"Command and Colors question" Topic

I got a chance to play Command and Colors this weekend and was wondering how others felt about the rules and Napoleonics. Do they seem to high level or do you find them to be just right.

They are a fun game with a Napoleonic sounding bunch of names. But they are hardly a really Napoleonic game.

I like them for what they are.

Too abstract is what I would call them. Fun but not a simulation as such.

The rules are well written with very few holes. There is a bit of luck involved; but the game makes you think on how you move your units, how you combine infantry, cavalry, and artillery for maximum effect; and how to use terrain to your advantage. The Napoleonic flavor comes in the form of making the decision to form your infantry into square (or not) when attacked by cavalry; and whether or not to have your cavalry 'retire and reform' when attacked by infantry'; and using the concept of 'combined arms' as outlined in the rules.

I have played over 200 games and still having fun with it. It is easy to set up and easy to play a game in a couple of hours. I like Napoleonic history; my opponent does't know a darn thing about it. He is just pushing red or blue blocks on a board, but being a chess player, he is a very good tactician. As a "game" it is great.

I would describe them as Extra Crispy did (I just began playing them myself) and also as solo friendly.
Possibly labeling them as playing at a higher level of command could be correct as you seem to play it as a divisional commander or higher. I do recommend it. I have played Napoleon's Battles (many years ago) and CCN plays at a similar level but with a little more formalized feeling (chess) than NB. I hope that helps.

It's a fun and quick game that can IMO be even better with a few house rules. Yes they are high level – you don't need to worry about line, column or mixed order, but neither did Napoleon, Wellington or Blucher, they left that up to their subordinates.

And it is especialy enhanced if you throw out all the blocks and replace with 6mm figures.

For examples of using miniatures with C&C see my blog…

link

Ancients is fun. The original ACW version looks to be a pretty good game though I have not played yet. Memoir 44 left me cold. I suspect Napleonics will fall somewhere between love and hate.

I was thinking or trying it with 15mm figures since I have quite a few. The game was fun and offered a good challenge as I had not played. One of the game testers helped me out and it came down to the end for me.

Richard Borg said that Battle Cry was "stylized history" and no more. GMT took the system and this is what they state about the more complex Ancients and Napoleonic versions. Here is most of the game description from the Introduction to the rules:

The scale of the game fluctuates, which allows players to effectively portray epic Napoleonic battles, as well as smaller historical actions. In some scenarios, an infantry unit may represent an entire division, while in others a unit may represent a single regiment or battalion. The Napoleonic tactics you will need to execute to gain victory conform remarkably well to the advantages and limitations inherent to the various Napoleonic National Armies of the day and the battlefield terrain features on which they fought.

The battles showcased in the scenario book focus on the historical confrontation between the English and French armies. The stylized battlefield maps emphasize the important terrain features and highlight the historical deployment of forces in scale with the game system.

Commands & Colors: Napoleonics features that differ from
Commands & Colors Ancients:

• Due to the nature of weaponry, ranged fire is now much more powerful.
• As most units suffer losses, the number of battle dice they can roll decreases. Force preservation and timely commitment of reserves will prove crucial here.
• Units reduced to a single block may not be able to battle due to terrain dice reductions.
• Units in this core game (except militia) retreat one hex per flag.
• One or more ordered artillery units and an ordered infantry or cavalry unit may combine their battle dice in a Combined Arms melee attack.
• Cavalry may Retire and Reform when attacked in melee by
infantry, but not when attacked by other cavalry or artillery in melee.
• Only victorious cavalry in melee may engage in bonus melee combat.
• Light cavalry and Light infantry (not Rifle Light) hit on sabers in melee.
• Infantry may form square to counter an enemy cavalry melee attack.
• Terrain plays a major role in many battles.
• Each major power that fought in the wars of Napoleon has its own National Unit Reference Card. The reference card details unit strengths and any special national advantages the army had during the period.

Welcome and Enjoy!
—Richard Borg

I've italicized those statements that seem to disagree with the views of most posters. Just FYI.

Yes they are high level – you don't need to worry about line, column or mixed order, but but neither did Napoleon, Wellington or Blucher, they left that up to their subordinates.

Uh, that isn't actually true. Army commanders did worry about such things, down to dictating formations to be used [Napoleon at Austerliz] and positioning even battalions [Wellington during the battle of Salamanca with Leith's Division]

How much they worried and how much they actually dictated such things as formations at the corps and army level depended on a number of variables including personality, situation and the size of the forces.

They are a fun game and look nice (we play with figures on Hexon terrain) and I don't have a problem with the level the scenarios are pitched at, but I rather think the Ancients set are a better simulation of warfare.

Move then shoot just breaks it for me as anything to do with actual Napoleonic warfare.

I believe that army commanders did not OFTEN or ROUTINELY worry themselves with such minor details as what formations a few battalions at a particular position should be in – that is the job of the subordinate commanders.

Martin: I perceive the move and fire as advancing with loaded muskets, halting and firing at the enemy. Isn't this plausible?

Martin: I perceive the move and fire as advancing with loaded muskets, halting and firing at the enemy. Isn't this plausible?

The British practiced 'advancing fire' in several instances, some of which Oman relates. Whether that was advance, load and fire or advance fire and load or advance loading, then fire, I don't know.

'Move and fire' in C&CN is at reduced effectiveness compared to 'stand and fire'. In fact some units, depending on unit strength and terrain, will not be able to fire after moving. And once you do attempt a 'move and fire', you are now in range of return fire from your opponent at full effectiveness. I think you'll find the 'move and fire' is not always a good tactic in this game.

As always some wargamers think simulation and fun are antagonists. I still wonder why?

A simulation for me is a game, that gives a plausible reconstruction what IMO in a battle happened or could have happened.

I am fascinated, what C&C napoleonics, that really is a simple, abstract board game is able to simulate. You have to attack at one point, not everywhere. Your attack has to be supported. An attack will break through or be stopped dead. Battered troops have to be pulled back. You need a reserve to use an advantage. That all is very napoleonic.

+1 keithbarker.

Love those Kallistra Hexon tiles – sadly shipping cost to the US is rather high.

I am fascinated, what C&C napoleonics, that really is a simple, abstract board game is able to simulate. You have to attack at one point, not everywhere. Your attack has to be supported. An attack will break through or be stopped dead. Battered troops have to be pulled back. You need a reserve to use an advantage. That all is very napoleonic.

Decebalus:
While it certainly is 'Napoleonic', you'll find that your description of an attack pretty much fits any 17th to 20th century attack at pretty much any level of combat. That is why C&C Napoleonics is seen as more 'generic'.

I really like them. The scale is definitely brigade and up for most scenarios, but not all. Each army handles differently, and for a pretty simple rule set, there are a lot of nuances in unit types and the strategies you have to use. Once you know the basic rules, a game can move along very quickly, which is a real plus to me. I also think the dice with the symbols on them add some excitement -- nothing better than rolling four dice and getting four blue infantry symbols (when you are firing at infantry, of course).
Like KeithBarker (great setup, BTW), I use minis and not the blocks. A link to my recent Ligny game --
for reference,
each unit was about 1,000 men or so.
link
There are a lot of strategy decision to be made on how to use your cards throughout the game. Almost all of my scenarios have played out historically. I'm currently gaming Mockern in the opening phases of Leipzeig and having a great time.
In the end, everyone has to play what they like. Getting back to your original question about scale, for larger engagements, they feel right to me.

I think for me, it is partly the way the command decks are made up. In the Ancients game there are a lot more group type orders so the units Manoeuvre in chunks, whereas in the Napoleonic one, you end up with a lot more individual activations which let's play the whole minmax Lanchester thing.

Whilst that is fun, it isn't very Napoleonic, and tbh, get three French infantry units and a leader within two hexes of anything, and it's guaranteed dead. But as I said earlier, it is a fun game and easy and quick to set up and play if you haven't got anything else to do.

"I believe that army commanders did not OFTEN or ROUTINELY worry themselves with such minor details as what formations a few battalions at a particular position should be in – that is the job of the subordinate commanders."

At least Naplιon often advised tactical formation, or what should be trained to execute quickly, or how the infantry is formed, two versus three ranks, also see the fiasco of Drouets 4 divisions at Belle Alliance – where a tatcial order of the cic was misunderstood.

I agree that on the spot most likley brigade and division commanders would decide what to use, still – not always

Martin -- the 5th expansion has a new card deck plus a new tactician deck that brings leaders more more in play similar to ancients. I highly recommend it.

The point is that Corps and Army commanders had the option of where, when and how often to direct the 'minor' details of Brigade formations, particularly at the beginning of the battle. [Such as Napoleon's misunderstood directives to d'Elron and Drouet. The CinC and Corps commanders usually set up the parameters for their divisions' formations which include the brigades because they all had to act under one plan. Brigades were allowed to form anyway they wanted. Certainly, during the battle brigade and division commanders had the decision-making power in absence of the higher ups.

The central problem with C&C Napoleonics, even in relation to the Ancients game as someone pointed out, is that maneuver and combat isn't linear. Even if each block represents a brigade, it still is never required and by cards as Martin points out, usually encouraged not to move together. That moving in unison, in lines whether columns or line formation, was SOP, not some master or clever tactics.

IF the blocks represent regiments or battalions the representational problem is even worse in regards to linear warfare. C&C Napoleonics seems to require disjointed maneuvering and inarticulate formations supposedly to represent the chaos and fog of war… it doesn't succeed in form or the amounts of either.

Having said that, I and my buddies do enjoy the game and have a number of the supplements. The game system does provide many of the generic dynamics of battle--'The Principles of War.' The need for support, not attempting to be strong everywhere but have overwhelming force in on particular point, the need for preparing an attack and husbanding your forces [cards], coordinating the various types of troops to best advantage among other things.

Pfssst! That should read "Brigades were NOT allowed to form anyway they wanted."

McLaddie -- do you have the tactician deck expansion (#5, I think) or are you playing the standard deck? The new decks rectify some of the problems you discuss, though I completely understand what you are saying.
I've been playing double-sized games (about 30-40 units a side with miniatures on a larger map) and have found you have to stay together in line to be effective on offense and defense. Yes, you might move 1,2,3 units out, but you need to quickly move their supporting units up with them (but if your point is that all battalions/regiments/whatever should be moving out together, then yes, it can't really address that I suppose, unless we bring in a new mechanism. I did one initial experiment some time ago where an entire command would move forward together with combat limited to the number on the card (1-2-3), but any unit that took a hit or retreated, fell out of command and required its own order/activation after that. The idea seemed to have some merit, but I never did anything more with it after the initial go.)
There are a lot more cards in the expansion that allow (via leaders) to lead 3-5 unit attacks in a line in the expansion decks, so you need to have everyone positioned properly to take advantage of them.
When I've played smaller, standard-sized games, I see more of the disjointedness you mention and it doesn't feel as right as the larger games. The game has its flaws (I play an alternate square rule), but is also a lot of fun with enough flavor for me, but I also play other rules.

Tshryock:

Yep, I have the Tactician Deck. While I enjoy the addition of the deck to the game, it is sort of like hanging Christmas ornaments on a hat rack and calling it a Christmas Tree. You can put presents under it but it's still going to smell like wool and leather.

I did one initial experiment some time ago where an entire command would move forward together with combat limited to the number on the card (1-2-3), but any unit that took a hit or retreated, fell out of command and required its own order/activation after that. The idea seemed to have some merit, but I never did anything more with it after the initial go.)

Well, that is closer to the dynamics, though it applies to brigades working together too.

There are a lot more cards in the expansion that allow (via leaders) to lead 3-5 unit attacks in a line in the expansion decks, so you need to have everyone positioned properly to take advantage of them.

Yep, but that implies two things: 1. It takes a leader to actually accomplish something that was done anyway and 2. Some work to get everyone positioned to take advantage of that, which was practiced all the time, so how much work did it actually take? The relationship between the actual efforts and the game don't match up at all from what I can see. Again, more general principles in the dynamics and rewards of game play but still a far cry from the battlefield during the Napoleonic Wars. [I can give examples if you want.]

That being said,keithbarker's table and games he describes are great!