| Commands & Colors: Ancients |
Commands & Colors: Ancients is a worthy successor to such old-time ancient-period wargames as SPI PRESTAGS (Pre-Seventeenth-Century Tactical Gaming System). Like them, it does a good job of capturing period feel and tactics, at least insofar as we can reconstruct them from historical sources. It has the advantage of drastically simpler rules mechanics, and so is easy to learn and quick to play.
C&C:A has earned a lot of praise and popularity from wargamers. Most who have played this game and its siblings using variants of the same rule system (the original Battle Cry and Memoir '44) seem to agree that C&C:A is the best of three remarkably strong games. But perfect it is not.
While designer Richard Borg's system of using tactical cards to order units does a far better job of modeling the "fog of war" than most games manage, sometimes it can be a little too restrictive. Additionally, a commendable desire to keep the rules simple sometimes produces results that seem unreasonable. These problems can be fixed without much difficulty; this page is mainly about how to do that.
See also the various scenarios and playing aids dreamed up by fans of the game.
C&C:A's design encourages tinkering and variants. The rules are written in such a way that it is easy to change things like unit combat statistics and damage allocation in small ways with relatively predictable results. The games I've been in with our local players have produced some variant rules we've found appealing enough to use routinely.
As written, the rules require leaders who survive a kill check to evade towards their side's map edge. Modify this to allow leaders to evade sideways or forward if they can move one hex and end their move on a friendly unit.
I consider this a minor technical change that has relatively little effect on overall play dynamics, but eliminates a bothersomely ahistorical edge case.
Give players the option of discarding a card from their hand in addition to playing one. When a player does this, their end-of-turn draw is two cards rather than one.
I find this eliminates the problem of getting stuck with cards you can't really use, effectively reducing your hand size. Of course, there's an argument that it subverts the designer's intentions by giving both players more tactical flexibility than they ought to have. But it still seems to lead to historically reasonable results, which suggests it's not bending the system too far out of shape.
As written, the rules dictate that a scenario ends the moment a player increases his/her banner count to the scenario's victory level. Change this to end the game at the end of the turn following the turn on which a player increases his/her banner count to the scenario's victory level. Banners taken later in that turn also count, including banners from units destroyed by battle-back. Then the opponent gets a turn to respond.
Sometimes the standard end condition leads players to do things that would be tactically very stupid in order to grab the last banner, like sending a lone unit out of line to pick off a single unit in an opposing line. By changing the end condition we discourage go-for-broke moves and keep pressure on both players to use good tactics clear through to the end.
Many of the scenarios aren't very balanced. They're historical, and historical battles often weren't. Because they play quickly, one way to cope with this is to play each one as a flip-flop set: twice in a session with the players swapping sides, then adding up total numbers of flags.
This first scenario is a fairly straightforward power-vs.-maneuverability confrontation. If the Syracusan general can bring his heavy infantry to bear squarely against the opposing line, he will win. The Carthaginian must maneuver and hope to pick off five Syracusan light units before that happens.
I think the advantage is slightly with the Syracusans in this senario. Their missile troops have better range, which tends to prevent the Carthaginian skirmishers from doing much to disrupt the Syracusan heavies. And the only real mobile striking force Carthage has is the chariot and light-cavalry pair on his extreme left; a flank attack against the Syracusan right is thus about the only way Carthage has to secure the initiative. If that fails and the Syracusan makes no large exploitable errors afterward, he's got a lock.
I think I might rebalance this by giving the Carthaginians six command cards rather than five.
Syracusan hoplites try to bushwack a larger Carthaginian force as it crosses a river. I think the outcome of this scenario depends a lot on the luck of the Syracusan draw; the first time I played it, I got to play two Line Move commands commands on the first two turns and the result was a lopsided massacre and rout of the Carthaginians.
The second time I played the Carthaginians. My card luck was good and I managed to execute a successful right-flank attack with my Sacred Band heavies and chariots. This destroyed the Syracusan line, but the Sacred Band was nearly wiped out in the process (down to one block). I have to count that as a Carthaginian tactical victory but (given the scenario conditions) actually a strategic defeat for Carthage.
This scenario hands the Carthaginians the interesting challenge of managing an all-cavalry army. On the one hand, otherwise powerful cards like "Line Move" stop being useful. On the other hand, a "Mounted Charge" at the right time can wreak havoc on the Romans.
The Romans have to somehow keep the Carthaginian center from engaging their light infantry, which simply cannot long survive close combat with heavy cavalry. The targets of opportunity for the Roman are the light cavalry on the Carthaginian wings — but, because of the evasion mechanic, they have to be attacked from fairly far forward before they are likely to take real damage. The Romans must, somehow, take the offensive.
I think this scenario tilts towards the Carthaginians. Giving the Romans another command card might help.
First time I played this one was as a flip-flop set; the score was 6-3/4-6 and I lost.
In neither game did the Roman right/Carthaginian left see any combat at all. The Romans have to get their units off the lakeshore line or be dispersed by forced retreats. Conversely, the big variable for the Carthaginians is how quickly the warrior infantry can close with the Roman line and what damage they do when they get there.
I think this scenario is (despite its complexity) very well balanced, better so than either the Crimissos or Ticinus River Scenarios. I wouldn't change a thing.