Apologies in advance for this being a very long article. It probably belongs on a blog, if I had one, but as I have nowhere else but this forum to inflict my C&C:A opinions on people, this is where it’s going.
C&C:Ancients is a game well loved by many players, including me, but there are some people who can’t stand it and are vocal in their dislike of the game. Far and away the most common complaint I hear is that the left-centre-right ordering system common to all C&C games imposes an artificial constraint on player options, frequently leads to imbalances caused by luck of the draw and too often results in a negative play experience for one or both players.
My usual response to this is that I really like the section layout and believe it is one of the core features that make C&C:A the excellent game it is. However, when I say this without more detailed explanation, I feel that to the sceptics I must sound like an apologist for a broken system......and that just isn’t the case. This post is an effort to put forward a more concrete and detailed justification for the system and why I think it provides such great play value for C&C:A. I’d note here that I have no experience with any of the other C&C games and am just discussing Ancients.
While my main focus will be on the gaming aspect of the centre-flank layout, it has been pointed out by many players on this forum that for simulation purposes, the centre-flank formation and ordering setup of C&C:A is an excellent fit for ancient battles. It just feels right for the period.
The Philosophy of Rules Limitations
I think a very important point when discussing game play is that rule enforced restrictions on a player’s actions are what make games challenging and fun, and not just dry simulations or, at the other extreme, chaos. Without artificially imposed limitations on what you can do in a game you’re just playing freeform make-believe.....fun when you’re a kid but not so much when you grow up. This is true of all adult games, from sports to boardgames. Nobody complains that professional football (or soccer ) players can’t pick up the ball with their hands and peg it into the goal. Nobody complains that their Chess pawns can’t jump opposing pieces or that they can’t sprinkle Influence wherever they damn well please in Twilight Struggle. These rules are accepted as a framework in which enjoyable competition can happen. C&C:A’s centre-flank layout is no different.
In some respects, it has a lot to do with frame of mind, what attitude a player brings to the table and what they expect from the game. If you come thinking that the limitations set by the game are a straitjacket, you’ll resent them and the game. If you come thinking that those limitations (which your opponent shares, BTW) are a challenge for you to overcome with your skill and adaptability, you’ll probably enjoy it if the game is well designed. If you don’t genuinely believe that thousands of C&C:A players are deluded, then you’ll have to admit the design might possibly handle this well for players who recognise and appreciate it, even if you don’t.
So what makes this section layout good for the game? If you talk about the sections in C&C:A, you also have to talk about the cards, because they go hand in hand. Without the ordering limitations imposed by the cards, the section divides are just lines on a map. The greatest complaint you hear about the sections from players who found the game frustrating is that they didn’t have the cards to do what they wanted to do in a particular section. This goes to the heart of the matter because what these players see as a negative is actually the system’s greatest strength and what gives players the opportunity to think and play tactically, demonstrate versatility and eventually become practiced and excel at.....these are the opportunities that make a good game challenging and enjoyable for players and C&C:A has them in spades.
As a brief aside and outside the scope of this discussion, because I really wanted to focus on the sections in the game, I should bring up the point here that there are many cards in the C&C:A deck that can order units in multiple sections, mitigating the restrictions on ordering to a greater extent than some would admit.
I always think of three key factors that are necessary for consistent success in C&C:A and which experienced players all come to learn...hand management, unit positioning and timing. All three of these factors, and the opportunity to manipulate them to outplay your opponent, exist because of the section/card system.
This all sounds pretty academic so I wanted to discuss how it applies to general strategy, with a few specific examples.
Calculating Section Strength
At the beginning of a predesigned historical C&C:A scenario you’re presented with fixed unit placement and a random card hand. The first thing most players will do, consciously or not, is assess in which sections they are strong and in which they are weak. Your strength in a section is a combination of the units you have there, relative to the enemy units opposing them, and the cards you have available to order them. When looking at my hand, I don’t always just consider the section cards when assessing my section strengths. Often you will have a concentration of troops in one particular section which will benefit most from a particular Troop or Tactics card, (such as Order Heavy Troops for Heavy Infantry positioned centrally in your infantry line, or Order Mounted for a flank strong in cavalry) and mentally I will usually group those with the appropriate section in my initial assessment of section strength. So even before the game starts the limitations imposed by the sectional layout and cards are forcing you to think tactically.....and you will reappraise this turn after turn as the board position and your hand change.
Advancing in a section where you are strong in units with multiple cards to order is a no brainer and most new players will get that first game. A player who presses an attack in one section with what he perceives to be strong units but with no cards to back up that first move is asking for trouble.
Managing Weak Sections
What you do in a weak section, however, is where you can really show your tactical nous, rather than throwing up your hands and deciding the cards have defeated you.....those tight matches we all really enjoy often come down to who avoids losing, rather than who forces the win, and the player who rises to that challenge and protects his weak sections best will invariably come out on top.
It’s very rare that you will start without the ability to order any units in a weak section and even rarer not to have drawn something for them in the first few turns. You have a number of options if you start with only one card to order a weak section. If the enemy is far away with slow moving units that will take several turns to reach you, you can sit tight and wait to draw more cards to strengthen your options in that section. If all your units are capable of evading an advancing enemy without being surrounded, you can even push forward to skirmish with that one card, because effectively you will have a bonus move when they are finally engaged. If your units start in a vulnerable position , such as those Medium Cavalry waiting to be retreated off the map on the Roman flanks at Ticinus River, you can use that single card to move them into supported positions or into an adjacent section where you have more ordering options.
Your choices will depend on the scenario but my favourite of all is to take a lesson from Alexander and "deny my flank". Here you pull a weakened section back from a stronger advancing enemy, possibly tucking them in towards a section where you are stronger. This has the advantage of making the enemy travel farther to engage you while you draw into more options. It also invites them to overextend if they want to push their advance, potentially exposing them if you’ve lured them toward your stronger section.
There’s one card that deserves an honourable mention when discussing the tactics of managing weak sections, and that’s one of my favourites, Move-Fire-Move. At first glance MFM looks like an attack card, or an attack and retreat card, and it’s often appropriate to use it that way, but when it pops into my hand I always consider it first and foremost to be an escape card. If I have a section consisting predominantly of light units and I’ve drawn MFM, I’ll usually feel confident that it is safe, even if MFM is the only card available to order that section. In this case I’ll hold onto it turn after turn until it’s needed, avoiding the temptation to use it to get a few ranged attacks in. A good example of this is the Carthaginian centre and left at Akragas, the scenario we all cut our teeth on......predominantly light units facing a hard enemy centre of leader led heavies. A Carthaginian commander holding MFM can let the enemy use up his resources to advance, sniping and evading when appropriate, then at the last minute, when they look like they are about to be pinned and eliminated, drop MFM to skip off four hexes (or eight for the Light Cavalry) out of that section to safety behind the stronger troops to the right.
The Border Zones Between Sections
If knowing how to assess and apply section strength is important, the border zones between sections provide a real opportunity for creative manoeuvreing and positioning. I’ve already alluded to moving units from a section where your hand is weak to one where you have more ordering options. With their movement of three hexes, Leaders are a particularly good choice for detaching and moving across the section divides, as their presence can change the dynamic in a new section dramatically, increasing your ordering options and strengthening your position there, both in real terms and in the eyes of the enemy.
I find the dual section hexes on these border zones particularly interesting, because they essentially double the ordering options for units stationed on them. Given nothing better to do with a section order early in the game, I’ll often find it useful to park a Leader on a dual section hex, detaching him and reattaching to a new unit if necessary. Even if you don’t have a section Leadership card in hand at the time, positioning him there now will significantly increase your chances of making effective use of one when you do draw it later. Because he can be detached and moved by a section card from either of the sections he straddles, it also positions him nicely to move to points of need later.
Any key unit will benefit from sitting on a dual section hex but the ones that usually spring to mind are units with long range attacks, such as bowmen/slingers, who benefit from the significantly increased chance of being able to order them every turn to fire against an advancing enemy. War Machines deserve a special mention here. They don’t feature in scenarios often but they can obviously be used to great effect and are prime candidates for a dual section hex, because you want them delivering distant death every turn until the enemy closes. If they’re anywhere near a section border zone I’ll sacrifice early opportunities to shoot with them to get them to a dual section hex, knowing that once there there’s a very good chance I’ll have options almost every turn for making them do what they do best.
The Psychology of Bluff and Feint
The last general issue I want to discuss is that of the psychology of game play and for me this is where the section layout of C&C:A really shines and what bumps it from a good game to one of my favourites. In a game where players have open units displayed and the ability to order any of them on any turn, opponents pretty much know what moves you’re capable of making at any given time. In C&C:A unit position is open but your ability to order them effectively is hidden and this creates opportunity for the psychology of feinting and bluff. After every turn your opponent must reassess your section strength.....he will know the open information (your units) but not the hidden information (your cards). Now this is true of any game with card driven ordering (which is why I like the CDG format so much) but in C&C:A the section limitations really raise the stakes in the mind games.
How does this work in practice? A game of C&C:A is full of psychological thrust and parry, from the early dance of unit positioning and probing to the moment one player pulls the trigger and the blood starts flowing. However there are a couple of specific situations where I find bluff very satisfying to pull off successfuly.
The first is the bane of the new player...."I had no cards to order my right flank and my opponent just overran me!". This is the situation that most often decides a new player against the game and makes them drop it before they ever give it a real chance. It’s a situation that more experienced players can also find themselves in, although hopefully far less often as they’ve probably already taken some of the damage limitation precautions discussed earlier in this article.
Nevertheless, we’ll all find ourselves at some point with a section where a bunch of depleted units are pinned near our baseline, with no cards to order them, facing a strong enemy advance and an opponent already reaching across the table for our Victory Banners.
The key here is that if you’re weak in one section, you are bound to be strong in another. Stuck in a desperate situation in one section, a strong advance in another can sometimes be enough to divert your opponent’s attention from your crumbling flank if he’s not confident completing his rout will immediately win him the game. A Double Time to break his line and he’ll be forced to consider whether you have the cards to finish the job. A Cavalry advance or pushing elephants forward and he’ll be wondering if you’re about to Mounted Charge. If he takes the bait and turns to counter your advance, even for a couple of turns, it gives you the chance to pull the card you need to strengthen your own weakened section or pull it out of danger. If he ignores your feint and completes his rout of your weak section, maybe you do have the cards in hand to turn that feint into a deadly assault and make him pay for his arrogance. Pulling this off is far and away my favourite achievement in any C&C:A battle.
Another great bluff involves a weak section, but here the bluff is feigning weakness. An enemy advancing in one section can be encouraged by a show of weakness, even if your hidden hand makes you strong there. Failing to order threatened units or form lines, retreating and generally looking like you’re backing onto the ropes can entice your opponent into overextending, while you’re surreptitiously pulling other units into key positions. Mounted Charge and Double Time from an adjacent section are great cards to spring the trap, cutting off retreat paths and forcing Leader escapes. This takes patience, guile, perfect timing and nerve but can be a game winning play, breaking not only the enemy army but your opponent’s will.
That’s enough said. The bottom line is that there are really solid reasons that the centre-flank layout of C&C:A is a fantastic feature of the game. I’d encourage players who have found it frustrating to take another look at the game with these points in mind and reconsider approaching it not as a stifling restriction but a challenge. I’m sure there’s plenty more wisdom about this topic out there and I’d welcome comments from experienced players, as well as questions from newer players and alternative arguments from doubters.
For those of you who managed to get this far, thanks for reading.
Brent.