Hail Caesar

[garyp]

I've played both BP and Hail Caesar a lot over the years and as a general rule I like them both. BP is weakest as a Napoleonic ruleset, which is ironic since that was it's genesis, but with the period specific rules it works really well for 18th Century games (no attack columns, no firing if you move more than once, infantry having to stay in supported lines to be safe from cavalry etc - makes for different experience entirely).

It's also a superb ruleset for asymmetric Colonial games - the outnumbered regular armies can't abuse the command and control by storming forward and the Zulu/Mahdist types have to use rapid movement to counter firepower. Makes for excellent games if you balance the forces so that BOTH sides complain they don't have enough troops.

Hail Caesar is an altogether tighter and better executed ruleset. shorter movement distances and the need to maintain a supported line means that whilst some units can go charging round the table it's not generally a good idea, unless you've got Parthian horse archers.

Both are great for large multiplayer games, of which I get to organise a lot at my club, and are easy to introduce new players as the concepts are quite simple.

The rulebooks are very pretty, but are written abysmally. Helps if you have a game organiser who knows the rules because finding anything in the books mid-game tends to result in much swearing and scratching of heads.

[ochoin]

The rulebooks are very pretty, but are written abysmally. Helps if you have a game organiser who knows the rules because finding anything in the books mid-game tends to result in much swearing and scratching of heads.

You ever try to find something in the FoG rulebook? Stuff is all over the place.

I'm quite attracted to HC from what I've read & watched on the web but it appears to be still born with my group. Pity.

donald