Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: GBS
I see. Thanks. Of course none of this is in the manual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JFalk68

I have to agree wtih VR_Ironfist.

I know I may be committing blasphemy towards the classic AP rules set but I feel it limits gameplay tactically when compared to persistent APs because under classic rules once an opponent moves on to another unit you know that unit will not be committed again till next turn, regardless of the AP's he has left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VR_IronFist

hattrick1, I would normally agree with your reasoning but considering Uwe was involved heavily in the development of the PC game and agreed to all the changes it was making, I don't have a problem with them. Matter of fact, from various sources, it sounded like Uwe made these changes because the PC could handle the heavy lifting whereas is would have complicated playing the board game too much to include them.

So I'm wondering if the PC rules are the actual rules Uwe would have done if he could have, i.e, Persistent APs over Classic APs? Meaning could the PC game be considered the Director's Cut (to use a movie industry term) compared to the board game, which is the theatrical release?

I've played both systems but as an avid board gamer and PC war gamer (I really have no preference, they both have their strengths and weaknesses), I think I prefer the Persistent AP implementation. I like it's ebb and flow better. I also like how it doesn't seem like I have to exhaust all a squad's APs or lose them just because it might have been necessitated by a desire to slim down record keeping.

I would love to have someone ask Uwe about this. As of right now, I find most of my desire to play with Classic APs gone, although I think having the option is good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JFalk68

I have to agree wtih VR_Ironfist.

I know I may be committing blasphemy towards the classic AP rules set but I feel it limits gameplay tactically when compared to persistent APs because under classic rules once an opponent moves on to another unit you know that unit will not be committed again till next turn, regardless of the AP's he has left.

Lets says I have a Panzer IIIe left with 1 AP left, not enough to do anything so I move onto another unit, but I am secretly guarding my CAPS because I want to create the illusion this unit is "spent" for the turn.  Now an oppurtunity presents itself and under persistent rules I go back to a unit previously activted , in this example a Pz IIIe is ready to exploit the enemy.  I pump CAPS into the unit and allow it to manuver and/or fire to take advantage of situation, maybe even cause a breakthrough in the enemy lines!  This can be done in the "persistent" ruleset, no in "classic"

I think persistent AP's are just an evolution of the classic ruleset because the PC can do all the AP accounting whereas in a board game setting trying to implement persistent would have taken away from the flow of the game and weighed it down with AP accounting.  I read at boardgamegeek.com  players trying to do persistent AP's in a boardgame setting using 12mm dice next to the unit to keep track of AP's but in my opinion your taking this game a step closer to Star Fleet Battles with that much accounting in a boardgame setting  ( I know its a reach to SFB but I couldn't resist haha )

Just my opinion, people can enjoy the game however they like! We do have both sets of rules for that :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JFalk68

Hi hattrick1, I honestly can I say I was not trying to criticize you or antagonize you.  I threw that comment in there at the end because I feared I myself might antagonize people with "my comments" about peristent/classic AP's and I wanted to soften my post by saying however people play the game is up to them...it's not my place to tell someone how to enjoy Conflict of Heroes.  I really do respect that people may enjoy a different ruleset.

I'm sorry if I offended you, it really was not my intention and upon further reading this thread I can appreciate the classic AP's ruleset.  As usual Lebatron makes some good points about the classic rules.  I am not an experienced COH player and I am new to the series. I do have a passion for the game since playing the PC version so please forgive me, I am looking at it rather in a rather narrow way.  Jesse made some good points about tournament play.

I think it's great that people are just enjoying the game , again sorry if I offended you!

quote:

ORIGINAL: hattrick1
I was hoping that from buying the game, I would be able to experience the reasons of why this board game won those awards. That is all...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi Hattrick,

You may want to read the interview with Uwe Eickert at The Wargamer if you haven't already. Question #5 should be particularly of interest:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3186/interview-uwe-eickert-founder-of-academy-games

We've already written both before and after release that we plan to fully implement the Classic AP system as well in Storms of Steel, the first expansion, and then make it available to owners of Awakening the Bear in an update. We felt the Persistent AP system was the best one for the initial release, but we agree that both systems should be in the game and we've committed to make that happen.

The Persistent AP system makes for a very good game and while I agree that the non-persistent AP system, once fully implemented, does add some new strategies to the game, there is still plenty of strategy and challenge with Persistent APs as well. We'll be supporting both playstyles going forward and making sure that players who are COH veterans can play the game exactly the way they want as well.

Regards,

- Erik