Comments (0)

By Mark D, November 3, 2011 2:56 pm

The Command and Colors system has always been one of my favorites. It was one of the first games (Battlecry) I got when I was getting into board games. Across the board they play relatively easy. Units are made of 2, 3 or 4 figures, they move and attack based on cards, which most often are broken into sectional attacks (left, center and right). Figures are eliminated due to hits, and when a whole unit is removed the other side gains a victory point. Sure there’s more to the games that came out, but that is a quick and dirty breakdown.

Battlecry came out first, covering the American Civil War and was recently re-released. Then came Battlelore (medieval and fantasy) Memoir 44 (WW2) and Command and Colors: Ancients. While Battlecry was one of the last releases of the AH-Hasbro brand, BL and M44 were each released by Days of Wonder, while the C&C banner has been used by GMT. I own all of them except Ancients (which I have played some of) and own multiple expansions for both Battlelore and Memoir 44. I was borderline on Napolenics, but got a good deal when I purchased it around last Christmas with Here I Stand.

Napolenics has all the normal hallmarks of a C&C game, the cards, sections, Calvary, Infantry and Artillery. It also uses the blocks much like Ancients. Which is a pain because you need to sticker an endless number of blocks. It took me most of the day to get through everything and the dice which need to be stickered too. Although stickering everything annoys me, having to sticker the dice is a pet peeve of mine. Otherwise though the components are solid, and they give you plenty of extra stickers/blocks. The mapboard is solid, the cards are of a good paperstock and everything is of GMT expected quality.

The problem with the game, at least imho, is that it tries to do too much and isn’t good at what it does. C&C is never going to be a simulation of an actual battle. Most people get that, and enjoy it because it’s simple to play. But while the first few games of the series took periods which have both casual and hardcore elements, the Napolenic period tends to attract the more hardcore elements. Or it’s just a period whose popularity isn’t as high as either the Civil War or WW2 in North America, so those looking for games from the period tend to be a bit more well informed.

By saying that it tries to do too much, is that instead of just being infantry, you have multiple types of infantry, multiple types of Cav and two types of artillery. The problem is that each unit tends to have it’s own rules, which then need to be cross referenced with the nation it’s from. Not all the same infantry has the same number of blocks across all three (French, British and Spainish), making setup a bit of a pain in the ass. While firing will be dependent on how many squares you have, it also depends on if you have moved and nationality.

This is different from every C&C game that had come out so far. I think it really tends to slow down the game here, especially when the name of units can be so close. For example the British have “Rifle Light” and “Light” infantry, whose names are easy to confuse. Even worse is that the name themselves are very small on the bottom of the blocks, and the pictures tend to not really differentiate the types of units (infamously the horse artillery doesn’t have horses on it).

I really think the C&C system is spread thin here. Your never going to turn a C&C game into a historical simulation. In trying to do so or even coming close they weighed down the game. Just as another example the game contains a reference sheet for terrain and another reference booklet (2 pages, front and back) for the units. For something that worked so well in the past, the simplicity of the game seems missing.

It still plays fast, and your still recommended to play both sides of a battle to find out a winner. You’ll probably spend more time setting up then playing. Another little complaint is that I’ve always considered the Spanish/Portuguese battles to be a secondary theater when it came to the Napoleonic Wars. Yet the introductory battles that come with this game are almost overwhelmingly from Spain, and truthfully very few of them I had heard of before. Austerlitz is missing, there are no Italian battles, and the only battle I did know that was included was Waterloo. It’s almost like making a Civil War game and not having any battles (or just Gettysburg) of the Eastern Theater.

I really can’t recommend the game unless your either a fan of the period, or a huge fan of C&C that is looking for something new. Everything in the C&C system has been done better before, and I’ve seen fan made Napolenic scenairos for Battlecry that were a lot simpler. I can’t blame them for what they were trying to do, I just think if your the average C&C player and come into Napoleonic, you might be a little bit surprised.

Comments (1)

By Mark D, October 13, 2011 8:41 pm

Today I was watching a commercial for Monopoly with Digital Banker. Now one of the key things about Monopoly is that so many people own it, it’s hard to get people to buy a new copy. That’s why for years the market was flooded with themed Monopoly games. But the Digital Banker is actually a good step forward for the game, which is still flawed but at least doesn’t require nearly as much math. Now while the technology is expensive at this point and is much more affordable for a company like Parker Brothers then GMT, it gets me wondering about the future of Wargames.

Now when people normally talk about the future of wargames as though they are going to die out. But what if they go the otherway? With how technology is advancing, it won’t be long until you can make small digital chips that would fit inside a cardboard counter. Now imagine that the counter can do all the calculations involved with that unit. For example it might make games like OCS a lore more user friendly. The mapboard could also be digital, allowing users to play other users in different places. It could be a whole new way to play PBEM.

Obviously this isn’t something that is going to happen overnight, or even anytime soon. Before you think it’s insane or will never come to be, don’t forget that for a lot of us phones are stronger then the first computer we owned. It could be a new age for wargames and introduce a whole new generation to the games. Imagine boards that could implement the rules which you had made mistakes on. Or designers no longer limited to having to use the front and back of a counter to signify losses. You could actually tally losses man for man. You can move and change victory point locations depending on the flow of the battle.

Imagine though, a map that could change. Rain that causes mud, impedes movement and lowers morale. A real fog of war since the counters wouldn’t need all their info printed on them. You could also have a game that shows the trouble with command structures during any period of time. Like confusing orders, or orders being misread by commanders. Battles in the Civil War never went exactly as the overall commander might have imagined. But it’s about reacting on your toes in those kind of situations. You could even possibly play the game solo against the AI.

There is so much that can be believably be done with technology as chips get smaller, the future for wargames might be bright. The future might not even include mounted maps or cardboard chits. No more flipping units or finding the replacement counters after losses. No more squinting to make out the numbers on the counters, or keeping track of a million little things. The future of wargames might be brighter then a lot of people are predicting, it’s too bad I can’t get in at the bottom floor of this. I think it might be the most revolutionary change in wargames for a long time.

Comments (0)

By Mark D, March 3, 2011 6:52 pm

Doing a video review of Here I Stand. Don’t forget I also have other Here I Stand related stuff including common opening moves. Also if you want to play, stop by Wargameroom.com on Saturday at 1PM EST for WGR’s Multiplayer Saturday.

Comments (2)

By admin, March 3, 2010 2:28 am

A long while ago, or at least it seems so now, I pre-ordered Washington’s War from GMT. It’s the first time I’ve ever signed onto something on the P500. Now at the time I ordered it I was loving the Civil War themed For The People. When looking up the designer of FtP, Mark Herman, I came across We The People. I wanted to give it a try, but due to it being OOP and expensive I never picked it up. Someone though pointed me in the direction of Washington’s War which was being worked on so I decided to take the plunge.

A few months later though I got the chance to play Hannibal: Rome Vs Carthage and We The People. I took a dislike to both games because there seemed to be very little going on, other then area control.  I didn’t particularly dislike the battlecards, although they did have some problems. But the game themselves tended to be a lot of time placing and flipping control markers and very little war. I was tempted to cancel my order but I decided to hold out.

Today I couldn’t be any happier I did. First off, visually, the components will just blow you away. Its obvious that GMT put a lot of money and work into the game. The map itself is massive, and every section has some useful information on it. The cards are nice, the Rulebook and Playbook were in color which is a first for me.

I broke it out and gave it a play on my table. Although I made some rule mistakes, along with some awful dice rolls for the Americans (of course) it was fun. The first turn was really all about placing PCs, but the rest of the game involved a lot more battles and movement then I was used to with WtP or H:RvC. Battles are decided by DRM (dice roll modification) now. While the British naturally get a +1 for their regulars and another +1 due to the Royal Navy while in port, the Americans have chances to counter that based on colonial control where the battle takes place (+1 to the controller) and the Americans with a Leader can retreat before battle.

Now onto the basics of the game before I get ahead of myself. For the most part there are cards worth 1,2 or 3 operations points. There are also cards for special events but we’ll get to that. With the Operation cards you can either move a leader of an equivalent rating (a 1 can move a 1, a 2 can move a 1 or a 2 and so on) place an equivalent political control marker depending on restrictions or bring in reinforcements. There are also event cards for each side. Since the cards are side specific you can’t play them if they are for the other side. But in the past you had to discard them. Now you can discard them but flip a PC, or you can use them to add to your DRM before a battle. Using them in a battle allows you to draw another card. Discarding does not, but it does allow the other player to discard a card in order to pick up the event.

When you battle you go through a checklist to see where you can gain DRM. It’s rather easy. First off if there are any Generals you roll to see if they get to use their whole rating. A roll of 1-3 cuts that rating in half, a roll of 4-6 allows them to use it. You then add the number of CUs to each sides DRM with the General’s rating. The British can gain +1 for their regulars no matter where they are (but they can lose this +1 during the game). They also gain a +1 if they are in a port and the French Navy isn’t blockading. Either side can gain another +1 if the colony the battle is taking place in is loyal to their side. The Americans can also gain a +1 if it was an intercept. You add up the DRMs, roll a six sided dice and if the Attacker is equal or more then the Defenders, the attacker wins. The Defender must retreat (British in port can retreat via sea anywhere) and you roll for losses. The most the attacking side can lose is one CU. Each American Victory moves the French one spot closer to Alliance. If the Americans cause the British to lose 3 CUs, then the British lose their Regular bonus and the French marker moves 3 spaces.

I took pictures during play, but because of bad lighting half of them came out blurry, so I’m going to just add them to this post as a gallery. They should go in the order I took them so you might get a feel for some of the battle. Basically the Brits just destroyed everything I sent to the South, and Bendict Arnold not being able to move south and re-inforce the small army there decided the game. In short, here’s my view.

Pros:
Wonderful Production Quality
Much tighter game
More fighting and less positioning
Operations Que means you can save up OPs
New Discard rules allow a lot more flexibility
The Map is massive and full of information
The 50/50 Chance that a General might not live up to his ability.

Cons:
Lack of flavor to a lot of cards (They just read off 1 Op/2 Op/3 Op)
Low amount of event cards (half a deck out of 2 decks)
Fortified Ports/Winter Quarters have no effect on battles

Trust me though, the Cons are nothing that should keep you away from this great game. I’d recommend it for anyone looking for a grand strategic game of the Revolutionary War.