I suspect from this bit that you’re reading into what I’ve posted things I didn’t intend – i.e. I don’t believe that C&C is a bad game, I just don’t think of it as a wargame. It’s very abstract to me, not as much as something like Chess, but definitely in that direction. I do like C&C better than Battlore, in much the same vein as I prefer Shogi to Chess.
Ancient warfare is especially contentious - there are lots of deep debates on this and to single out C&C:A as unrealistic instead of, say, the Great Battles of History model, is not the same as saying one is a better wargame. Flanking for example; given the low quality of much ancient cavalry, how big a problem was it for disciplined armies? Skirmishers are ignored in most ancient sources - is this because they didn’t matter or because authors didn’t think they were important? Are phalanxes really brittle? How you answer these questions will affect your model and if you have one version of ancient battles in your head another model may seem “unrealistic”.
I agree it’s subjective and impossible to find any sort of “final truth”, but “it happened long ago, we can’t know for sure, all arguments are equal”? I think that’s going a bit too far.
C&C lets units move in any direction, regardless of facing – this is clearly wrong. In C&C you can charge cavalry head on into heavy infantry to good effect – this is clearly wrong. Flanking was decisive in many ancient battles, with or without cavalry, and ancient commanders definitely paid attention to it; massed units charged in the flank or rear folded quickly, sometimes rolling up the entire opposing battle line – yet in C&C units fight the same in all directions. Ancient armies did not rout en masse when their skirmishers fled, but in C&C this is common – if you attempt to use the classic skirmishers in front to screen your core units tactic, you lose. In C&C “moving” units get to attack first, and their opponent may not get to fight back – what does that even mean in a melee battle?
To be sure, C&C gets many things right too. Like units fighting full strength until they rout, armies not fighting to the last man, elephants scaring cavalry, not being able to shoot over interposing units or into melee, difficulty of adapting plans during battle, etc. These are good, but not enough to offset the above points.
To reiterate, I enjoy C&C as a game, but there simply isn’t enough realism for me to see it as a wargame. If you’re looking for a grognardy wargame, there are definitely better games to try.