I just built this friday, and was tempted to write some impressions. But procrastination pays off again! It's a gift that keeps on giving.
In general, I agree with Ben. I like that GMT's board quality has improved, but they are still not mounted. If I had known that, I wouldn't have ordered the 'deluxe' boards for Wilderness War. These are not worth $14.
The rules read well, no mistakes that I see. The dice are criminally bad. Hollow. Terrible feel. [I don't mind stickers too much either, but if some company marketed these dice, I'd buy a set or two. I'd buy them from a 3rd party over GMT ... why reward poor quality?]
The hit distribution is worth discussing. Other games (Memoir '44, Battle Cry) have a sytem like this:
- Hit Infantry
- Hit Infantry
- Hit Cavalry
- Hit Anything
- Force Retreat
- Miss
So infantry suffer losses 1/2 of the time, Cavalry 1/3rd, and cannons 1/6th. C&C:A has the following scheme:
- Hit Light Units
- Hit Medium Units
- Hit Heavy Units
- Hit Anything*
- Force Retreat
- Hit, if you have a leader (or hit lone leader)
Now these dice exceptions; let's ignore them. Light, medium and heavy units all suffer hits 1/3rd of the time. Perhaps the change is that heavier units throw more dice (and have special rules). The differences are represented by other rules. And it may just be that a heavily armored legionaire really was just as fragile in large battles. My knowledge of ancients is sparse. Perhaps the designer has mentioned this on CSW (I haven't looked).
Lots of rules. Simple, compared to wargames. Complicated, compared to it's brethren. Light units have ranged fire, all units have varying movement, number of dice, attacking and defending special rules and the like. There's a nice (and necessary) reference card to indicate all the unit types and differences.
Anyway, I'll report back on actual game play soon enough.
A couple of thoughts on the play:
Left/Right/Center is de-emphasized. Most of the cards are not tied to a specific section. Rather...
Unit formations and Leaders are very important. Besides the combat advantage, many of the cards activate units adjacent to the leader. Make sure the Leaders stay with your formations, and when attacking try to break your opponent's formations up.
The rock/paper/scissors of the game revolves around skirmishers harassing heavy infantry, which beat up cavalry, which overrun skirmishers. The heavy infantry are strong but slow, skirmishers can move and range fire, and cavalry are fast and run from weak/flexible to strong/brittle. Each type has several different shadings, which can often make for major tactical differences.
The trend is towards more complexity, more decisions, but still with a healthy amount of luck.
Production quality isn't nearly as nice as DoW or Hasbro, but the gameplay itself is better. Oh, one other note. Differentiating the skirmish infantry can be a real pain, especially in bad light. That's my biggest complaint on the pieces.
It does seem odd that heavy infantry takes casualties at the same rate as light infantry (maybe even more quickly because of its inability to evade combat). All that armor gives no defensive advantage? It defies common sense. Perhaps someone who knows more about ancient warfare can help here. Is this how battles in this era are fought? With light infantry protecting the deadly but also extremely vulnerable heavy infantry as it advanced?
Perhaps a heavy infantry block is meant to represent a much smaller group than a light infantry block?
In any case, the heavy infantry will demolish the lighter units if it can manage to engage them with strength. That seems right. I'm just curious why all the advantages of the heavy infantry were packed into the offensive end of things, and none on the defensive end.