all assault and all out attack cards.
On top of all that the victory system is ridiculous. First to kill 6 units wins, regardless of starting numbers (given that number of units moved is also fixed regardless of total size, you have a war game where superior numbers doesn't matter for anything other than cause a traffic jam). The pinnacle of all boardgame silliness is the idea that the Confederacy wins if it scores 5:6 casualties against the Union. That's something that would make Steve Jackson blush.
Oh well, hasn't totally put me off the game, it will just be something I'll explain to my opponent in a tedious manner whenever I'm feeling extra spergy (I won't actually do this).
EDIT: Oh, neat, The Cheap One Himself giving a lecture on game design and "the meaning of fun."
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
edit: Considering they are selling PDF's of the new rulebook, I have to see that they will continue doing so afterwards and I can work on things that way and make my own boards.