I haven't given up completely, but I am discouraged and generally agree with the OP assessment.
The dice deck, time and victory point tracks, as well as deeper rules complexity are what obviously separate the CC series from basic Memoir'44 type CDGs, but with all the added chrome this game too often ends up feeling like an equally annoying hand management exercise which also happens to be too disconnected to the actual position on the board.
The random disconnect between the needs of the board, the sporadic events, and a common lack of relevant influence from the available hand actions is really frustrating. The game would benefit from a less restrictive CDG implementation similar to the greater flexibility offered by Washington's War for example.
I'm not against the chaos of the battlefield that CC presents, but it falls just shy of greatness by simulating so much chaos and being at the same time too restrictive in how a commander may respond to the chaos that inevitably does occur. What you do during the game matters far less than any of the constantly random things happening during play to the extent that the outcome seems almost totally fate determined.
Play this game to see what kinds of ridiculously memorable random things might occur, but not to pretend that your hand management interaction regularly offers much influence over who will actually win. In summing all these factors of chaos, complexity, length of play, difficulty of influencing the positional considerations, I think CC is more realistic in frustrating plans, but also that this is less enjoyable during actual play by undermining the importantance of the role choice makes on the outcome of a battle and the satisfaction that can bring. Is it the difference perhaps between merely observing a simulation or participating in one with more direct influence that bothers me?
Regardless, the result for me is that the board seems subservient to the luck of the draw (cards in hand) and I prefer the increased time invested into heavier weight games be the opposite, or the flexibility of the hand possess greater potential to influence the board position so the strategic choices related to it ultimately matters a little more than is currently the case. Every time I play CC and witness the crazy disconnect between choice, chaos, and position, I wish I was playing something else instead.
The dice deck, time and victory point tracks, as well as deeper rules complexity are what obviously separate the CC series from basic Memoir'44 type CDGs, but with all the added chrome this game too often ends up feeling like an equally annoying hand management exercise which also happens to be too disconnected to the actual position on the board.
The random disconnect between the needs of the board, the sporadic events, and a common lack of relevant influence from the available hand actions is really frustrating. The game would benefit from a less restrictive CDG implementation similar to the greater flexibility offered by Washington's War for example.
I'm not against the chaos of the battlefield that CC presents, but it falls just shy of greatness by simulating so much chaos and being at the same time too restrictive in how a commander may respond to the chaos that inevitably does occur. What you do during the game matters far less than any of the constantly random things happening during play to the extent that the outcome seems almost totally fate determined.
Play this game to see what kinds of ridiculously memorable random things might occur, but not to pretend that your hand management interaction regularly offers much influence over who will actually win. In summing all these factors of chaos, complexity, length of play, difficulty of influencing the positional considerations, I think CC is more realistic in frustrating plans, but also that this is less enjoyable during actual play by undermining the importantance of the role choice makes on the outcome of a battle and the satisfaction that can bring. Is it the difference perhaps between merely observing a simulation or participating in one with more direct influence that bothers me?
Regardless, the result for me is that the board seems subservient to the luck of the draw (cards in hand) and I prefer the increased time invested into heavier weight games be the opposite, or the flexibility of the hand possess greater potential to influence the board position so the strategic choices related to it ultimately matters a little more than is currently the case. Every time I play CC and witness the crazy disconnect between choice, chaos, and position, I wish I was playing something else instead.