"Top 5 reasons to dislike Commands & Colors: Ancients" Topic

In the interest of disinterest in C&C:A qua mini ruleset…

1) Some people feel that the victory conditions can encourage opportunistic sniping – ie, picking off weak units to reach the banner count.

2) Has no set ground scale and the scenarios sometimes bear only a passing resemblance to the battles they are supposed to represent.

3) Uses cards and dice. If you don't like that combination you won't like the game!

IMHO the positives far outweigh the negatives.

Cheers,
Aaron

For me the majot issue that I have with the game is that heavy infantry vs heavy infantry combat ends up closer to blitzkrieg than a hard grind. My understanding of ancient battles was that the main event in the centre could last a while. In C&C it doesn't.

The command system is great (as it is in all C&C games) but for me the very simple combat system has nowhere near enough subtlety and heavy troops have nowhere near enough staying power.

James, good point. Just out of interest, have you read Phil Sabin's article on the tempo of heavy infantry combat? I think it's called "The Battlefield Clock", and in it (IIRC) he argues that HI combat was not a continuous engagement. If Phil Sabin is right, the CCA method, in which HI combat has lulls and then brief periods of furious engagement, may not be too far off.

Cheers,
Aaron

I think the issue is more that units evaporate in the blink of an eye. In Strategos the combat is rather more drawn out, especially as you can cycle units in a given zone (which is what Phil was trying to model).

The 'pick on weak units' thing is a function of the kill based victory conditions. If you've got weakened units, pull them back.

Those cheap *ss hollow plastic dice are horrible ,,,,,,,, apart from that its a great game system.

cheers Tom

Valley Games in Canada make wooden dice replacements whcih look nice, though I don't have them. Must be better than the horrid dice that come with the game.

The replacement dice are very nice!

My main problem with C&C is that there are no flanks and no battle line to speak of. You have ancient units, but no ancient army.

The blocks. Smeagol hates the blocks he does. Especially the assemblings.

I think there could be a battle line – there is no obligation to move single units forward. One could wait unit they go a card allowing larger groups to advance.

My main problem with C&C is that there are no flanks and no battle line to speak of. You have ancient units, but no ancient army.

As Altfritz says, one of the beauties of C&CA is that you can have a battle line of contiguous units if you want one, but if you are happy to split your units up into smaller groups, then you can do that too. It all depends on how you want to play. It makes sense to keep your units together so that you can use double time, line command and commander + x hexes cards.

Also, there is flanking in C&C, it's just not your usual + or – for attacking or being attacked from the flank. In C&C an outflanked unit gets its retreat lines cut off and/or is subject to attack by more units, so that's where the benefits/costs of flanking come in.

If you are interested, I'd recommend joining the CCAVassal yahoo group and having a look at some of the game files there. Seeing how the top players approach games is a real eye-opener.

Cheers,
Aaron

altfritz and T…like…Achilles are correct about flanking and battle lines. With evenly matched strong players these can make the difference in a game.

I have two small beefs.

Light Cavalry should only retreat 3 hexes per flag rather than 4.

While easier to play on hex terrain, when converting to miniatures hexes can demand much more than a drop clothe and some Woodland Scenic trees for terrain.