"WAB 2nd Edition or Hail Caesar?" Topic

The question for the ages! For Ancients, Dark Ages and Medieval games up to 1500. Which do you prefer?

War & Conquest (it's WAB 3)

Between the two I go with Hail Caesar. There is command and control to deal with which adds a layer of interest for me. WAB you have too much control. Every unit Maneuvers exactly how you want. The combat mechanic for WAB is fun, but I felt it would have been better as d10 based. IMHO.

Chris

Hail Caesar without a doubt. You will find more players, rules are not bad and as Spooner said there is a bit more command&control that makes thing fun.

I used to play a lot WAB but it has died off for several years already in my area.

I like both – but I find Hail Caesar is a lot easier to play and easier for new players to pick up

WAB. I grew up with Warhammer. Started with 2nd edition WFB,in my spotty youth, and played most variants of Warhammer ever since. Of course there have been plenty of changes to the basic format of Warhammer rules over the years (Not really including the latest GW variants that are Warhammer in name only) but they are always familiar enough for me to pick up quickly. Basically as I get older I find I like familiar things and Warhammer rules are like an old, but comfy, pair of shoes I always like to wear.

My vote would be for Hail Caesar, mostly because it's easier to find opponents familiar with the system. I played WAB for years, then migrated to big battle DBX, and then landed up playing Hail Caesar. As folks have said the command system is fun. It's also (imo) a better multiplayer club game than WAB.

I have never played HC.
I have played WAB (all versions) in the past.
I play War & Conquest now.

Like Schulein says it is WAB 3
That is the author is Rob Broom who was a significant part of WAB

For me, the biggest thing was that I discovered I did not like removing individual figures from movement trays. I much prefer using a big element and just tracking casualties / strength.

Therefore I would choose HC or Sword and Spear.

plus, the few times I played WaC I found skirmishers to be waaay too powerful for my tastes.

For me they're real different experiences. WAB plays out like a big skirmish, HC is like a much bigger battle. So both work for me and it depends on what sort of scenario I'm playing.

I see them as different types of game, WAB is at its best with the supplements but HC is more playable with larger armies.
I wouldn't call WAC , WAB 3, I thought it was more Rob's alternative version of WAB2? it has some significant differences which didn't really improve play OP skirmishers with clunky rules, and I loved the combined arms tactics that was possible with careful use of elephants which performed more like tanks rather than barely controlled animals!
Although the group I played with disliked the mechanism where you could get a double turn, so WAC never really caught on.

Why not both?

Scott, I've read both but not played either. The only problem I could foresee doing both would be how to base them.

Other than that, I've enjoyed reading both. WAB does remind me affectionately of the early days of Warhammer.

Oddly I hate the big movement blocks with no removal of anything. Keeping track of casualties with markers may be one thing, but the removal of figures or modules allows a quick visual 'at-a'glance' guide to how things are going. You can see where the enemy's lines weakening or, worse still, you can see your own lines weakening. You can begin trying to shore up your line in case there is a break through.

Barry

WAB 3 is my favorite, but since it is hard to get now, used Hail Caesar is very good…

Has to be Hail Caesar.

Clear and effective rules, works well for big games and unit sizes are both good to use and to look at.

WAB 1.5 is what many still play.