I really can't make a comparison with C&C for the simple reason that I've never played it. However, these are, for what its worth, some of my thoughts on the H&M system in general.
I only have Volume I, and so only have access to the rules for that, although I have played a number of scenarios from Vol II and III on Vassal with someone who is very knowledgeable about the rules and has all the material published for those and later expansions.
Therefore, I was only aware of any additional rules that applied to those later games as they were conveyed to me by my opponent.. I really am not sure if any /all of these additional rules can be applied retrospectively to the earlier games.
While the base rules are pretty easy to learn, there are a lot of 'optional' and 'recommended' rules that add a significant amount of detail (and thus complexity) to the game.
One one hand, the system is quite clever in that it employs one of three combat tables depending on the size of the battle depicted in the scenario. This obviously enables the system to simulate a lot of scenarios over quite a long historical period when used in conjunction with any relevant special scenario rules provided.
However, in order to do all this, certain sacrifices and abstractions are required. For example, ground scale and unit size are not detailed which does at times make the battles feel a bit generic,. Thus, a unit may represent anything from a few battalions to a few regiments and is just a mass of troops. I'm not inferring that this doesn't work, but to me, it does feel a bit too vague.
Now, I'm no expert on any of the periods covered by the games but have read a few books and played a few games that fit into the time period, so I do have at least an inking of the tactics of those times, and one of the things about the games that had bothered me is 'recommended' rules for formation and facing.
These additional rules obviously add much to the authenticity of the games but a at a cost of slowing things down a little. It also introduces the use of a new chart that influences the combat calculations by making a comparison of the attacking units formation in relation to the defending units formation.
My argument is that where the unit is a large body, as maybe depicted in one of the 'large' battle scenarios, then would all the sub units in that body be in the same formation and with the same facing? For example, some flank battalions (or whatever) may be in a refused flank. This is easy enough to depict with smaller scale games but has to be assumed to be the case where the unit represents a large body of troops.
Anyway, my point is that I do wonder at the validity of the formation and facing rules. I stress that this is just my take on it and I'm quite happy if someone want to try and educate me.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2021, 10:42:38 AM by bob48 »
“O Lord God, let me not be disgraced in my old days.”
'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers'
