Bobby's Games

I will be posting monthly recaps of my gaming which I have been doing in GeekLists. I'll also be commenting on games on occasion, though I can tell you that I will be behind the curve because I just don't get to play the new games as soon as some people do.

Recommend

Falling under a volley of muskets

Posted by Bobby Warren

24 Feb 2011

Bobby Warren

(Bobby4th)

United States
Glendale
Arizona

I was able to play Commands & Colors: Napoleonics for the first time tonight and I hate to report that I was really disappointed.

One of the complaints I had seen over and over about the game is there was little impetus to attack. That's because you lose fighting power by moving while putting yourself into the line of fire of the enemy, and the ranged attacks are so devastating. Because of the complaints, I was happy to see that I had what appeared to be the attacking position with the British in the Roliça (French Second Position) scenario. I had cards which let me attack on left and right, but got shredded attacking and it became quickly obvious that those complaints were right.

I'm now leaning towards trading away my unplayed copy just because I would much rather play Commands & Colors: Ancients and maybe even the newer Battle Cry. Heck, I'd even rather play the original Battle Cry with all of its warts.

I'm sure Mike and I will play it again so I might change my opinion.

11 Comments

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:45 am

Post Comment

Aron

(Arontje)

Netherlands

Life is game, you gotta enjoy the journey.

Life may knock you down sometimes. Its up to you if you stand up and live your life to the fullest.

Hi Bobby,

Good to see that you at least tried the game. I still do not have the game but I am reading much into it. I was also a bit afraid of the point you mention.

But I was happy once I read a great article posted by our fellow geeks.

You can read it here. Hope you try again after reading and see if it still feels the same to you.

Why should I attack?

Posted Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:00 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Mark McG

(Minedog3)

Australia
Penshurst
NSW

Roliça (French Second Position) is a tough scenario for the British. The gullies really constrict the deployment of the British, so you are feeding a few units into an attack and the French can respond very quickly.

I'd suggest you try a different scenario before you finalise your opinion. Talavera was an interesting one.

C&C Napoleonics certainly requires more expertise in attacking. However the underlying reasons to attack (i.e. to claim the banners for dead units, and to capture Banner locations) remains the same as C&C Ancients.

Posted Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:23 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Steve Duke

(sduke)

United States
Georgetown
Texas

I have been one of the most vocal 'why attack?' advocates since the game came out.

My experience in my first several games was very similar to yours.

Now having about 25 games under my belt, I like the game a lot more than I did at the start. As others have said, it is a totally different animal than CCA. I was certainly guilty of treating this game like CCA and that was my first mistake.

I'd say give it a dozen or so plays on a different scenario or two and stick with it.

You have to build a hand that is not just a card or two, and you have to be able to follow up your initial attack or you will likely get punished.

The 'rock, paper, scissors' approach to the 3 unit types works very well and the importance of a 'combined arms' attack can be huge.

The guy who posted that 'why attack' article in in a Mini Tourney league online with me and I'll be interested to hear his experiences played out for real against different opponents. I'm sure he will share them with us as we continue to study this game.

I do think that this game has a higher 'you are screwed' factor than any of the others imo. The longer playing time than CCA is a bit problematic because you may be less likely or willing to 'play again and swap sides' with average game time for a 6 banner game being about 90 minutes.

So I'd say you are not alone, your initial observations match what most of us thought at that point too, but hanging with it will pay off.

Edited Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:04 pm
Posted Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:04 pm
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Bobby Warren

(Bobby4th)

United States
Glendale
Arizona

Thanks for the comments. I thought I subscribed to my own blog, but apparently it didn't take and I just saw the above replies... blush

I would like to play it again, but my need to own it is much lower, even if my opinion of the game goes up a little.

Thinking about it some more, another problem is the game is still a matter of claiming the most flags, which makes attacking even less attractive.

One of the attractive things about the series of games has always been the quick simulation of combat and the cards were a good representation of the fog of battle. It appears that not getting the right cards to continue an advance and attack is far more devastating in this version and that just doesn't "feel" right.

I saw the "Why should I attack?" article and it makes some great points, but again getting the right cards is just too important to make any plan work.

Mike dropped his rating from a high number to a 6 after our game, so I feel a little vindicated by my opinion. We'll see what our next playing

Edited Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:40 am
Posted Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:39 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Orion J.N. Winder

(OrionDD)

United States
Summerville
South Carolina

ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK

If you DON'T attack you ain't gonna win (percentage wise) IMHO. whistle

I do believe that this has a much steeper learning curve, plus more patience combined perhaps with manuvering than any of the other C&C type games. I really like the fact that you can't just form up a line, like in Ancients, and be good to go for a frontal assault. To me it feels right for what historically I've read about the period's warfare. Historically at this time, a frontal assault into prepared possitions was inviting a disaster, even with better troops, and an edge in manpower. You can read much of these also in the US civil war, and it seemed that some commanders were very slow to learn that it was a good way to get spanked.
Manuvering to get advantage locally is the key, and making the defence adjust to your moves has great profitablity at times.
I'm still a huge C&C:Ancients fan, and it hits the table more than not in a game of this play-wieght/time allotment, but C&C:N is giving me more than a good alternative set of new problems to solve. I really like the combined arms and square rules also. They are HUGELY a "feel-right" and "period-right", bit of chrome, and so VERY easy to implement into the system.
For me the game just gets better with each play.

Posted Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:43 pm
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Mike Restall

(AnzacWookie)

Australia
Lismore
NSW

My experience in the first few games i played was the opposite of the OP. My opponent was the aggressor, and won due to a combo of the following :

1. had more than 1 card for the attack that enabled her to follow thru.
2. used cavalry to render a significant amount of my infantry ineffective at the point of attack.(making me form squares and reducing my card options)
3. used the terrain to reduce my battle dice wherever possible.
4. her constant attack had me on the back foot every turn ie she lead the play and found i could only respond to her last move and not carry out my own attack plan.

My feeling is that a few games played is not a good average to base a judgement on , especially since the scenarios are 'historicaly' themed rather than balanced themed.

Posted Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:33 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Mike Gingold

(Mikeg99)

United States

Arizona

While the game may feel historically accurate, the system makes it difficult to maneuver. C and C relies heavily upon card draw. In M44, Battle Cry, or Ancients, it is pretty easy to make do with what you have. That is not necessarily the case in this game. If you have a hand of crap, you are not going to be able to maneuver to get a good coordinated attack.

I do not dislike the game quite as much as Bobby but in my couple of plays, I believe it does not work as well as the other games in the system.

Mike, I am not sure what you mean when you say historically themed over balanced themed. Honestly, I do not see the point in recreating history if I do not have a chance of changing history and winning.

They way this game plays out has me looking at Napoleon's Wars from Worthington Games much closer.

Posted Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:21 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Bobby Warren

(Bobby4th)

United States
Glendale
Arizona

I tried flanking and used my cards to press the issue, but once I ran out of the three cards on the left and the ones on the right, I was screwed.

The problem with this having a high learning curve is it is a fairly light combat game. I know the system developed from the Napoleonic era, but the era feels less suited for the system than any of the others. Maybe if it used a system for activating units like Battles of Westeros, it would work better?

This takes too long, especially if I need to try to cycle cards to get enough to press an attack, to play many times in an evening. I don't want to invest the time in it to learn how to attack, especially since it seems to me it boils down to luck of drawing enough cards in one area to be able to successfully attack while hoping your opponent also fails in his rolls to whittle you down.

Even if I am wrong, how can you introduce the game to someone when they are going to get reamed the way I did whenever they tried to attack? When playing any of the other games in the system I can give new players some tactical hints and general strategic guidance on how to play. With this would I just say, "keep drawing cards until you get some that will work together. Meanwhile, I'll just keep drawing while I get the best defensive cards." How fun is that?

Posted Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:20 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Dom Rougier

(Domfluff)

United Kingdom

I'm currently of the opinion that Ancients is the superior game of the two - however an awful lot of that quality springs from increasingly excellent scenario design in the later expansions.

A case in point - I was recently playing through all of the "Truceless War" scenarios with a friend, which almost all start with Elephants within both charge and missile range - in most of these scenarios, the only real option is for the owner of the pachyderms to unless them on the first turn, which will inevitably result in a very brief and unsatisfactory game, one way or the other.

However, I also feel that your thoughts above seem to be something that everyone goes through - myself included - much like "everyone" seemed to want to house-rule in flanking rules into Ancients.

Napoleonics, for me, has two potential differences in direct comparison to Ancients. Whether you consider them flaws is a matter of opinion.

1) Napoleonics is significantly more punishing than Ancients

Napoleonics has a larger reliance on hand management - there are less multi-purpose cards, and your hand has to be thought about before an attack. This means that it's a much harder game. Mistakes (or extremes of bad luck) cost you dearly.

2) Napoleonics is longer than Ancients

On average, the cards order less troops, and manoeuvring is far more important, so there is a greater amount of pre-contact shuffling. This itakes it's time. For the most part, my games come in around 1.5 hours, as opposed to 1 hour for Ancients, or under thirty minutes for Memoir 44.

The real eye-opener for me an Napoleonics was running through the numbers and figuring out what actually works as an attack. In a 1 vs 1 Line Infantry situation, both sides will be devastated, but the defender should remain standing, thus it's all about ensuring that you can focus your energy on a point where he will have difficulty returning.

Cavalry are the key to a truly successful offence - their very presence will dictate how your opponent can play his hand, either overtly (the Morton's Fork of forming square against a Cavalry/Infantry advance), or simply by feinting.

Artillery seem very attractive to begin with, but ultimately are simply not dominant - unless you allow them to be. Keep at the 4-5 hex range, and make sure you are not drawn into Artillery duels, or extended periods of bombardment.

All of the Command and Colors series are fundamentally games of hand management - having an overall goal and squeezing the best out of what you have. Napoleonics leans on this even more. Whether that's a good thing is up to you.

Edited Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:04 pm
Posted Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:49 pm
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Steve Duke

(sduke)

United States
Georgetown
Texas

Well said, Dom.

Chief to me is the lack of power in most 'battle backs' unless you end up with a whiff in the initial attack. The loss of dice resulting from reductions in unit block strength is a huge difference.

There are several things that don't feel 'right' about this game, but with perhaps more playings will fade away as the lack of flank bonus example in Ancients you provided.

British rifles. 3 strength blocks at 3 hex range throw 4 dice. What does my full strength artillery unit throw at the same range. Hmmm. 2 dice. So rifle units are twice as powerful as artillery at 3 hex range? Really?!

The trade off of that unit is the 3 blocks and that they are hit with infantry hits and of course can't melee very well. But offensively, I have a problem with them hitting harder than cannons.

Does it wall work out in the end? Quite possibly it does, much like the other games in the series. Having now about 30 games played thanks to Brady Severns' excellent tournament in Austin Saturday, I have to say that I am coming around to this game. Although there still seems to be a larger 'you are screwed' factor in this one than CCA.

If you can live with that and a few other simplications, it sure can be a fun experience even if you are on the bad end of a yahtzee roll or 10.

Posted Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:53 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Mark McG

(Minedog3)

Australia
Penshurst
NSW

sduke wrote:

British rifles. 3 strength blocks at 3 hex range throw 4 dice. What does my full strength artillery unit throw at the same range. Hmmm. 2 dice. So rifle units are twice as powerful as artillery at 3 hex range? Really?!

In BattleCry, it looks like blocks drop off for every intervening hex of range for rifle fire. Not a bad option it seemed to me.

Posted Tue Mar 1, 2011 6:47 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Bobby's Games

Falling under a volley of muskets

Search

Subscribe

Categories

Contributors