$60.00
$20.00
Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Commands & Colors: Medieval» Forums » General

Subject: The wrong time? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Martin S
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
When I saw "medieval" I was expecting 11th - 15th Century so I was surprised when I saw the listed probable battles, dated mid 6th Century.

How different will this be from C&C:A's late Romans?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel
France
Caen
(from Valencia, Spain)
flag msg tools
designer
My latest game: Big*Bang, a simple abstract about the first minutes of the Universe
badge
My best-rated game: Tetrarchia, about the tetrarchy that saved Rome
mbmbmbmbmb
You have some (more or less) answers in these two threads:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1639333/commands-and-colors...

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1641955/conflict-wishlist

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel
France
Caen
(from Valencia, Spain)
flag msg tools
designer
My latest game: Big*Bang, a simple abstract about the first minutes of the Universe
badge
My best-rated game: Tetrarchia, about the tetrarchy that saved Rome
mbmbmbmbmb
In fact the Middle Ages, early, mid and late, span from about 500AD to 1500AD. So technically the name is not so bad. And I think that they want to cover those 10 centuries with this 'label', as they did for the previous 10 centuries with the CCA label.

Then, starting with the Byzantines represents a follow up of CCA, so I guess that they want to attract most of the CCA players, as if it was a new expansion (on steroids!). And not starting right now with the late Middle Ages avoids a too explicit comparison with RB's other game, BL.

Achtung_Panzer10 wrote:
How different will this be from C&C:A's late Romans?

From the GMT site, it seems that cavalry will be stronger (4 blocks) and more mobile (new deck and deeper board, 11x13 hexes), and infantry lose 1 die to reflect their relative loss of impact starting from that period.

So, even if they don't introduce a lot of new and fancy mechanics, I think it will play very differently, while being familiar, to CCA. I was looking forward those wars anyway, so I would have bought it as an expansion or, even better, as a new game that will cover also the late Middle Ages 'seriously'...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
from a military history perspective, the game is about the rise of cavalry. So whilst people will quibble about the dates of late antiquity versus early Medieval, I think the point is the change from big infantry armies to smaller, primarily (armoured) lancer cavalry and high volume archery armies.

For C&C purposes, this changes the cards a little, and for example, Line Command in C&C Ancients for foot units becomes Serpentine in Samurai Battles, which allows all types of units.

Aside from the desire not to simply repeat BattleLore, the 100 Years War period is the other end of the spectrum, with the resurgence of foot units, both heavy and light.

So if you want to think of this game as C&C Ancients - the Rise of Cavalry expansion, that would work, but I expect cavalry will work very differently to C&C Ancients, and be the primary units in the game. For that reason, I think you should consider this as a different game to Ancients, more akin to Samurai Battles perhaps.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Giulio
Italy
Scandiano
RE
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Minedog3 wrote:
I think you should consider this as a different game to Ancients, more akin to Samurai Battles perhaps.


I agree but I found no mention of Honour&Fortune system and Dragon cards, so I don't think we are going to see anything similar in C&C:M. Which is a pity, imho.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
g1ul10 wrote:
Minedog3 wrote:
I think you should consider this as a different game to Ancients, more akin to Samurai Battles perhaps.


I agree but I found no mention of Honour&Fortune system and Dragon cards, so I don't think we are going to see anything similar in C&C:M. Which is a pity, imho.


Certainly not in the base game, at least according to the component list.

However, it is something I think could be done as a fan variant without too much trouble using Samurai Battles as a guide. Honor tokens and Chivalry cards!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yours Truly,
United States
Raleigh
North Carolina
flag msg tools
There must have been a moment at the beginning, where we could have said no. Somehow we missed it. Well, we'll know better next time.
mbmbmbmbmb
Minedog3 wrote:
from a military history perspective, the game is about the rise of cavalry. So whilst people will quibble about the dates of late antiquity versus early Medieval, I think the point is the change from big infantry armies to smaller, primarily (armoured) lancer cavalry and high volume archery armies.


Interesting, b/c I'm reading a lot about the ancient Greeks and Romans, and it seems some of them even BCE were using cavalry to great effect - like Hannibal. (And IIRC Alexander?).
So the rise would seem to have started much earlier, like ~750 years earlier than the initial settings of this C&C - maybe, rather, it's about the domination of cavalry?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
david Gorman
Ireland
flag msg tools
mbmb
on the domination of cavalry I think you are correct added with the decline in heavy infantry also reflected in the description on the gmt website.#

While there was alot of cavalry use by the ancients the backbone of the army was heavy infantry and cavalry where very much the supporting arm usually operating on the wings.

You are right Alexander used his cavalry alot and this was a big difference in the Macedonian armies compared with the other Greek states but they Philip and later Alexander) also reformed the phalanxes equipping them with longer pikes.

I'm expected far more cavalry charges in this new version and more cavalry focused cards in the deck
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll stand corrected and re-phrase;

the rise of cavalry to be the dominant arm

Heavy armoured cavalry using lances and shock probably date from the Parthians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cavalry#Antiquity

but really the point was to move away from dates and focus on the changed composition of armies.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Giulio
Italy
Scandiano
RE
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Some times ago I've read this book

https://www.amazon.com/European-Medieval-Tactics-Vol-450-126...

It dismisses as naive the idea of a sudden "dominance" of cavalry in late Roman armies, while it acknowledges a more extensive use of it. It also suggests that in this period (fourth and fifth century) the battling style of several barbarian tribes in fact shifted from an essential reliance on cavalry to a more extensive use of infantry. This makes sense, as they were no longer raiding Roman territories but rather defending their own kingdoms. So probably, if adherence to reality has to be sought, the "-1 die" to heavy infantry and "+1 figure" to cavalry is something that should be somehow blended across the different scenarios and armies. What do you think?

Edit: tried to write it in some approximation of English

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.