Easy to Color Code

The color of the block will instantly associate it with a "nation". I trust GMT will be able to come up with appropriate colors (which are suitably thematic) for all the national types without suffering color combinations that are too close together. In this photo suite, Andy has the Romans with green blocks and the Seleucids (which are deployed using the Carthaginians) in tan blocks.

Roman POV: Roman Center

Easy to Move

I have many blocks games from Columbia Games and I have GMT's Europe Engulfed. The blocks are steady and easy to move. They feel "good in the hand" and are more amenable to the fat-finger factor than either cardboard or minis. This is because cardboard has a thin edge to deal with as well as a broad footprint (at least in the proposals we were discussing) and minis have complex edges (if you will) that induce finger snagging more easily.

On the evening when I wrote this article, I took out my Battle Cry board and placed groupings of Europe Engulfed blocks into the hexes. As they are arrayed in the photo below, you will find right away that all four blocks are easily pressed together between the fingers and moved (either by being picked up or just by sliding). The ease of movement is in marked contrast to the slightly fiddly movement I associate (not unpleasantly) with the Battle Cry and Memoir '44 figures. It's not a make-or-break thing, but from a human factors perspective, the ease of movement of these blocks is quite noticeable and pleasing.

Roman POV: Roman Right Flank

Exact Mapping to the Game System Mechanics

This approach avoids any changes to the game system mechanics in terms of unit strength, unit appearance, unit losses, unit integrity, etc. A very good thing

In the photo, you can see the infantry types with four blocks, the cavalry types with three blocks and the elephants with two blocks. This is a typical approach in the Commands & Colors game system (and players of Battle Cry will note how Infantry have four stands, Cavalry have three, and Artillery have two).

Roman POV: Seleucid Right Flank

Differentiated Graphical Representation of National Unit Types

This is a key visual plus for either cardboard or blocks. In the main, a Roman will not be a Greek, and Persian will not be a Carthaginian (although I expect that some block reuse will occur when the nationality is rare from a battle scenario perspective); a Triari unit will not double up as an Auxilia unit; moreover, beautiful colorful artwork will be the standard.

There has been some discussion about having front views and rear views versus three-quarter views. My take is that once a person begins to physically assemble the units in the box, many will quickly tire of trying to figure out making sure that each unit of a particular type has the correct front and matching back combination. It will be easier at "assembly time" to have the same three-quarter view on the front and the back of the block--or so I think--and I believe that seeing such a view will permit more rapid visual identification of the unit type for BOTH players--a key consideration when the blocks are of the 3/4-inch variety.

Roman POV: Seleucid Center

Adjustment from P1250 to P1000

Oh, this is a big one. First off, we are much closer to the goal and might even excite a rapid movement to get there. Second, a lower production start point (P1000) with a "better solution" might actually engender higher ultimate sales of the base game, which in turn will give impetus to support the additional army types. This is a critical turning point.

As we can see in the photo below, the elaboration of unit types is very exciting, what with your cavalry types (shooting and non-shooting!), elephants and even chariots. It is my understanding that the game system does also incorporate war machines. Decisions that improve the economies and the quality of the production may ultimately hasten the appearance of ballistas, mangonels, and onagers!

Roman POV: Seleucid Left Flank

Concern: Small Block Size

I think this is the only thing I had wished was different from the proposal. But I need to be clear with you, Dear Reader, just because I wished for bigger blocks does not mean it was a wise wish.

I would far rather have the blocks than the cardboard and I would rather have the three sizes as proposed and done more economically than a more expensive option. Andy Lewis mentioned exhorbitant prices for blocks that are a bit larger than the suite of sizes he has specified.

Note how the Leader unit is represented below. Can you say Scipio Africanus? Well, at least I can. Those who have played Battle Cry will recognize that the Leader unit attaches to other Units, providing them additional strength and capabilities. Since Leader units will very likely attach to Infantry most of the time, this particular size (and graphical focus) is quite reasonable. On a socio-cultural note, focusing graphically on the head of the Leader is thoroughly correct, for indeed, the Leader was literally "the head" of the army.

Seleucid POV: Roman Left Flank

Concern: Retain C & C Compatible Hex Size

I want very much to see the same hex size (as Battle Cry and Memoir '44) retained for the playing surface. It is a characteristic of the game system at this point and it also supports the 15mm-plus miniatures for those who want to go in that direction--although I must admit, if someone is "going for it," they are likely to create their own 5-inch wide hex grid on their 6x9 playing table and put 28mm lead out there. It's the "quick-plastic-crowd" that will enjoy the hex-size compatibility. And of course, I like the "big feel" of it. Key for me.

As you can observe in the photo immediately below, the blocks fill but do not overfill the hexes; if special rules to later campaigns deliver unit types with five or six of the blocks, this combination of block size and hex size will still work perfectly well.

Seleucid POV: Seleucid Center

No Issue: Data on the Stickers

Since the block sizes will be smaller than I originally wished, there will be a premium on conveying the visual impression without data clutter. Although there are 15 different troop types a good reference card will suffice (the Days of Wonder examples with Memoir '44 are particularly easy and effective). Nota Bene: A miniatures version would not have data on the minis, so this whole thing is something I am not worried about.

There is one key point I should raise regarding the design of the Commands & Colors system. Unit types and capabilities are very intuitively extended. For example, you may expect that all the shooting types of troops ("Bows" in the parlance) whether they are infantry or cavalry, will likely have the same range capability with the same serial diminution in strength for each additional hex of range. A complicated way of saying that you have essentially one way to learn the mechanic of shooting, even if 2 or 3 or 4 different troop types using this mechanic. The inherent cohesion and endurance of a unit is represented by the number of blocks assigned to the unit and this mechanic is learned in 5 seconds and never needs be referenced again. This utter simplicity and coherent unity of design will greatly ease the concerns of those who might still question whether there ought to be some data on the blocks.

In addition, the GMT Artists are going to ensure that any fundamentally necessary distinguishing element is graphically incorporated as needed. The size of the blocks will convey key information, the superior artwork will ensure that different troop types will be clearly understood and any additional considerations (shooting type vs non-shooting type?) may have some additional graphical assist.

As you can see in the photo immediately below, the shooting types (slingers) are very well distinguished from the other infantry types. And let us all drool when we see the Cavalry bearing javelins come screaming from the reserve!

Seleucid POV: Roman Right Flank

No Issue: Heavy Cardstock for the Map and Overlays

The cardstock is high quality, durable, takes color well, and will be eminently suitable. The materials are tried and true (just as has been done for other various GMT games recently). By the way, you'll note in the two photos of the Roman Left Flank that Andy has placed some river terrain (reusing the Battle Cry materials for the mock up). The terrain in ancient conflicts was almost always more open and less complicated than that for later conflicts. You can't hide behind terrain in this game, you have to seize the initiative and resolutely fight.

Seleucid POV: Seleucid Center

Summary: The Big Win

The game was designed as a miniatures game, but the economics have not justified it so far (and this is after years and years of trying). The cardboard approach was taken, which was received in the spirit of compromise, if not emotionally embraced, and the march to production slowed down to a crawl. Suddenly a few people (John Burt and Jeff Paul) had an insight about alternatives, a flourishing discussion on CSW occurred, and in a few short weeks, Andy Lewis had a Eureka moment and came up with this new proposal. Within mere days, it was broadly accepted. This was a marvelous turning point.