$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 108.06

6,710 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
42.3% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
27 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Commands & Colors: Medieval» Forums » General

Subject: Blocks: figures vs symbols rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
K A
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The various C&C games have been split between miniatures and blocks. Both of these have their advocates and pros/cons.

The C&C block games have used stickers picturing the various infantry, cavalry, etc unit types and I'm assuming that this version will do so as well.

I'm wondering, for those that prefer blocks over miniatures, would you prefer the depictions of the troops' appearance to have a bit of miniatures feel or would you prefer symbols that could represent a unit type (heavy cavalry for instance) across armies and time periods to be more flexible?

I guess I'm of two minds on this since the pictures give you the appearance of the troops but then you would have to have a lot of different blocks to represent all the possible armies across the medieval period.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexandros Boucharelis
Greece
Drama
flag msg tools
designer
ubi bene ibi patria
mbmbmbmbmb
symbols, as for me the CC:A style is the perfect one...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel
France
Caen
(from Valencia, Spain)
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
One interesting alternative would be blocks lying flat, the way many people use them now, BUT with the art of units viewed from the top...


EDIT/ But it will not happen, of course. The game is an 'extension' of CCA, so the format and style will match exactly. Some scenarios could even share units from both games, like Attila campaigns?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McD
Scotland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd like it be transparent resin blocks, cast with miniatures in the middle.

Got to be pictures though.
6 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K A
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kastrologos wrote:
symbols, as for me the CC:A style is the perfect one...


So you would prefer CC:A style depictions of troops rather than generic symbols like sword and armor for heavy infantry. Correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal K
Poland
Otwock
Mazowieckie
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
For me CCA depiction is fine; the symbols (circle, triangle, rectangle) are good differentiators with appropriate color.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kent Reuber
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have both miniatures (15mm scale metal) and blocks. Blocks are way faster to set up and put away, but the miniatures look awesome.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I legally own hundreds of polyhedral assault dice!
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Directly overhead views? Pass. Three-quarter views like Conlict of heroes? Sure
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
StevenE Smooth Sailing...
United States
Torrance
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm ok with Ancients style artwork... I would not want a top down view... 3/4 view maybe
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexandros Boucharelis
Greece
Drama
flag msg tools
designer
ubi bene ibi patria
mbmbmbmbmb
GamePlayer wrote:
kastrologos wrote:
symbols, as for me the CC:A style is the perfect one...


So you would prefer CC:A style depictions of troops rather than generic symbols like sword and armor for heavy infantry. Correct?


correct! and what Michal said

mk20336 wrote:
For me CCA depiction is fine; the symbols (circle, triangle, rectangle) are good differentiators with appropriate color.


are also my thoughts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
HANJEL T
Spain
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I prefer something like CCA, a drawing of the unit and a symbol (or two, if it will need).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Kendelhardt
United States
Clarksville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
I think the OP means EITHER a unit image OR a symbol representing their classification (light, med, heavy, etc). CC:A and CC:N have both, but then a unit represents a specific nationality and type. I think the OP is asking about having more generic units, without an image representing a specific troop type, so you could have an army set represent ANY army, not just the Greek states, Spain, or whatever. Versus more modern strategic wargames where the units have the NATO symbols instead of a picture of a tank or whatever.

I think CC:A and CC:N are perfect for the time periods they want to cover. It will be hard to see how CC:M could possibly cover all the nationalities in play (though I'm not sure of the exact time range CC:M could cover, up to the 1300's?) even with big box expansions like GMT puts out for this system. Going to generic units would allow 1-2 box sets to have enough variety for 2-4 armies of different colors to be used as stand-ins for 1000 years of conflict. As it stands now I imagine we'll have a Hun expansion, El Cid expansion, Charlemange, and possibly viking, Crusades, Joan of Arc, etc periods. Oddly enough, I had an old C&C clone game for my ipad that was set in the viking era :)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K A
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jason10mm wrote:
I think the OP means EITHER a unit image OR a symbol representing their classification (light, med, heavy, etc). CC:A and CC:N have both, but then a unit represents a specific nationality and type. I think the OP is asking about having more generic units, without an image representing a specific troop type, so you could have an army set represent ANY army, not just the Greek states, Spain, or whatever. Versus more modern strategic wargames where the units have the NATO symbols instead of a picture of a tank or whatever.


Yes, clearly I did not frame this very well. Showing pictures of the armies with their arms, armor, colors, etc (with clarifying symbol) looks great but generic unit symbols (no pictures/drawings of soldiers) that can represent ANY army would make it possible to fight many battles throughout the period, with a wide variety of armies, without needing a separate set of blocks for each army.

So the original post was meant to ask: Do you prefer the way it has been done with blocks so far? Even though many more purchases will be needed to cover the armies? Or would you be okay with symbols that represents a unit type regardless of army (say a sword for all standard infantry).

I'm trying to frame this as neutral as possible since I'm of dual mind on it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Vantries
United States
Woodbury
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I love the way they're done in C&C:A/C&C:N
The game would definitely lose something if the blocks didn't feature artwork. It helps immerse you in the game. In fact I wouldn't even consider getting a Commands & Colors game if the blocks didn't feature artwork.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Caleb
United States
Seminole
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Burnham wrote:
I love the way they're done in C&C:A/C&C:N
The game would definitely lose something if the blocks didn't feature artwork. It helps immerse you in the game. In fact I wouldn't even consider getting a Commands & Colors game if the blocks didn't feature artwork.


Agree. The day they move to generic symbols and try to make 2 generic armies to represent all eras is the day I stop buying C&C Ancients. Otherwise I plan to continue to buy everything they make in this line, as it's tremendously immersive and excellent value for the money.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Looking over the available information from GMT, I see this as mostly a continuation of Commands & Colors: Ancients in the late Antiquity era.

So I'm expecting most things to conform to the CCA model, the Red-Blue-Green divisions, blocks with stickers, leaders, and a single Command deck.

I'd hope the series extends towards the Crusades, and adds a 'Medieval Lore' deck in the same manner as Samurai Battles. Chronologically, the next expansion would be the Arab Conquests, which might have a bit of tension in the 21st Century.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BrentS
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If the question is simply hypothetical preference, then I'd agree that artwork (plus symbols) is best.

If we're trying to predict what GMT will do, I see no chance in this day and age that they will use a symbol only unit designation, given the precedent set by Ancients and Napoleonics.

Brent.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Caleb
United States
Seminole
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
goshublue wrote:
If the question is simply hypothetical preference, then I'd agree that artwork (plus symbols) is best.

If we're trying to predict what GMT will do, I see no chance in this day and age that they will use a symbol only unit designation, given the precedent set by Ancients and Napoleonics.

Brent.


Oh, I agree with that. I'm certain it will match the conventions with Ancients. If nothing else they'll probably come out with some scenarios that use armies from both Ancients and Medieval (probably in C3i). I was just commenting on the fact that much of the charm of the system, for me, is the distinction between the look and feel of the different armies. I would never have bought into the system in the first place if it was "generic blue vs. red".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K A
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
cannoneer wrote:
goshublue wrote:
If the question is simply hypothetical preference, then I'd agree that artwork (plus symbols) is best.

If we're trying to predict what GMT will do, I see no chance in this day and age that they will use a symbol only unit designation, given the precedent set by Ancients and Napoleonics.

Brent.


Oh, I agree with that. I'm certain it will match the conventions with Ancients. If nothing else they'll probably come out with some scenarios that use armies from both Ancients and Medieval (probably in C3i). I was just commenting on the fact that much of the charm of the system, for me, is the distinction between the look and feel of the different armies. I would never have bought into the system in the first place if it was "generic blue vs. red".


I asked this question because I have lately been considering how strong theme and 'toy factor' are in this hobby. On one hand, I like a strong theme and the depictions of the armies helps to advance theme. In Star Wars X Wing the ships advance theme and, lets face it, a great deal of toy factor. I doubt either, especially X Wing, would have been as successful with less presentation even though they would have played the same. On the other hand, if I count the number of my plays of games, Go and Backgammon would be at the top without any theme based on their play alone.

Anyway, I'll be keeping track of this game to see if it will displace Ancients or Napoleonics in my collection.

Thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Dolges
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Unit art and unit type symbols in the corner like CC:A will work just fine in my opinion.

That said, I think (please please please?) the stickers should also include a titled designation like C&C:N.

I know one can look at the art and be able to make a determination, unlike where CC:N units look pretty similar a lot of the time. However, in my experience playing CC:A with my wife, she has a hard time differentiating troop types and myself always need to double/triple check. It makes setting up CC:A a much longer task than CC:N, which means we play it less.
2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Giulio
Italy
Scandiano
RE
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Well it seems my opinion is different from those expressed so far, as I would like a more stylized depiction of units. It does not have to be "red and blue", albeit nothing is wrong for me with these colors, and it does not have to be dumb plain military symbols, but something that can be easily adapted to the different nationalities, armies and cultures the game is supposed to encompass. Already in C&C:A I find visually bizarre that all eurasian tribes are led by Vergingetorix and all barbarians decide to dress as Celts before moving war to Rome :-) In Medieval the contrast might be stronger. If I look at the list of battles of the base game, to be at least minimally visually accurate, at least three armies are required: Roman, Sassanid and Moors. And no, Moors were NOT similar to Persians. They were probably more similar in custom to Romans.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
HANJEL T
Spain
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
g1ul10 wrote:
Well it seems my opinion is different from those expressed so far, as I would like a more stylized depiction of units. It does not have to be "red and blue", albeit nothing is wrong for me with these colors, and it does not have to be dumb plain military symbols, but something that can be easily adapted to the different nationalities, armies and cultures the game is supposed to encompass. Already in C&C:A I find visually bizarre that all eurasian tribes are led by Vergingetorix and all barbarians decide to dress as Celts before moving war to Rome :-) In Medieval the contrast might be stronger. If I look at the list of battles of the base game, to be at least minimally visually accurate, at least three armies are required: Roman, Sassanid and Moors. And no, Moors were NOT similar to Persians. They were probably more similar in custom to Romans.


I totally agree. thumbsup
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel
France
Caen
(from Valencia, Spain)
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the look of the different armies on the field, and I don't like too-generic counters like those in the old Ancients game.

But I think that if CCA would have two generic armies with beautiful silhouettes (same as the present labels, but just a silhouette, like the labels someone did for C&C:Samurai), the game would be even more popular. A single box that lets you play battles from 500BC to 500 AD!

I understand that GMT gets more money per player with the separate expansion armies, but maybe they would get more players with a single box (and more money in the end), and then expansion booklets only.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K A
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
franchi wrote:
But I think that if CCA would have two generic armies with beautiful silhouettes (same as the present labels, but just a silhouette, like the labels someone did for C&C:Samurai), the game would be even more popular. A single box that lets you play battles from 500BC to 500 AD!



I'd like to see these silhouettes but am not finding them. Are they in the files section of Samurai Battles? Under what name?

Also if the artwork and block color scheme are strong enough they could be quite striking like Sekigahara: The Unification of Japan

Some expansions would still be necessary to add unit types and quantity to support additional battles without making the base set too expensive.

Still I don't think that such a set is even a possibility.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
HANJEL T
Spain
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
franchi wrote:
But I think that if CCA would have two generic armies with beautiful silhouettes (same as the present labels, but just a silhouette, like the labels someone did for C&C:Samurai), the game would be even more popular. A single box that lets you play battles from 500BC to 500 AD!


I underestand what you say, however it would be a pity... I prefer see the diferent warriors, it adds theme to the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.