Memoir 44, Battlelore, Command & Colors (Board Games) Catch All

So I recently bought Memoir 44 and I have to say it's a brilliant board game. I've got so many non hardcore board gamers into it because how simple it is. I'm looking at getting similar wargames from Richard Borg because Memoir is a little too simple. I heard Battlelore is great and I hope to try it out. Command & Colors looks ok. Any suggestions for expansions for Memoir 44 or should I just go straight into the other games?

I've played all of them and I like Battlelore the best. It has the most comprehensive rule set since it incorporates the successful mechanics of the previous games in the series. If you like the Civil War period you might like Battle Cry, which is the first in the series, but it also has the least refined rules.

Also Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit is really fun game with many of the same mechanics. It's based on the Phantom Menace license, but if you can overlook that, it's great fun. It may be a sore subject as there exists a rumor that the game was stolen from Richard.

I own both BattleLore and Memoir, and I think for that game system, Memoir is the best because it keeps it simple. When I feel like rolling dice, I feel like rolling dice, and Memoir lets me do that. I don't own any of the expansions, but I've heard that a bunch of them are pretty decent. I'd just go to BGG and pick up the highest-rated one.

If you like Memoir, BattleCry (Civil War) is a good pick. Also, Tide of Steel is more detailed and a lot of fun.

SwampYankee wrote:

If you like Memoir, BattleCry (Civil War) is a good pick.

Is Battle Cry available any more? I got lucky and found it at the thrift store last year for $2. I can't speak from experience as I've not played any of them except Battle Cry, but I thought BC was the most simplistic of the games. I think they added complexity with each iteration of the series, so the newer ones would probably fit the bill best if he's looking for more than Memoir provides.

Also, I think you meant Tide of Iron and not Tide of Steel?

It is the most simple as I recall, but that's relative. They are all simple. Fun, fast, easy to get into. Great for playing with kids and teens.

Memoir is pretty fun, I like that game

SwampYankee wrote:

If you like Memoir, BattleCry (Civil War) is a good pick. Also, Tide of Steel is more detailed and a lot of fun.

As a minor point, I think SwampY means Tide of Iron.

Picked up Battlelore last year at GenCon. Also, that was the same day the I helped wordsmythe teach the designer of Axis and Allies to play Memoir 44. "Push 'em back? How do I kill'em?" was his biggest complaint.

Battlelore is my fav of the series. The idea of moving the enemy due to the force of your charge, of follow-on actions for cavalry, the simple and fair terrain mechanics. All, ver very well thought out. I've actually gotten my wife into it! Also, if ou flip the BL board you have half of a larger map: 2 copies equals one massive engagement.

Haven't gotten too far into the magic component, or the special advisors though. Just been enjoying the strategy of it. Reminds me a lot of the old MB(?) Game BattleMasters.

I haven't played Memoir or Battle Cry, but between Battlelore and Commands & Colors: Ancients, Commands & Colors is hands-down the better game.

I was hoping Battlelore was just going to be a fantasy version of C&C:A but unfortunately it isn't. Yeah, the core mechanics are the same (play a card to move units on the board) but the differences in combat rules and types of cards really hurts Battlelore. The only real format that makes sense in Battlelore is a triangle as all your units support each other, allowing them to counter attack. Some cards allow you to activate all units of a color (colors indicate if the unit is light, med or heavy) but that's about it. You don't necessarily feel like your army fights in any real cohesive manner.

What makes C&C:A work so well are the leaders and how the cards interact with them. Leader really are the key to success in the game. They are harder to kill (work like the monsters in Battlelore) and make the units adjacent to them stronger. There are a lot of cards that let you move a whole line of troops with your leader which really feels like you are advancing your army in a formation rather than piecemeal. I find that there are many more interesting and useful formation options in C&C:A and for me that makes for a far more interesting game. Also, in C&C:A you can choose to evade an attack which gives you more tactical options.

Finally, the lore part of Battelore is kinda neat at first but ultimately I've never found to to be all that balanced or fun. I like the concept of casting spells but I've never liked how they work out in practice. Playing base Battlelore without lore is far more fun than with, which is a problem as that is sort of a big focus of the game

I haven't played Memoir but I'm guessing I would probably enjoy that too, even though it is on the more simple side of things. Ultimately I think C&C:A delivers the more tactical game and feels more like what I envision ancient combat to be.

For something a little deeper, Tide of Iron is awesome. My main problem is that some of the scenarios just aren't that exciting for one side as they are the defender and don't have too many options. The system itself is a lot of fun, though, and the good scenarios are a blast to play.

Loves me some BattleLore (Warhammmer Lite) and I have always wanted to try out Memoir. Now I have this C&C:A on the radar ... Hmmmm. I've been eyeing Smallworld as we have established a family game night now but maybe there is room in the gaming budget for daddy to get another board game. Stupid board game and book threads!!!

Dreaded Gazebo wrote:

I haven't played Memoir or Battle Cry, but between Battlelore and Commands & Colors: Ancients, Commands & Colors is hands-down the better game.

I was hoping Battlelore was just going to be a fantasy version of C&C:A but unfortunately it isn't. Yeah, the core mechanics are the same (play a card to move units on the board) but the differences in combat rules and types of cards really hurts Battlelore. The only real format that makes sense in Battlelore is a triangle as all your units support each other, allowing them to counter attack. Some cards allow you to activate all units of a color (colors indicate if the unit is light, med or heavy) but that's about it. You don't necessarily feel like your army fights in any real cohesive manner.

What makes C&C:A work so well are the leaders and how the cards interact with them. Leader really are the key to success in the game. They are harder to kill (work like the monsters in Battlelore) and make the units adjacent to them stronger. There are a lot of cards that let you move a whole line of troops with your leader which really feels like you are advancing your army in a formation rather than piecemeal. I find that there are many more interesting and useful formation options in C&C:A and for me that makes for a far more interesting game. Also, in C&C:A you can choose to evade an attack which gives you more tactical options.

Finally, the lore part of Battelore is kinda neat at first but ultimately I've never found to to be all that balanced or fun. I like the concept of casting spells but I've never liked how they work out in practice. Playing base Battlelore without lore is far more fun than with, which is a problem as that is sort of a big focus of the game

I haven't played Memoir but I'm guessing I would probably enjoy that too, even though it is on the more simple side of things. Ultimately I think C&C:A delivers the more tactical game and feels more like what I envision ancient combat to be.

For something a little deeper, Tide of Iron is awesome. My main problem is that some of the scenarios just aren't that exciting for one side as they are the defender and don't have too many options. The system itself is a lot of fun, though, and the good scenarios are a blast to play.

Sounds like the hero expansion of Battlelore would help you there. From what I understand it comes with hero units that gives your units bonuses and other special abilities.

Crockpot wrote:

Sounds like the hero expansion of Battlelore would help you there. From what I understand it comes with hero units that gives your units bonuses and other special abilities.

It may certainly help. Unfortunately Battlelore still has the whole concept of only being able to battle back if you are supported by two other units, meaning you'll ultimately still need to form groups of triangles. In C&C:A a unit may always battle back. It looks like it'll add more movement options and flexibility, though, which is a good thing.

We'll see. I think I'm probably going to end up selling of Battlelore and either get C&C:A or wait and see how the Napoleonic game turns out.

Memoir 44 and Battle Cry are simpler, C&C Ancients is the most chrome plated version, lots of modifiers and unit types. For me, Battlelore wins for flavor and flexibility.

Dreaded Gazebo wrote:
Crockpot wrote:

Sounds like the hero expansion of Battlelore would help you there. From what I understand it comes with hero units that gives your units bonuses and other special abilities.

It may certainly help. Unfortunately Battlelore still has the whole concept of only being able to battle back if you are supported by two other units, meaning you'll ultimately still need to form groups of triangles. In C&C:A a unit may always battle back. It looks like it'll add more movement options and flexibility, though, which is a good thing.

We'll see. I think I'm probably going to end up selling of Battlelore and either get C&C:A or wait and see how the Napoleonic game turns out.

If you sell Battlelore for a good price let me know. Of all of Robert Borgs games that one seems most interesting for me. Eventually I would love to try them all but Battlelore seems a good fit for me.

Iron, Yes. It's been a while

I started out in memoir and moved to command and colors.
I enjoy the rules they added (leaders and battle back and what not) and I love the blocks (but not stickering them). C&C feels more serious than it actually is (that's a good thing). It feels like a real wargame (even though it's not).

For some reason the rules just seem to mesh better for me in C&C than they did in memoir setting wise.

Memoir is great for a "beer and pretzels" feel. It's advantages over CCA is that it's graphically more pleasing, better production and very newbie friendly in its gameplay and theme. CCA is a slightly heavier "wargame" that has some added rules overhead but historically a little more valid. The main gameplay elements are the same but M44 is terrain-centric, CCA is troop-centric.

I'd refuse to make a choice, by buying both.

[Scuttlebutt is that CC: Napoleonics will be debuting next year...]

Crouton wrote:

Also Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit is really fun game with many of the same mechanics. It's based on the Phantom Menace license, but if you can overlook that, it's great fun. It may be a sore subject as there exists a rumor that the game was stolen from Richard.

I find this highly unlikely, as the designers (Richard, and the core three guys at what was AH at the time) are great friends, and all regularly guests in the party room at GenCon until this year, when I am tragically not running one.

The rules are only similar to the command and colors system in only the most cursory way, honestly. Certainly no more similar than any of the hundreds of other games that share various mechanics.

rabbit wrote:
Crouton wrote:

Also Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit is really fun game with many of the same mechanics. It's based on the Phantom Menace license, but if you can overlook that, it's great fun. It may be a sore subject as there exists a rumor that the game was stolen from Richard.

I find this highly unlikely, as the designers (Richard, and the core three guys at what was AH at the time) are great friends, and all regularly guests in the party room at GenCon until this year, when I am tragically not running one.

The rules are only similar to the command and colors system in only the most cursory way, honestly. Certainly no more similar than any of the hundreds of other games that share various mechanics.

Cursory? I don't think that word means what you think it does, but I think I know what you meant. If you mean that the similarities are thin or superficial, then I think you're wrong. Battle Cry and Queen's Gambit came out in the same year. At the time there were no other major games that used the fundamental battle card mechanic in the same way controlling different parts of the board. This similarity was well observed (1,2,3,4).