A Tale of Two Boardgames

Once again TML Towers is mid move.  Since the starting of this blog ive moved 10 times (Jebuss!); the joys of living in rental accommodation in the UK.  My envy of continental cousins with the luxury of indefinite, or even mere 5yr contracts is unbounded.  The Englishman's home may be his castle, but if he rents it he can expect to be usurped by barbarians at any moment.

Consequently though, the mini's, and my other possessions have been boxed up and locked away for a few weeks.  So my most recent visits to the club ended up simply as play whatever boardgame was on offer, as it happens two games of particular relevance to the blog.

First up a small game with big intentions and a big name.

  

It's an elegantly and economically designed card driven game covering the Roman Civil war betwixt Caesar and Pompey.

Opening dispositions

 I took the role of Pompey, and had control in the East.  My opponent, Andy, Was Caesar, and made straight for Rome.

Rebels in Anatolia

 The game was card influenced, certainly, but the movement and combat mechanics were classically simple.  Tax generation was key to recruitment of troops, which favoured a diversified and dispersed force of arms, whilst individual battles theoretically favoured concentrated troops.  I went with the former tactic, whilst Andy went with the latter.  I found myself with 2-3 times the income, and so could absorb losses in the field far better than my opponent.

It ends with Caesars' death in North Africa

 Thanks to this I was able to pull a political lead, but it was not emphatic until the final turn, when I was able to Bring Caesar to battle and defeat him .  Caesar XL is a clever little game, but one with a small footprint and presumably a low cost.

Despite similar underpinnings, and objectives, quite the opposite would be said of Victory and Glory.

Thud

Covering the entirety of the Napoleonic War, at the Grandest of levels, V&G is a huge game.  Truly, unnecessarily large.  This game would work just the same at the size of  Caesar XL.

Early game 

The game plays through three phases of the war using three rounds in each of card driven action.  Each card can be used one of two ways, but is more effective if it thematically matches the players nation - British and Allies, or French.  Cards drive recruitment and shifting alliances but units do not move as such.  Rather they can be assigned to campaigns, where they become locked until the campaign is resolved.  Combat is a strictly numbers affair, but you assign units to the battle blind, with only the knowledge of the number of units an opponent has assigned - not their type or quality - being known at first.

Late game with multiple campaigns on.

Whilst a clever system, this was enormously unbalanced.  The game sought to replicate history first, and be a fair game second.  The cards in play reflect actual historical events in detail and broadly in sequence, but this means that hey also reflect the succession of favourable events leading ultimately to the defeat of Napoleon.  In short, playing as the French it was clear that cards favouring the allies outnumbered French cards 2 or 3 to one.

In effect it felt weighted towards a British victory from the outset.  Whilst the French could easily win battles in the field, this simply did not have enough effect compared to the active diplomacy driven by the cards.

Both games were enjoyable, and one could say that my opinion is biased given I won the former and lost the latter, but if I were to pick one to recommend, it would undoubtedly be Caesar XL.


...