Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
36 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Commands & Colors: Napoleonics» Forums » General

Subject: How about some qualitative comments comparing C&C:A and C&C:N..? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tom Stewart
United States
Leesburg
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am interested in purchasing one of these games, ...and only one. I am looking at the the C&C line in particular because I want a simple, interesting, and fun wargame that could be the hook for getting non gamers started down the wargame path, as well as being solid and fun for more seasoned gamers. I had considered Manouver (...however the heck its spelled), but find myself leaning towards C&C as its combat system seems a little less restrictive, which is a good thing for new gamers I think. I was able to play a few short scenarios of C&C:N a few weeks ago, and I enjoyed it. There is a bit more randomness than I normally like in a wargame, but when taken with a light attitude, and a couple of rum and cokes gulp, it ended up being a lot of fun.

So, for those of you who have played both, can you tell me the following:
1) Does one play faster than the other?
2) Does one offer more depth of play than the other - would it be more appealing to seasoned gamers?
3) Is C&C:N more refined than C&C:A (due to it being the later-published game and possibly having learned-lessons built in), or are they largely the same game with just enough rules thrown in to account fo the different periods in history?
4) Do you find either to be clearly superior to the other?

THanks much for your help.


4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MrTom wrote:

1) Does one play faster than the other?

This is a hard question to answer because it is more dependent on the scenario than which you choose. My impression is that Nappy plays faster. Why? Because ranged attack goes farther and is present in more units. So while you are still spending time maneuvering for battle in Ancients, you are already firing in Nappy. Of course, this may be offset a bit since units then begin to roll less dice as they take casualties in Nappy.

Quote:
2) Does one offer more depth of play than the other - would it be more appealing to seasoned gamers?

I think nappy edges Ancients out again. With nappy you have the square and combined arms which makes for some more interesting formations and combination of units. Some of the things that were unique when Ancients came out are still here as well (evade turning into retire and reform - and battle back).

Quote:
3) Is C&C:N more refined than C&C:A (due to it being the later-published game and possibly having learned-lessons built in), or are they largely the same game with just enough rules thrown in to account fo the different periods in history?

Largely the same as you still have sections, use cards and roll dice - which is the basis of all the C&C's (including Memoir, Battle Cry, and Battle Lore). nappy is more unique in that the Command Card deck has grown and the concept of dice rolled being tied in with the number of blocks is contrary to all the other games mentioned above.

For the jury is still out if these are changes that benefit the system or just more appropriately reflect the period. More cards in the deck, means more wild swings in the cards you draw. But the blocks tying to the dice does seem a refreshing change.

Quote:
4) Do you find either to be clearly superior to the other?

For me, Ancients falls 5th in line for my favorite. Nappy is 3rd right now and a solid 3rd at that. But my standard advice is all the different games are great and you should really get the one that is most appealing to you historically.

Perhaps a bonus answer to throw out there: Expansions. Ancients has tons of them already and Nappy has only one announced so far. I was a bit disappointed with Ancients expansions because it seems the new armies weren't drastically different from each other. There were a few new rules and a couple new units, but they didn't have the distinctive national characteristics I saw in Memoir. While it is hard to judge what Nappy will bring with the Spanish, it already seems the national characteristics are varied enough between the French English and Portuguese to make it feel like a new army.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duke
United States
Georgetown
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1) I'd say CCA plays faster, particularly among experienced opponents.
Among poor players, games of CCN will be faster. Once both are experienced, games tend to run 30 minutes or more longer than CCA in my experience.

2) CCA feels less like a dice fest to me than CCN can be so I'd give the edge of 'depth' to CCA.

3) Agree with what Brian said, exactly. Jury still out on CCN.

4) No, neither is what I would call 'clearly' superior to the other. I think CCA is a better game overall and as Brian said, has a lot more support available in terms of scenarios, expansions, etc. I prefer CCA over CCN after playing more than 500 games of the former and 35 of the latter so far. I like them both. CCN has more depth than at first appears and there was a similar 'appreciation curve' when CCA came out.

I am usually in the mood to immediately replay a CCA game and I have not yet had the real urge to do so with CCN. Longer play time is one factor, fatigue factor on dice wristage is another. But I do like them both.

I dont think you can go wrong with either. Which period are you more inclined to favor? That, to me, is the driving factor if you could only 'pick one'. Good luck!
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Owsen
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I liked Nappy better than Ancients, but I confess that is because I have too much love for SPQR/GBOH as my ancients "go to" game. I have a lot more complicated Napoleonic games that I love, like La Bataille, but those take days to play, so C&C Nappy is good for a quick fix. I'm not entirely sure that I love it, but I am thinking about getting it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another vote that says CCA tends to be a quicker game. We seldom play a scenario one time and have played the same one 3 or 4 times in a single session. Twice with CCN makes an evening. I think there is a bit more complexity-- movement and terrain are slower to work through (many ancients battles don't have a lot of terrain for one thing).

And another vote that says, the main thing is, which period is of more interest to you? I know several people who were not all THAT interested in ancients until CCA came along and now they are.

CCN is certainly interesting and definitely "different" from CCA-- not just CCA with different labels and a couple new rule changes tossed in.
But at the same time, I would not say it is a 'refinement' of CCA, which suggests that it's a higher evolution. They're just different.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Watkins
United Kingdom
Reading
Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CCA is deffinitely the quicker game. Around 1 hour for CCA and 2 hours for CCN.

I would say both of these games are the most complex games in the C&C range of games. Of the two I would say CCN is slightly more difficult to master and win because of the move and fire mechanics which make launching a successful attack more difficult than in CCA

I think CCN is slightly more refined to CCA

I would not say either game is for complete beginners, and either game is great for seasoned gamers. If you have a specific interest in Ancients or Napoleonics that might sway it for you.

Personally I have more interest in Ancients than Napoleonics but think the Napoleonic game may be slightly better.

If you do buy CCA the base game is better than any of the add ons.....
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MrTom wrote:


So, for those of you who have played both, can you tell me the following:
1) Does one play faster than the other?


I am certain one could find a Napoleonics scenario that plays faster than an Ancients scenario, but generally, hands down, Ancients plays faster. Any urge to rush into battle will quickly fade if one is interested in being victorious in Napoleonics.

Quote:
2) Does one offer more depth of play than the other - would it be more appealing to seasoned gamers?


Between the two base games there are more rules to fiddle with in Napoleonics (combined arms and squaring, for example). While I wouldn't call that an increased depth of play (more rules does not necessarily mean increased depth, especially in a C&C game ), I think certain players do enjoy those sorts of tactical options and modifiers over cleaner rules.

I think I am somewhere close to Steve's ratio of plays (and maybe even exact numbers of plays , though I would guess the Ancients number to be higher and the Napoleonics a little lower) with the two games and I would call them equal in depth.

Quote:
3) Is C&C:N more refined than C&C:A (due to it being the later-published game and possibly having learned-lessons built in), or are they largely the same game with just enough rules thrown in to account for the different periods in history?


Similar to #2, I would call the games equally refined, though I could certainly understand an argument calling Napoleonics the more refined game - I just wouldn't accept it

At the same time, however, I would be careful about agreeing to the second position presented without a couple of qualifiers: Yes both games are clearly built around the same engine, but the differences in play between the two games are not superficial. If one uses Ancients tactics in a game of Napoleonics, one should expect to get slaughtered. The reduction of combat effectiveness related to block loss in Napoleonics is a huge shift in C&C games - but not something I would call a refinement devil


Quote:
4) Do you find either to be clearly superior to the other?


Nope.

For what it is worth, here's my personal preference in terms of which C&C game I would prefer to play:

1. BattleLore
2. (perhaps 1a would be a better indicator, but that is still second ) Ancients
3. Napoleonics
4. (similar to BL and C&C:A, but I think novelty is what gives Napo the edge) Memoir '44
5. Battle Cry

However, I would happily play any of them
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John O'Haver
United States
Louisville
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
Pet photographer, that's me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played 300 games of CC:A and 4 of CC:N. I'm still undecided about CC:Nappy. In 200 recorded games of CC:A, an average game lasted 19 card plays. The two games of CC:N I played Saturday lasted over 30 cards per game and yet CC:N seems too bloody with most full strength units rolling 4 dice or more out to 2 hexes as opposed to only a handful of CC:A units per battle rolling 4+ dice at adjacent units only.


Ancients is far and away my favorite game but Nappy is growing on me slowly as I adapt to the differences.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Candy
Germany
flag msg tools
Both games C&C A and C&C N are very good.

Well desgined and thought over. Both feel good to play.

In the end, it depends much, what style of time you prefer?

Are you more into Roman legions, struggling it out mainly in close hand to hand fighting.

or,

are you more into Napoleonic times, with blocks of infantry advancing to pour the bullets and canister into the ranks of the enemy.


You can't make a wrong decision anyway, whichever you choose!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Holly Hill
South Carolina
flag msg tools
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MrTom wrote:
1) Does one play faster than the other?
2) Does one offer more depth of play than the other - would it be more appealing to seasoned gamers?
3) Is C&C:N more refined than C&C:A (due to it being the later-published game and possibly having learned-lessons built in), or are they largely the same game with just enough rules thrown in to account fo the different periods in history?
4) Do you find either to be clearly superior to the other?


1. Definately agree with "most" that Ancients plays faster than Nappy with experienced players. Nappy requires very careful attacking, Ancients you can more often barge right in once your line's right and you've an advantagous opening. Also, with Ancients it seems once the forces are fully commited it's not too long til the finish. With Nappy if you're the attacker, you'd better be careful or you'll be just sending units into the slaughter.

2. I'm not so sure of "depth of play", but IMHO the system is absolutely perfect for recreation of ancient battles. The jury is still out on Nappy, although I really enjoy it also.

3. I don't think one is really any more refined than the other. Both are excellent very polished products reflective of an excellent tested system that works for what it represents. C&C:A does have the added benifit of excellent expansions and tons of scenarios you can download, already in the works. Plus, the Epic system of Ancients is the bomb!

4. See 2 above, for why I give the SLIGHT edge to Ancients. But I'd totally agree as most here have stated; it depends on what period you or your players would like to play most.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OrionDD wrote:
Plus, the Epic system of Ancients is the bomb!
thumbsup thumbsup

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MrTom wrote:

4) Do you find either to be clearly superior to the other?


Can't really add to the other fine commentary, but to add my vote on #4, I'd say there is no clear superiority, but there is a difference in the level of expansion.

The Ancients system is excellent and well developed. Pretty much all of the Western Classical period is covered, and the system can really expand only to the Biblical period, or into the Asian World.

The Napoleonics system seems excellent, but is in early stages. Once we see the Austrians and Russians in the system, that will be the litmus test I think. Epic Leipzig is the finale, but a long way down the track. The Napoleonics system has been playtested for some 10 years I believe, so I think it will work!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Miller
United States
West Jefferson
NC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Personally I prefer C&C N, but that period is my favorite. Both games are superb IMO and their subtle differences compliment the respective genres quite appropriately. So far it has been my experience that C&C N takes about 50% longer to play. I don't know if this is attributable to a little more depth of game play or if the nuiances/possibilities in Napoleonics simply tends to lead to AP. I would suggest getting them both because they do feel like different games. If I had to choose one however it would definately be C&C N.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sduke wrote:
Which period are you more inclined to favor? That, to me, is the driving factor if you could only 'pick one'. Good luck!

I'm new to the C&C world and the above posters have likely won 20x more games than I've ever even played, so they're responses to your questions are far better than I can ever give, but this quote is the #1 key as far as I'm concerned.

Through my very limited plays, both games seem similar. So, how can I pick one that I like better? Thinking about war during the period that Ancients represents makes me want to take a nap. Imagining the battles during the Napoleonic era makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

There's your deciding factor.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Bennett
United States
Newton
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Why did the painter paint the wall for free? Because it was on the house.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You've collected a lot of opinions already, but I suppose I'll throw in my two cents worth as well. Here's how I'd rank the C&C games:
1. C&C Ancients
2. Battle Cry
3. Memoir '44
4. C&C Napoleonics
5. Battlelore

As noted by others, play time is very influenced by choice of scenario, but I find C&CA games to average about an hour, while C&CN games are lasting about two hours. While different mechanically in some important ways, I think they are pretty close to equal in complexity. It seems to me that the difference in game length comes down to the fact that it is very hard to attack in C&CN with basic section cards. In order not to be shot to pieces when advancing, you really have to have a card that will allow you to move quickly in your opponent's fire range.

I'd also echo earlier comments that recommend picking the C&C game that covers the period you're most interested in. They are all very good games, so you can't really go wrong here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nmadd wrote:
So, how can I pick one that I like better? Thinking about war during the period that Ancients represents makes me want to take a nap. Imagining the battles during the Napoleonic era makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.



But there's still some fuzzy warmth left over for medieval/fantasy battles, right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Blakely
msg tools
mbmb
toddrew wrote:


Between the two base games there are more rules to fiddle with in Napoleonics (combined arms and squaring, for example). While I wouldn't call that an increased depth of play (more rules does not necessarily mean increased depth, especially in a C&C game :) ), I think certain players do enjoy those sorts of tactical options and modifiers over cleaner rules.


Really? I sort of had this impression to begin with, but let us consider:

CCA has special rules concerning:

Elephants
Camels vs. horses.
Cataphracted camels
More leader effects to consider
Auxillia units (sorta light - sorta medium.
barbarian chariots
Elite units (Immortals)
Warriors
Terrain
Rally
etc.

In the rule book there are many more examples of movement, which either implies that they expect that more explanation in needed in CCA OR that people who will play CCN have played CCA (which is not a good assumption to make when writing a rule book, IMHO).


How many units with exceptions or special effects does CCN have?

Rifles
More fiddly terrain than CCA
Horse vs foot artillery
block are directly related to fighting power.
Combined arms
Infantry squares
Cav retire and reorganize
what else?

I offer this as a point of discussion. I am not an expert at either game but am just giving my impression based on reading the rules and playing both games.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seems like I am outnumbered on the length of time. I have only played Nappy on Vassal and most of my Ancients there as well. The amount of time I spend on it and the number of turns taken still gives the shorter time to Nappy. Oh well. Guess I need to get it on the table and see if a C&C game really can take up to hours.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
toddrew wrote:
nmadd wrote:
So, how can I pick one that I like better? Thinking about war during the period that Ancients represents makes me want to take a nap. Imagining the battles during the Napoleonic era makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.



But there's still some fuzzy warmth left over for medieval/fantasy battles, right?

I have plenty of warmfuzzy to go around.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
Guess I need to get it on the table and see if a C&C game really can take up to hours.


For what it's worth, Brian, I've only played on Vassal so far and have had several games break the 2 hour mark. One breached 3.5* - and those were mostly straight plays, rather little "bathroom break" etc. time.

*This game included a bayonet charge where 10d were rolled and one hit was scored. 5 of those dice were rolled against a pinned single block LT with a leader attached - 1 Flag, all other Arty and Cavalry results...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I do PBEM, so technically I play for about a week. But # of turns and time spent, just seems shorter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Keller
United States
Arlington
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For introducing non-gamers to wargaming, you should really use Memoir'44 or BattleLore or BattleCry.

For wargamers, both Ancients and Napoleonics are excellent. Ancients is the simpler and faster of the two, so better to use it if introducing non-gamers. Napoleonics is a bit more complicated and longer, but both are great games.

Joe
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Henderson
United States
Canton
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Brian,

I have followed you and most of your responses on all the C&C games(sorry if that sounds stalkereske, but you are an expert) You mentioned that nappy is 3rd ranked and ancients 5th what is your full ranking of the games in the system?
Thanks in advance
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Major SNAFU wrote:
toddrew wrote:


Between the two base games there are more rules to fiddle with in Napoleonics (combined arms and squaring, for example). While I wouldn't call that an increased depth of play (more rules does not necessarily mean increased depth, especially in a C&C game ), I think certain players do enjoy those sorts of tactical options and modifiers over cleaner rules.


Really? I sort of had this impression to begin with, but let us consider...



Scott - I missed your post earlier, didn't mean to dodge the discussion (I think I like talking about C&C as much [more?] as playing it whistle ).

When I made my statement about there being "more rules to fiddle with in Napoleonics", more specifically I meant more rules related to combat tactics. Dice and movement modifiers aside, in addition to close combat, ranged combat, and evade (retire and reform - admittedly more limited in use in Napoleonics, but still there ) which both games share, there are also the concepts of squaring (and more importantly, when to "force" a square) and combined arms in Napoleonics. Also, while not necessarily a concept of all that much greater complexity as far as executing goes, having a unit's combat effectiveness tied to its block number does complicate decision making in terms of advances and withdrawals, especially if one is used to the "all or nothing" rule of combat effectiveness that all previous iterations of the game have followed.

However, I do think that even when looking at unit differentiation base game to base game, Napoleonics is also the complicated game by virtue of greater numbers of unit types and subtler distinctions. The base game of Ancients has only 12 different unit types, while the base game of Napoleonics has 16 (and over 20 if one counts the LI of the French as distinct from the British and Portuguese counterparts, etc.).

Add in the more extensive use of terrain (on par with Memoir '44), and all of that leads me to my conclusion that Napoleonics is the more rule laden of the two games. However, I freely admit that Ancients is second nature to me at this point, though I don't think that provides a heavy bias to my reasoning.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shenderson2002 wrote:
Brian,

I have followed you and most of your responses on all the C&C games(sorry if that sounds stalkereske, but you are an expert) You mentioned that nappy is 3rd ranked and ancients 5th what is your full ranking of the games in the system?
Thanks in advance

Back from locking the doors and checking the windows.... whistle

1) Memoir '44 (hands down as I would rank that my number 1 game of all time)
2) BattleLore
3) Napoleonics
4) Battle Cry
5) Ancients

I mentioned nappy as a solid 3rd because I there is a large gap between it and BL. And I haven't yet gotten the new Battle Cry so my rating there is based off the original version. So until I try the new and see what changes, if many, were made, it won't be moving up. Though I doubt it would suck enough for me to send it down either.
 
 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.