Mr Borg's choice of starting this series with the Byzantine army was thoughtful and right. Playing the war history of the Middle Ages without the Byzantines would be like playing the history of Rock Music without Elvis and The Beatles. Those who consider the Middle Age as Dark ages of Decline should reconsider this. The Byzantine Empire lasted for more than one thousand years ( 330 - 1453). This is the length of the Middle Age! Come on, think! One thousand years of decline? The military might of the Byzantine army played a crucial role for this unpreceded longevity. Some of the battles that were fought during those years saved not only the Byzantines but the whole western civilization. Mr Borg and GMT Games have given us the chance to relive those battles (in a very thrilling bloody way indeed) and admire the strategic genius of Belisarius and hopefully many other great minds of those glorious years of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Cataphracts are coming!
You were doing great until you mentioned this undefined myhologic entitty you call "the western civilization", which is to be "saved". Very ironic, since the whole talk about an east-west divide actually started with the Roman division, which later lead to church division. And even more so, as the Russian civilization, which is a direct descendent of the Eastern Roman one, has always been otherized as eastern by Europe, and even more these days (all while westernizing Ukraine - also a mythic enterprise).
I like the art and color selection on the cards. The colors are soft, pastel, yet stand out without being distracting. Awesome art... for what little there is on the cards.
yeah, i for one would really like to see a 'Crusades', like they mentioned, or '100 Years War' (or both) CnC game which i think would be a lot closer to what we were expecting from the word 'medieval'. Plus it would be kickass to play across 1000 years of early warfare with the same simple system.
Hey guys, the Crusades are coming! From today's monthly update from GMT: C&C Medieval Expansion 1 - Crusades: In Final Art and Proofing (1-2 Months away from going to Print)
At first I was a bit surprised by what they call Medieval. But some days later I love what they did. I am into history but I never learned so much on an historical in such a short time. I look at the middle ages in a much different way now, a much broader way, thanks GMT. A little note on the latest videos, especially regarding C&C but not excluding others. I notice a lot of small incorrect remarks about rules in games or about gameplay that could easily be avoided and might confuse people in the end. It's great to publish so much videos but please keep the quality of the videos in mind. Or not, they are fun anyway, thanks.
Historians tend to tie the Medieval period (middle ages) closely to the Byzantines, beginning with the fall of the western Roman Empire (476 AD, fall of Rome) and that it ends with the fall of the eastern Byzantine Empire (1453 AD, fall of Constantinople), sometimes extended to the european discover of the new world in 1492. Intrestingly the byzantines always though of and called themselves 'Romans'. I agree its not what comes to mind when I think of medieval, but I am hoping the expansions bring all the tings you have talked about, knights, crusades, sieges etc.
I studied medieval history in college. Granted my focus was the Hundred Years War, but I took all sorts of medieval history...and you're right. "Early Middle Ages", a class I took junior year, started in 476 to about 888 (end of the Carolingian era). "High Middle Ages" was 900-1453. My professor took us up to 1500 though
The Turks, Arabs & Persians called them Romans too. "Byzantine" was a term applied well after the last fall of Constantinople, but you probably already knew that. I think it's great they went with an underrepresented time & place in games . I've always found Byzantine history fascinating, but I'm in the minority.
I'm in Alexanders camp. When I heard Medieval, I was thinking something different as well. But I did further review, and heard the crying about the "period" prior to publication, and kinda knew what I was getting into. Is it different enough from Ancients to justify it? You guys didn't answer that question, which you may have not even considered. But I will reserve my judgement until after I've played it.
Heh, actually I'm eagerly awaiting the reprint of this, for the exact reasons you were disappointed: being from Bulgaria, pretty much all of my country's medieval history is defined by the wars with Byzantium. Therefore I have my fingers crossed to see the Bulgarians in a future expansion :)
It's interesting that you guys identify new cards (for you at least) and how it shows you haven't played C&C ancients as the cards you're describing are all in that game. So not really anything new in card activations. The inspired leadership appears to be the main new thing in this version. I also like the idea of negating first sword hit from a lesser unit if that is actually how it works Also if it works the same as ancients then the contiguous hex line you mention later in the example should be the total hexes - ie: the leader hex + 2 other contiguous hexes in total. I'm pretty sure it's not a radius effect as you described it. So in your example you could have only activated 3 total units and not 5. Again this is assuming Medieval works the same way as C&C Ancients.
Yeah it's a shame that they haven't played C & C Ancients as this is virtually identical. Also you are spot on regarding the contiguous rule - unfortunately they played that one wrong.
I think its best to start with something like Memoir 44 ( I did with my son ) and then move up to a Ancients, Medieval or Napoleons. Mostly because once you have the basics, then you can mix up the game and choose the theme you want. Memoir 44 is however pretty unbalanced scenario wise and no battle back is a bit sucky - but easy to learn. I think the big bonus with Medieval is that the components are higher quality ( dice, board and cards ) than other iterations ( I can't speak to Napoleonic's ) - I'd really love to play Tricorne as well.
It is nice to have variety to match your favorite historical period. I own Ancients and might get into the Medieval period. It's a try first for me. Also I'm sure the series will get more complex as the expansions pile on.
Thank You for clarifying the actual timeline of this game....I will be passing on this one because that is not the period of history that I wanted.....
I wish there were generally accepted terms for two separate periods in the Middle Ages: One typified by the invasions/migrations of the Huns, Mongols, Goths and Vikings. The other typified by feudalism with knights and lords for the later period.
Indeed, it would be great to see a video about your opinion on ranking the C&C games. Perhaps also a sub-part where you rank the armies expansion per game too, that would be fascinating. As it stands for me, best at the top, lowest at the bottom: 1. The Great War, with well painted figurines. (out of the box or with tanks expansion). I think this is the one game that requires the most planning before comitting to an assault, and it tells amazing stories. 2. Napoleonics. (With all expansions, i think this dethrones The Great War...). The asymmetry is SO damn interesting. 3. Ancients. Close call with Napoleonics, since Ancients is much faster paced and easier to get into. I will always teach Ancients first as the ambassador of the series to new players. 4. Tricorne. Hard to rate, I really like it, but the battles can be slow paced and you can get frustrating moments where key full strength units just bail out at the worst time. Its also ridiculously expensive for the amount of scenarios you get. I mean, 100$ for a french expansion, but you only get 3 battles with said french troops? Come on. I will rank this one higher if they add Natives to the rooster. I do not own the other C&C games, so cant comment on those. But I have no interest to get them. Memoir seems alright, but very hard to get the expansions, and the toy-factor is seemingly too high for my tastes.
Sounds like they are planning to have a lot of expansions to this game, they give you a taste and then give you the meat and potatoes in expansions. Sounds like its going to be expensive, I will pass on this also. Just say it Grant, the leader ship cards and abilities are OP.
While not historical, the Battle of Westeros is a C&C game from Fantasy Flight set in the Game of Thrones universe. It uses the light, medium, heavy mechanic and the leader actions as well, but is more in line with your description of what you were expecting from a medieval game. You might be interested in checking it out if you can find it.
@@ThePlayersAid It's mechanics are different. You roll dice to order units (a red banner on the die roll lets you order a red unit, etc) but certainly has its roots in C&C.
Hey guys... great review! The game looks interesting. I love cavalry... I love mobility! I even love the block system... NOW, that being said... why not mini's? I'm almost ready to send you guys one of my extra copies of "Battle Cry"... had no idea how you didn't have it???? What I want is a great Mongol Hoard game! Sweeping down with heavy cavalry, strategic movement. Maybe this game can scratch that itch... I'm SO behind in my game buying right now. Keep up the great work
The C&C games with Miniatures are published by other companies, but you can always swap out the blocks for miniatures. 1/72 scale works well, or use the minis from Battlelore or Battles of Westeros
I’m a fan of GMT but I’m a bit worried about the GMT’s approach to the C&C line. There is a clear strategy to publish a minimalist game in terms of contents, game innovation while planning for max expansions. The C&C system hasn’t evolved since M44, but GMT churns C&C games and expansions like there’s no tomorrow. Even the cards themselves are almost the same as all other C&C games. I am amazed that consumers continue to buy the same game over and over again. Advise: get Battlelore and use humans and no-fantasy only. Praise to the TPA team to have an *honest* critique.
To be honest, I'm not surprised. You look at Eurogames and that's the route publishers are taking these days. It's almost a given that when a game is released, you expect the base game to be lacking because 2-3 expansions are already planned and in pre-production (or full production, to be released in 6 months). It was just a matter of time before GMT got in on this way of doing things. The only difference is, the C&C games are typically more expensive than your average Eurogame....and you have to sticker blocks. For each expansion.
C&C Pike and Shotte is what I'm missing. English civil war, Italian wars and thirty years war. Chuck in a simple campaign system and /or dynamically linked 'battle games' and GMT or whoever can take my money. They could make the pike blocks as tall as the general or elephant units so they stand out from a distance!
Well I've got Great war, ancients and Napoleonics. I think they're a good broad mix, not much cross over with regards tactics or aesthetics. I sold Memoir (I had better ww2, tactical wargames) and Samurai battles (the one with all the models-all assembled and painted but still a hastle to transport and play). I tried gmt's musket and pike series but it was a bit too convaluted for me. Although I've kept hold of accursed civil war just because of my personal interest and proximity to the English Civil war battlegrounds. Hopefully a pike and Shotte version will get into the works soon. It's a rich period full of dynamic battles, bright and varied armies, eccentric characters and weird and wonderful terrain features and landscapes.
I love the C&C series of games! And Richard Borg is a genuinely nice fellow who loves to meet his fans! These are easy purchases for me. Now Richard BERG, not so much...
I tend to agree, but it would then miss out Charlemagne, Tours, Yarmuk, Alfred the Great, Brian Boru and most of the VIking period (shield walls, Mercia, Wessex, etc.). I do think it's missing Belisarius however.
This comment is likely a little late but I think you interpreted the Leadership cards incorrectly. You said it allowed you to order your leader plus all units within a certain "radius" of the leader thus allowing you to order possibly 9 units (and you showed an actual example where you ordered 5 units @23:00 with a Leadership Any Section card). The Leadership cards in Medieval work the same as those in Ancients in that it orders the leader (and it's attached unit) plus 2 or 3 other units (depending on the card) contiguously adjacent. There is no "all-units-in-a-radius" concept. This makes the Leadership cards less powerful than you thought, but still powerful. EDIT: Just noticed VonChoker already mentioned this 3 years ago...
Weird choise of period with that name. This looks like the remaining Rome, Byzantine. I think Vikings or Knighst whould sell a lot… But the new features seems good- might get this for them and the dice alone.
They are the same symbols as long as you can handle a helmet without a plume. For a while GMT had some extras you could buy (just the dice) kills me I didn't get any for ancients!
For someone whom hasn’t played a C&C game before, as this one doesn’t have the special units and the better player aid. Would this not be the better one to get as your first one?
From a rules stand point, sure, it's a breeze to learn. But the realty is that the most complex of the C&C games is still really easy to learn. Also for someone that's never played C&C before Persians vs Byzantines might not be the most gripping topic.
The Players Aid For me and the main friend I would would play against, the theme would be less important as I’m fighting him. But if there was a theme I would like. Being a Bolton lad would be the Wars of the Roses
@@KSweeney36 one day, I can almost guarantee there will be C&C roses. Alas, not yet. Truly, the series is so simple and similar enough you can just pick a title thats the most interesting to you and you'd have a great time. There's no real differences in complexity.
@@OgamiTringle It look excellent, flicked through the rules a little and I love that this game will force a player to be aggressive, which is something I can rarely be accused of being.
Tell it as it is. Totally wrong name on the game. Why!!! That's up to GMT and Richard Borg, to tell us. What name the real Medieval game should be called is the question. Maybe "Commands & Colors Modern Armour"
I'm guessing that they are aiming to release expansions that take it into the "actual" Medieval period. Which in itself is kinda crappy, since it's a money grab. If they call it "Medieval," they should've started the timeline at 1000 AD and gone forward...and they know it. Everyone was expecting high middle ages battles, not this.
Mr Borg's choice of starting this series with the Byzantine army was thoughtful and right. Playing the war history of the Middle Ages without the Byzantines would be like playing the history of Rock Music without Elvis and The Beatles. Those who consider the Middle Age as Dark ages of Decline should reconsider this. The Byzantine Empire lasted for more than one thousand years ( 330 - 1453). This is the length of the Middle Age! Come on, think! One thousand years of decline? The military might of the Byzantine army played a crucial role for this unpreceded longevity. Some of the battles that were fought during those years saved not only the Byzantines but the whole western civilization. Mr Borg and GMT Games have given us the chance to relive those battles (in a very thrilling bloody way indeed) and admire the strategic genius of Belisarius and hopefully many other great minds of those glorious years of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Cataphracts are coming!
I think the comparison would be more accurate with the Pink Floyd instead of the Beatles, less famous but longer in time :)
Very true!
You were doing great until you mentioned this undefined myhologic entitty you call "the western civilization", which is to be "saved". Very ironic, since the whole talk about an east-west divide actually started with the Roman division, which later lead to church division. And even more so, as the Russian civilization, which is a direct descendent of the Eastern Roman one, has always been otherized as eastern by Europe, and even more these days (all while westernizing Ukraine - also a mythic enterprise).
Commands & Cavalry: Cavalry
The Exciting Medieval Cavalry Game
19 Cavalry Scenarios
Byzantine Cavalry vs Sassanid Cavalry
Now YOU are in cavalry!
I like the art and color selection on the cards.
The colors are soft, pastel, yet stand out without being distracting.
Awesome art... for what little there is on the cards.
I felt it should have been called Comands and Colors Dark Ages
yeah, i for one would really like to see a 'Crusades', like they mentioned, or '100 Years War' (or both) CnC game which i think would be a lot closer to what we were expecting from the word 'medieval'. Plus it would be kickass to play across 1000 years of early warfare with the same simple system.
Hey guys, the Crusades are coming! From today's monthly update from GMT:
C&C Medieval Expansion 1 - Crusades: In Final Art and Proofing (1-2 Months away from going to Print)
At first I was a bit surprised by what they call Medieval. But some days later I love what they did. I am into history but I never learned so much on an historical in such a short time. I look at the middle ages in a much different way now, a much broader way, thanks GMT. A little note on the latest videos, especially regarding C&C but not excluding others. I notice a lot of small incorrect remarks about rules in games or about gameplay that could easily be avoided and might confuse people in the end. It's great to publish so much videos but please keep the quality of the videos in mind. Or not, they are fun anyway, thanks.
Historians tend to tie the Medieval period (middle ages) closely to the Byzantines, beginning with the fall of the western Roman Empire (476 AD, fall of Rome) and that it ends with the fall of the eastern Byzantine Empire (1453 AD, fall of Constantinople), sometimes extended to the european discover of the new world in 1492.
Intrestingly the byzantines always though of and called themselves 'Romans'.
I agree its not what comes to mind when I think of medieval, but I am hoping the expansions bring all the tings you have talked about, knights, crusades, sieges etc.
I studied medieval history in college. Granted my focus was the Hundred Years War, but I took all sorts of medieval history...and you're right. "Early Middle Ages", a class I took junior year, started in 476 to about 888 (end of the Carolingian era). "High Middle Ages" was 900-1453. My professor took us up to 1500 though
The Turks, Arabs & Persians called them Romans too. "Byzantine" was a term applied well after the last fall of Constantinople, but you probably already knew that. I think it's great they went with an underrepresented time & place in games . I've always found Byzantine history fascinating, but I'm in the minority.
"well Napoleonics is Dope" - Alexander 2019
I'm in Alexanders camp.
When I heard Medieval, I was thinking something different as well.
But I did further review, and heard the crying about the "period" prior to publication, and kinda knew what I was getting into.
Is it different enough from Ancients to justify it?
You guys didn't answer that question, which you may have not even considered.
But I will reserve my judgement until after I've played it.
Heh, actually I'm eagerly awaiting the reprint of this, for the exact reasons you were disappointed: being from Bulgaria, pretty much all of my country's medieval history is defined by the wars with Byzantium. Therefore I have my fingers crossed to see the Bulgarians in a future expansion :)
It's interesting that you guys identify new cards (for you at least) and how it shows you haven't played C&C ancients as the cards you're describing are all in that game. So not really anything new in card activations.
The inspired leadership appears to be the main new thing in this version. I also like the idea of negating first sword hit from a lesser unit if that is actually how it works
Also if it works the same as ancients then the contiguous hex line you mention later in the example should be the total hexes - ie: the leader hex + 2 other contiguous hexes in total. I'm pretty sure it's not a radius effect as you described it. So in your example you could have only activated 3 total units and not 5. Again this is assuming Medieval works the same way as C&C Ancients.
Yeah it's a shame that they haven't played C & C Ancients as this is virtually identical. Also you are spot on regarding the contiguous rule - unfortunately they played that one wrong.
Well... I was starting to think I was playing Ancients wrong 😂
BTW, there's actually some proper Medieval battles in the original Battlelore Game
I think its best to start with something like Memoir 44 ( I did with my son ) and then move up to a Ancients, Medieval or Napoleons. Mostly because once you have the basics, then you can mix up the game and choose the theme you want. Memoir 44 is however pretty unbalanced scenario wise and no battle back is a bit sucky - but easy to learn. I think the big bonus with Medieval is that the components are higher quality ( dice, board and cards ) than other iterations ( I can't speak to Napoleonic's ) - I'd really love to play Tricorne as well.
It is nice to have variety to match your favorite historical period. I own Ancients and might get into the Medieval period. It's a try first for me. Also I'm sure the series will get more complex as the expansions pile on.
Thank You for clarifying the actual timeline of this game....I will be passing on this one because that is not the period of history that I wanted.....
I wish there were generally accepted terms for two separate periods in the Middle Ages: One typified by the invasions/migrations of the Huns, Mongols, Goths and Vikings. The other typified by feudalism with knights and lords for the later period.
Indeed, it would be great to see a video about your opinion on ranking the C&C games. Perhaps also a sub-part where you rank the armies expansion per game too, that would be fascinating.
As it stands for me, best at the top, lowest at the bottom:
1. The Great War, with well painted figurines. (out of the box or with tanks expansion). I think this is the one game that requires the most planning before comitting to an assault, and it tells amazing stories.
2. Napoleonics. (With all expansions, i think this dethrones The Great War...). The asymmetry is SO damn interesting.
3. Ancients. Close call with Napoleonics, since Ancients is much faster paced and easier to get into. I will always teach Ancients first as the ambassador of the series to new players.
4. Tricorne. Hard to rate, I really like it, but the battles can be slow paced and you can get frustrating moments where key full strength units just bail out at the worst time. Its also ridiculously expensive for the amount of scenarios you get. I mean, 100$ for a french expansion, but you only get 3 battles with said french troops? Come on. I will rank this one higher if they add Natives to the rooster.
I do not own the other C&C games, so cant comment on those. But I have no interest to get them. Memoir seems alright, but very hard to get the expansions, and the toy-factor is seemingly too high for my tastes.
I want to play some more ancients expansions, then Tricorne, then battle cry and then we'll make this video.
The reason Tricorne costs so much is...well, just about EVERYTHING from Compass Games is expensive for some reason. I dont buy many of their games.
@@ThePlayersAid Dont forget Memoir 44, Samurai Battles, Red Alert, Battlelore, Battles of Westeros...
Sounds like they are planning to have a lot of expansions to this game, they give you a taste and then give you the meat and potatoes in expansions. Sounds like its going to be expensive, I will pass on this also. Just say it Grant, the leader ship cards and abilities are OP.
While not historical, the Battle of Westeros is a C&C game from Fantasy Flight set in the Game of Thrones universe. It uses the light, medium, heavy mechanic and the leader actions as well, but is more in line with your description of what you were expecting from a medieval game.
You might be interested in checking it out if you can find it.
Is it the same core mechanics, like the order cards and units and dice etc?
@@ThePlayersAid It's mechanics are different. You roll dice to order units (a red banner on the die roll lets you order a red unit, etc) but certainly has its roots in C&C.
Hey guys... great review! The game looks interesting. I love cavalry... I love mobility! I even love the block system... NOW, that being said... why not mini's? I'm almost ready to send you guys one of my extra copies of "Battle Cry"... had no idea how you didn't have it???? What I want is a great Mongol Hoard game! Sweeping down with heavy cavalry, strategic movement. Maybe this game can scratch that itch... I'm SO behind in my game buying right now. Keep up the great work
The C&C games with Miniatures are published by other companies, but you can always swap out the blocks for miniatures. 1/72 scale works well, or use the minis from Battlelore or Battles of Westeros
I’m a fan of GMT but I’m a bit worried about the GMT’s approach to the C&C line. There is a clear strategy to publish a minimalist game in terms of contents, game innovation while planning for max expansions. The C&C system hasn’t evolved since M44, but GMT churns C&C games and expansions like there’s no tomorrow. Even the cards themselves are almost the same as all other C&C games.
I am amazed that consumers continue to buy the same game over and over again. Advise: get Battlelore and use humans and no-fantasy only.
Praise to the TPA team to have an *honest* critique.
To be honest, I'm not surprised. You look at Eurogames and that's the route publishers are taking these days. It's almost a given that when a game is released, you expect the base game to be lacking because 2-3 expansions are already planned and in pre-production (or full production, to be released in 6 months). It was just a matter of time before GMT got in on this way of doing things. The only difference is, the C&C games are typically more expensive than your average Eurogame....and you have to sticker blocks. For each expansion.
C&C Pike and Shotte is what I'm missing. English civil war, Italian wars and thirty years war. Chuck in a simple campaign system and /or dynamically linked 'battle games' and GMT or whoever can take my money. They could make the pike blocks as tall as the general or elephant units so they stand out from a distance!
Well I've got Great war, ancients and Napoleonics. I think they're a good broad mix, not much cross over with regards tactics or aesthetics. I sold Memoir (I had better ww2, tactical wargames) and Samurai battles (the one with all the models-all assembled and painted but still a hastle to transport and play). I tried gmt's musket and pike series but it was a bit too convaluted for me. Although I've kept hold of accursed civil war just because of my personal interest and proximity to the English Civil war battlegrounds. Hopefully a pike and Shotte version will get into the works soon. It's a rich period full of dynamic battles, bright and varied armies, eccentric characters and weird and wonderful terrain features and landscapes.
Expansions MAY expand into the higher medieval periods, but we'll see...
I love the C&C series of games! And Richard Borg is a genuinely nice fellow who loves to meet his fans! These are easy purchases for me. Now Richard BERG, not so much...
I would expect it to start in 1066.
I tend to agree, but it would then miss out Charlemagne, Tours, Yarmuk, Alfred the Great, Brian Boru and most of the VIking period (shield walls, Mercia, Wessex, etc.). I do think it's missing Belisarius however.
I haven't even stickered my blocks yet.
I'm waiting until I get sleeves for the cards.
;)
Dig Alexander's cannibis look 😎
I was disappointed that the Huns colors are not separate of the Persian Sa.
This comment is likely a little late but I think you interpreted the Leadership cards incorrectly. You said it allowed you to order your leader plus all units within a certain "radius" of the leader thus allowing you to order possibly 9 units (and you showed an actual example where you ordered 5 units @23:00 with a Leadership Any Section card). The Leadership cards in Medieval work the same as those in Ancients in that it orders the leader (and it's attached unit) plus 2 or 3 other units (depending on the card) contiguously adjacent. There is no "all-units-in-a-radius" concept. This makes the Leadership cards less powerful than you thought, but still powerful. EDIT: Just noticed VonChoker already mentioned this 3 years ago...
Always felt that quality should count more than location, green, experienced, and veteran makes more sense than left, middle, right.. imo
Weird choise of period with that name. This looks like the remaining Rome, Byzantine. I think Vikings or Knighst whould sell a lot…
But the new features seems good- might get this for them and the dice alone.
Grant is a Monty Python fan :)
Medieval???? I think "holy handgrenade" ala Monty Python's Holy Grail Movie, right???? :) Cheers boys. (and girls)
So, if this is Command & Colors: Dark Ages, where is the real Command & Colors: Medieval game?
I guess this is a pass.... Thank you.
Having the first one being from the middle ages but sans knights was a loser for me. I understand the history well. But, I checked out of the system.
You guys are so eurocentric! The good part is that the very reasons that make you don't like the game are those that are going to make me get it!
I'm so torn on this version. I guess it could cover 1000 years and have 15 expansions... It may.
Are the dices the same like in Ancients? Could one use them in Ancients?
No, they are different symbols, and use a different unit grouping mechanism.
They are the same symbols as long as you can handle a helmet without a plume. For a while GMT had some extras you could buy (just the dice) kills me I didn't get any for ancients!
For someone whom hasn’t played a C&C game before, as this one doesn’t have the special units and the better player aid. Would this not be the better one to get as your first one?
From a rules stand point, sure, it's a breeze to learn. But the realty is that the most complex of the C&C games is still really easy to learn. Also for someone that's never played C&C before Persians vs Byzantines might not be the most gripping topic.
The Players Aid For me and the main friend I would would play against, the theme would be less important as I’m fighting him. But if there was a theme I would like. Being a Bolton lad would be the Wars of the Roses
@@KSweeney36 one day, I can almost guarantee there will be C&C roses. Alas, not yet. Truly, the series is so simple and similar enough you can just pick a title thats the most interesting to you and you'd have a great time. There's no real differences in complexity.
Are you guys going to be reviewing Last Hundred Yards?
Yes, we just haven't got to it quite yet!
@@ThePlayersAid Thats what I am talking about! Haven't gotten to playing my copy but it looks good!
@@OgamiTringle It look excellent, flicked through the rules a little and I love that this game will force a player to be aggressive, which is something I can rarely be accused of being.
byzantine cav had front rank lancers,,,so not bow?
In this scenario, this battle was fought with bow cavalry. Typically they do not have them, hence the bow counters.
So no Agincourt scenario. sad.
Tell it as it is. Totally wrong name on the game.
Why!!!
That's up to GMT and Richard Borg, to tell us.
What name the real Medieval game should be called is the question.
Maybe "Commands & Colors Modern Armour"
I'm guessing that they are aiming to release expansions that take it into the "actual" Medieval period. Which in itself is kinda crappy, since it's a money grab. If they call it "Medieval," they should've started the timeline at 1000 AD and gone forward...and they know it. Everyone was expecting high middle ages battles, not this.
@@caomhan84 The only thing crappy is having to wait for these expansions to come out. Damnit, I just cant!