"A Review and Summary of Hail Caesar" Topic

Primarily a Napoleonics gamer, I picked up the Hail Caesar rules by Rick Priestley about a year ago. These rules got me interested in gaming Ancients, which I've always wanted to do. Here's a review on my blog….

madmacsattic.blogspot.com

I was hoping it was for the movie!

Just kidding, will give this a look later. I've been toying with picking this title up so a good time for a review for me.

I agree with MadMac – I have been a pretty ardent WH Ancients player but I do quite like Hail Caesar – for one thing, the Barbarian horde have at least a chance of defeating the Roman juggernaut

Thanks for another review. I have not tried "Hail Caesar" but it sounds very much like "Black Powder" which I have played. My experience is that it provides a quick friendly game. Not as much historical meat as I prefer. You didn't mention whether or "Hail Caesar" also contains the "Blunder" move. I do like the unpredictability of the system but at times it becomes extreme and sometimes I feel like I spend too much of my game reacting to dice outcomes instead of planning and practicing sound period tactics.

HC does have the blunder rule….actually bit a couple units in the butt during our current game……having played BP, I personally feel that HC is a better game for its period.

Having played three of the major WAB successor game formats… Hail Caesar, Warlord and Clash of Empires, my picks are for HC and COE. Warlord, a similar game as WAB just seemed to be a bit finicky. Nice game but came in third with some of the old WAB issues and overlay of command control. It was the command control rules which seemed to bug us, especially with the linear armies having some units delay the battle line march forward. great for barbarian armies simulations… but a Spartan army?

HC the games were fun… which is why I play in the first place…. great for armies with "Irregular" movements like barbarians but didn't seem right for Romans or Spartans. I cannot fantom Spartans charging three moves ahead of the "Greek army battle line"… thus breaking the linear battle front. Same for Romans. So the 1, 2 or 3 moves per turn roulette dice rolls causes issues with the classical "linear" armies. Plus HC still had those "characters" and their effects" it seemed.

So our ancients group settled on COE for gaming. Similar to the old WAB but with three major difference. Characters are muted… none of the old super character blowing thru your battle line. They act like a commander… not the headstrong idiot in front. Players can commit their army commander but his effect is a bump with risk… not the all rolling smasher. More importantly the movement system tends to prevent gamers milking the angle charges and weird movement tactics on the tabletop. The movement system actual penalizes weird movements before contact. The old games of wheeling to charge have movement deduction to avoid the "mis-measured" movement of the miniatures. We all know once a unit starts it's tabletop movement you can never return the unit to its starting point (sabot based) since the unit has physically moved. Leads to group (gamer) "discussion times. So in COE the unit, if not squared up at start of movement to the enemy, has movement deducted automatically and removes all the wheeling measurement tasks. Clean and clear cut movement rules….we never had discussion again on that issue during our games plus they contain certain armies to act like their historical selves. Classical Greek infantry cannot march about or change formation like the Romans for example. Lastly the COE army lists prevent the weird army combinations I have seen paraded on the tabletop. Simple, easy to use. I guess my best ancients rules for the moment would be a combo of Hail C and COE. Should note all three have their internet free lists and supportive themed books.

P.S. MadMac64. I liked your review of HC on your blog. Clean and crisp. Nice to see some renewed interest in Ancient gaming again.

@WG Rabbit – I concur with you – CoE is our choice too here in ATL (small but growing group and the only ancients group left that I know of). Nice movement and charge rules are a big factor – no warbands doing easy fancy maneuvers (possible but unlikely). But I think that trained phalanxes are too maneuverable compared to maniples and may even not enough punching power from the front (jury still out on that last bit).

I would agree with TMP wargamesrabbit, I found that Hail Caesar is good for a multi player game but not as satisfying for two player match ups. It is so vanila it doesn't reflect the tactical differences between Romans,Greeks and a barbarian army which is properly why the hordes have an above average chance of winning.
What was the Warlord set that was mentioned as the third successor, I thought that was HC?
I must admit when I read COE, I thought the movement rules were complicated, might have to have a re-read, as I saw some games on youtube which seemed to flow well.

John, it's possible that WGRabbit meant "War & Conquest" by Rob Bloom. I haven't yet checked it out yet, but I know it has its fans.

CoE movement can look a little confusing at first, but it's not so bad if you remember 2 Simple or 1 Advanced or Complex maneuver and then use the very helpful chart at the back for whatever you want to do (I'm no great fan of charts, but it really walks you right through without reading all the stuff at the front). Then apply the drilled rules if that applies to the unit (basically almost always make a maneuver successful).

As Rabbit mentioned, determining charge is very simple, mostly based on charge corridor. Always measure from the center before moving; no deduction if straight ahead and no turning; -2cm if target unit is in corridor but chargers would have to wheel to get to target; -5cm if target is outside charge corridor. Then see if they make it, measuring from the center. As R said, no measuring distance wheeled, etc.

I haven't played HC, but I play Republican Romans, and I like a rules system that caters to their peculiarities. I have not heard that HC does that. I also like in CoE that Romans are by no means invincible. I have had my Hastati absolutely disintegrate under a warband charge, so it seems pretty balanced to me.

MU.
You are right… WAC or War & Conquest. Funny. I must have thought (looked) at the "Warlord" book quickly by Rick P. (2006 published) on my bookshelf.

I concur with MU and John4k thoughts. Just seems COE has the differences worked out between the classical armies…. Barbarians, Romans (Repub, EIR, Late Roman, Greek early, Greek later and the Spartans. The Roman Pilum heave ok. No major complaints but it does seem to be effected by the size of the Roman unit. Over 6 miniature wide…. and the pilum effect is there almost every time as I remember. So Roman unit size (i.e. width) is a factor. The Persian games were wild. We thought they were ok… except the Spara defenses just didn't seem to hold against the Greeks. So the cavalry becomes the Persian attack (on the flanks) while somehow their infantry holds. Ancient Indian games worked…. nothing like those massed bowmen and 2HW meat carvers. Elephants ok… We have only used twice and their effect unknown since we didn't push them in during the games. Chariots…. that is always issues in ancient rules. Once I complete a Biblical era army or two the massed chariot tests can been done. Assyrian 4 horsemen stuff. Egyptian chariots and their bowfire. Still haven't used a nomad horse archer army yet.

My blog has several game scenario reports posted on the Blog. Look under the AAR pulldown for all links and reports but here is the shortcut to the AAR ancient games (COE) and older WAB.

link

Glad to see others play COE… ancients seem to have died out here in Southern California.

The problem with all this seems to be that people are all looking for that "realistic" set. Well I don't think they exist or ever will. In reality Generals don't point up their armies, they do look to get the drop on their adversaries and vary rarely does anything go 100% to plan.

It's a game & we're grown men playing with toy soldiers!

Psst – You know those people wanting it to be more "realistic", they actually DO know that it is a game with toy soldiers…

Only you two mentioned realism, the other two posters are talking about historical flavour which shouldn't be too tall an order to expect in an ancient rules set. After all even HC has rules for Phalanxs and horse archers, so why not cover maniples or cohorts? Although I know there are some suggested changes to Romans and Warband armies in the HC supplements, I can't test them as my gaming group has drifted to 40K!

Thanks for the tips guys, I re-read the COE movement rules last night and they are much clearer now.

Wow, two reviews in one thread. Will have to check out COE.

> Only you two mentioned realism

And I only mentioned it to point out that those of us who do want realism (or historical flavor if you prefer) do realize it is a game.

Ahh yes, read what I said , realism is impossible but who would play a Napoleonic's rules system where the Brits played the same as Spanish?
Although I would add getting back the to the OP, HC is a great multi player game but have found it less satisfying for a two player game, I would be interested to hear from other HC players as to their experiences.

Thanks for the review on each of these…I've always wondered about them.

Funny, for our WAB replacement we stuck with WAB2…..

Mike

Quick note: Type in "Clash of Empires". WAC, Hail Caesar etc on the TMP ancient message board search function and more discussions will pop up on COE, HC, WAC and WAB.