"Commands & Colors: Ancients House Rules?" Topic

I have the original boxed game and the first expansion, and have really enjoyed the game for the last year or so. I'm wondering, though, if anyone has any house rules for a couple of situations that seem to come up a lot.

1. Most battles seem to get us to the victory banner total once our light troops have been chased off or killed. I've considered using the idea of having all light troops (not auxiliaries) count for 1/2 a banner. Is that working for anyone?

2. Is it just me, or is missile fire woefully ineffective? I can sit happily under masses of Persian or Indian archers and not break a sweat.

3. Is anyone else having trouble getting their heavy and medium infantries into the fight? Our games usually end well before the spears and pikes cross, and that just feels goofy.

Any help appreciated.

1. …all light troops (not auxiliaries) count for 1/2 a banner. Is that working for anyone?

Yes we do that; works very well indeed. Or alternatively give them just 2 blocks each (instead of 4), and don't count them at all.

2. …is missile fire woefully ineffective?

It is relatively ineffective, but probably more effective than in a lot of other game systems. I find it about right.

3. …having trouble getting their heavy and medium infantries into the fight?

There is a tendancy for some scenarios to be decided by the fighting on the wings. When writing one's own scenario, making the light troops count for half a victory block can help with this. I also tend to set higher victory block counts than you see in the scenarios.

Of course, if you are the player with more MI and HI, it plays to move them up and get them involved!

Cheers, Simon

Here is a great fan site for the game in case you don't already know about it:
link

Thanks, Coopman. I've been to the site and perused it (and a few others) but didn't see anything that addressed the "I can't get my *@$* heavies in the fight" or "why won't my *@$%@# archers/slingers do anything" problems.

Thanks for the feedback, Simon.

In terms of getting the mediums and heavies in, it is key to keep them all within a single group of infantry units that can be moved forward by Line Commands. My opponent invariably assembles such a formation in the first few turns of the game, and grinds it forward whenever he has an opportunity.

In C&C scenarios, the function of the missile troops is not so much to kill enemy units, but to knock a block or two off them, so that they are more vulnerable when they get into combat. Oh, and not to be caught and killed, themselves!

It's a cool game.

We found that some of the game is to use your missile troops to disrupt enemy formations (so they cannot assemble large groups that can advance enmass) but not to get them trapped where they can be picked off for easy victory banners.

Light troops can be useful if used to foreclose retreats (turning retreats into casualties) but that comes at some risk!

We've gone the entire rout of adding a few things here and there until there was so much chrome we couldn't recall the the rules. And most of us eventually just went back to the basic rules as they seemed to play better despite the abstractions.

Give your Mediums and Heavies 5 blocks.

If you have a dig around on the boardgamegeek forums you'll find examples of these kinds of discussions.

link

Interestingly enough, many in the online (VASSAL) gaming community believe that archers and slingers are too powerful, even going so far as to set a limit on the number of those units that can be used in tournament games.

This goes to show that there are a variety of different tactical approaches that can be brought to the game. I thought light troops were rubbish until an Italian gentleman disabused me of that notion by running rings around me with them, and was similarly schooled in the art of good cavalry play by another chap. I now think that the balance between the various arms is surprisingly sophisticated for such a seemingly simple game. Combined arms tactics really do work here, and there is a lot of room for skill in play.

As you and Simon both mention there are definitely a few issues with premature conclusions for some scenarios, particulary some of the Successor battles, IIRC. I haven't tried to fix that myself (I just don't play those battles that look like they might not provide a good game), but your & Simon's suggestions sound pretty good.

One thing you might want to check out is Don Clarke's excellent ScenarioX variant, which is basically the DBA army lists converted for C&CA with special rules for terrain set up, deployment, etc. I think with that you play to six victory banners (half the force), so you don't have any problems with the action not really getting going.

I'm rambling here, but while the game is good as a bit of fun where no one really cares about the result too much, it is magnificent when played competitively, once from each side, with the winner the player taking most overall banners. It seems silly to say, but the game is much deeper than it looks and it rewards thought and study.

That doesn't really help with your houserules Qs, but might give you a chance to see things from a different perspective…

Cheers,
Aaron

For the SAO Zama game next year, in the big epic scenario that my mate Ian and I have designed, we are going to try something a little different.

In order to guarantee that the battle is settled by the infantry, the only units that are going to count for victory banners are the Roman Principes and Triarii, the Carthaginian Veterans in the third line, and generals. This means that most of the troops on the battlefield are effectively expendable.

We are also experimenting with special rules to represent the less effective elephants, and are giving all the light infantry units 2 blocks.

There's a description of what we are planning, here:-
link

Cheers, Simon

I would strongly disagree with the statement that light missile units lack in effectivness. Put three of those in position to shoot against a single target and those six dices will hurt. And don't fight in close combat with them, let them evade as soon as they get into contact with enemies.

I've played with in a VASSAL Scenario X tournament couple of months ago and thought that Marian Romans looked like a balanced army – on every occasion I met missile dominated army, I was completely devastated. After that I've learned to respect missile units, especially those with range of 3 hexes.

I agree that I may not be playing the game with as strong a sense of tactical flair as I should. Perhaps I need to fall in somewhere in a tournament setting, and let someone school me a few times.

It's a really great game, though, and I very much appreciate everyone's suggestions and input. Thanks!

Minondas – are you on the VASSAL yahoo group? You weren't playing Zatopek, where you? He was the one who rudely introduced me to the usefulness of lights…

JCBMinis – if you join the Yahoo group ccavassal you can download some logfiles of games previously played and see some examples of differetn playing styles. It's a great resource & you can also play in tournaments, too.

Simon – Sounds like a great project.

For what it's worth, I tried something similar for Zama with a hexless variant. It was probably a bit of overkill on the chrome, but one thing that did work well was the victory condition. We calculated it so that you had to knock out at least half of the third line to beat Hannibal, and had to destroy half of the legions to beat Scipio.

Elephants didn't count as banners at all, and we allowed the legions to melee as aux vs elephants if desired. If they did, on a roll of a banner the elephant would retreat forward through the Roman lines and off the table, rolling one 1d for rampage against the units it passed through.

In the end, Hannibal won by a whisker.

Apart from a little too much chrome regarding formation rules, it worked fairly well. One weakness was in the cavalry return – there wasn't a lot of incentive to charge the victorious Roman cavalry units into positions where their own retreat path would be cut off. Perhaps a house rule might be useful there, allowing returning cav to retreat towards the Carthaginian edge if they attack the rear of the third line or something similar.

Anyway, hope it goes well. Good luck with assembling a painting team, and would be great to see you do a write up of it somewhere (Slingshot, or even the GMT house rag, perhaps?).

Cheers,
Aaron

I played Pharsalus last night with a mate and it was over pretty quickly with Caesar's HI crushing Pompeian MI. The Pompeian cavalry advantage didn't do much on the flank.

In other games/scenarios I've played HI have been stranded but I think Simon's suggestion of using line command cards for adjacent units is the way to go.

It's a great game and definitely more to it than first appears.

Hi Aaron,

It sounds like you approached Zama in an almost parallel way to us, at least from the perspective of the victory conditions.

Re elephants, we have taken them down to 1 block and reduced their dice to 2 (because they were allegedly untrained, and drunk!). But OTOH, we are planning to have 11 of them. Along with most of the other troops they don't count towards victory conditions.

The cavalry retreat issue is definitely not ideal, but I'm thinking that we may just need to live with it, rather than introduce another special rule (I want to keep these to a minimum).

You are right; I'll need to writ it up at some stage. I'm also hoping that we may be able to take it to Salute.

Hi Cyrus, there is nothing sadder than a stranded HI, left far behind the flow of battle! But sometimes it can't be avoided. However, if troops are kept in groups, then Line Command (or the Leadership cards) will usually help them move up.

Cheers, Simon

In regard of medium/heavies, Inspired Commander and Line Command cards are the key. I also think that until you have two of those at hand, it is best to keep distance of two hexes between main infantry lines – heavy infantry with attached commander that has a drop on you can be really brutal. Of course, if the opponent has 'Double Time' card, that can be a nasty suprise. But that's what 'Clash of shields' is for. :-)

C&C is beautiful game with suprising depth… unless the cards or dices screw you up, then it's just an excercise in frustration and teeth grinding. The only real flaw I see with it is the fact that armies dominated by light horse units have real difficulties with real life tactics, as their retreats of four hexes kill them off rather quickly.

@Leopard – I've been smacked by Zatopek once or twice, but on those occasions it was Maxsartes and Yangtsee that used my Romans for target practice. My defeat against Yangtsee was especially humiliating – 6-0 in units and I think that I managed to take five or six blocks before it was all over but the crying.