Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Commands & Colors: Ancients» Forums » General

Subject: poll rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
giuseppe armagno
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
a greeting to all ... apologising for my terrible English
i want to introduce a poll on what could be the greatest novelty, which could be introduced to make our game even more formidable.

1. highest number of cards available;

2. a deck of cards for each army, with a greater characterization of moves and tactics to be used, notwithstanding the normal rules of the game.
(Ex: port some examples to Carthaginians and Romans.
for caratginesi Darken put more cards in the Sky; give Leader ship registered: If active Hannibal and Hasdrubal with the active I am Spartacus; Mago the active Command Line; Massinissa with mounted Charge ...
for the Romans, Black-fire with Move-Move, Launched with Rally; Flaminius with Mounted Order, etc. .)....

3. introduce the rule of damages limited: that is, every unit can fight with the utmost of its nuts, but hit a maximum number of opponents equal to its strength, (if you have a heavy units with 2 blocks, 5 rolls dice, but at masimo hit 2 blocks enemies) ...

4. introduction of combat simltaneus with priorities:
read the first attack, and before the attacker and then the defender;
then the medium, the first attacker and then the defender;
then the heavy, the first attacker and then the defender!


i love this game, Aringarosa.;)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sifu
United States
Beaverton
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
aringarosa wrote:

2. a deck of cards for each army, with a greater characterization of moves and tactics to be used, notwithstanding the normal rules of the game.
(Ex: port some examples to Carthaginians and Romans.
for caratginesi Darken put more cards in the Sky; give Leader ship registered: If active Hannibal and Hasdrubal with the active I am Spartacus; Mago the active Command Line; Massinissa with mounted Charge ...
for the Romans, Black-fire with Move-Move, Launched with Rally; Flaminius with Mounted Order, etc. .)....


I used to think that something like this would really enhance the game. But now I think a bit differently. These kinds of differences can be better accomplished through scenario-specific rules. That way, the cards remain balanced. If you made different decks for different armies, the game would have to be extensively play-tested for balance for EACH scenario. This would take years, probably.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Read the rulebook, plan for all contingencies, and…read the rulebook again.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Aringarosa,

Why wait for a poll? Why not implement these ideas at your table and let us know how things are going?

One of the nice side-effects of the game is that it generates genuine enthusiasm about the system: folks want to test all sorts of things. And it's fun to hear about the things people try. Changes aren't for everyone--and aren't always best for the game--but it's your copy and your table and if the enthusiasm with your group is there, give it a shot!

I agree with sifu that many things can be handled through scenario-specific rules. And the deck is remarkably stable as it is. But the game you want sounds similar to GMT's new Manouvre. Have you tried it?




2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Kendall
United States
Lebanon
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Your No. 3 suggestion has been used as an informal "house rule" by some players of Richard Borg's "Battle Cry" for a number of years now.

"Battle Cry" was the first published version of the "Commands & Colors" system.

In "Battle Cry," the argument could be made that the troops fighting one another were of such similar ability and equipment that little distinction needs to be made.

However, in C&C:A, Heavy troops engaging Medium or Light troops have some advantages out of proportion to their numbers (for instance, heavier armor, better training, superior cohesion and small-unit leaders integral tothe unit) which would make such a rule an undue penalty on heavy troops.

Also, bear in mind that in Ancient fighting particularly, there are significantly more than two ranks of men in the fighting line. I think of the blocks as representing a unit's "depth" and "cohesion" more than the total number of men who can fit into the front fighting rank at one time.

As the previous poster said, home-rules variations are perfectly acceptable in friendly play so long as both parties agree, but in this particular case, I can see a number of reasons not to implement the idea in C&C:A.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Note for Aaron- it sounds like he is referring to a system sometimes used by Columbia games, with units ranked "A" and "B" and "C" etc. In combat with this system, the "A" units roll dice, implement damage, then the B units, then the C units. In most of their games, it'd defender rolls first. As I surmise from the post, he would mostly be meaning that if a heavy attacked a light, the light would roll dice first, then the heavy. So if you had something with multiple combats coming in a turn, you would look around and the attacking lights would roll first, then defending lights, attacking mediums, then defending mediums, etc.

Yeah, that would change the game considerably, wouldn't it? And it does nothing to take into account troop quality and abilities, which is what the Columbia system is doing (better, faster troops roll first.)

Carrying the concept to CCA in a way that made sense would mean rating every type of unit in the game, possibly with scenario special rules as well. As an example, we might figure Auxilia and Warriors might be among the last to roll, given the lack of training... Elephants? Anyone's guess. I'm not going there.

One thing about the CC system that has been consistent is that it seems open to "improvement." I wondered if it was something about the ancients version- or people who like ancients games-- but in looking back through old postings, I found extensive changes to Battlecry and, the more remarkable story, found that people were creating (and ANNOUNCING) changes (improvements) they were going to make to Mem 44 BEFORE THE GAME WAS RELEASED.

In fact, that is something that seems a consistent patterns. Most of these big changes come from people who have not actually PLAYED the game very much, with the peak example being the guy who posted (admitted) "I have not finished reading the rules yet but here are my improvements..." (I'm not making that up.)

I don't know how Richard B. manages such calm.

But the other thing that is consistent is that no one ever seems to post, "I had this idea to change X and Y, so we got the group together and played the first 10 scenarios 4 times each to see how it would work." Nope-- never happens that way. I guess most of these changes come before someone has played 10 scenarios at all... Maybe it takes awhile to appreciate how fine the system is "unimproved."

As to this "novelty," the combat system alteration is just one thing that creates a very different game. The "only roll hits per your blocks remaining" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the game terms represent and how it is supposed to work. As Barry points out-- and as has been stated many times for years-- the number of blocks on the map refers to the 'staying' power of the unit...morale, cohesion, whatever. When RB does a miniatures version, each unit is made up of much more than 4 figures-- the first 3 hits it takes removes one figure each, but the last "figure" is really a cluster of several figures, which represents the final collapse of the unit.

As to the last line, yes, once a person buys the game, they can create all sorts of new variants. They can set fire to the map and play around the smoke for that matter. But I'm amazed at how this treatment is supposed to be part of "loving" the game.

It's like saying, "I love my wife, I just want to change her hair, eyes, height, weight, personality, voice, IQ, character, heart, and how she rubs my back." It's a way of describing "I love her" that I think not many wives would appreciate.

For me, we've had so many "play twice and count the total banners" scenarios with the final outcome being just 1 or 2 banners for the winner... Man, when it works this well, I can park my ego and creativity and just enjoy someone else's work.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
giuseppe armagno
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
soblue Ohh…. I am sorry to have created confusion and dismay…. in what would be only a proposal for comparison and discussion on a game…

I'm new on Boardgamegeek, but have all games by Richard Borg, and I played thousands of games, especially with Battle Cry and Memoir 44, having read the rules in full many times .. but I do not think your opinions might be different now ...

for some months I was approached to CCA, an i have to ply it hundreds of times ..

I just wanted to try and understand if for other players, CCA has improved in some aspects or not…. I know that you can be in agreement or disagreement on a topic, but it seems to me that an idea can be born from a base on which grafts the thought of another person, perhaps encouraged or dismantled by comparison with other people…

I do not want in any way offend anyone or displeasure, or impose a new way of conceiving the game! I appreciate and respect your differing opinions and I thank those who took express them with grace.

Allow me a little further thought,vein without any controversy:
I think that loving a person does NOT mean accept it for what it is… with all the merits and all the defects…. But it seems to me that pull at stake in this debate, a question of gender is a bit too exaggerated… and decidedly out of place, that say?

Good game. Aringarosa.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Reeve
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
badge
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Giuseppe,
I believe that all the question is in the word "improving" and in the understanding of the fundamental notions and mechanics the game is based upon.
House rules (i.e. variants to the "official" ones) can be fun to try.
Now, will they "improve" the system? The question is open.
They certainly will change some of the way a game develops.

I personally like CCA as it is - as it offers many "improvements" (in my opinion) over Battle Cry and M44 (that I do own and play too).
As a "hard core" wargamer (I am an ASL fan, among many other wargames), I find that CCA renders antique warfare quite well, with a minimum of complexity and a high "fun factor".
I have played the GBoH system, and I find that CCA leads to about the same results, with much less clutter of markers and complicated rules.

The main point to understand in all R. Borg's systems(that other guys here have underlined) is about the "blocks number". They are much more representative of what one could call "cohesion" than "manpower".
An eliminated unit hasn't lost all its men - perhaps, even, it lost only a small proportion of them - but demoralization and panic overcame it and it is no more efficient on the battlefield.
A unit reduced to one block still can hit hard, but is at the brink of letting things go and disappear from the battlefield.
I wouldn't advocate any reduction of the damage it can cause, as it already is handicapped by the damage it can take (the battle back option will prevent a one-block unit to attack a strong opponent - contrary to the M44 or Battle Cry games where one often dares such a move) and it will be unable to battle back quite often, as only one symbol (or sword) will wipe it out of the battlefield.
I personally try to evacuate to the rear too heavily depleted units.
A one-block unit already is weaker than a 2-4 block one: would it be an improvement to make it even weaker?

Otherwise, the option to have one entire card pack per player seems to aim to give "equal opportunities" to both of them... Why not, but I don't mind seeing "Mrs Luck" sowing some more fun in a play.

Don't feel too bad about the answers you recieved.
I believe everybody respects you here.
It just may be that some people else than you have offered "improvements" without even having played the game - a phenomenon that one can see in about any wargame forum.

Anyway, have a nice day!
1 
 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.