Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Persistent AP's better than classic AP's?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Conflict of Heroes Series >> Persistent AP's better than classic AP's? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Persistent AP's better than classic AP's? - 10/30/2012 5:59:49 AM   
PenCapChew

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline
I realize this issue was brought up before but as a fairly new player to CoH i'd like to understand it better. It is my understanding that classic AP's will be implemented in its correct form (opportunity fire) in the next patch. I have a few questions regarding this matter:

1) What option do most players tend to choose (persistent or classic)? I'd hate to further fragment a small online community by a rule. With true FOW available on the pc version, I wonder if persistent AP's are just fine.

2) Is the classic ap's option "gamey"? A user on BGG said "leads to impossibly gamey situations, the most famous of being the "horse transport assault" - Take a defended MG on the high ground with clear lanes of fire on the direct approaches. A couple of weak infantry units should never be able to rush it. They should suppress or outflank. However activate a horse transport on the opposite side of the board after the MG's started firing and now you can "force your opponent's hand" in the most ridiculous way possible." I am not sure I follow on this explanation.

< Message edited by PenCapChew -- 10/30/2012 6:03:16 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Persistent AP's better than classic AP's? - 10/30/2012 12:05:05 PM   
Jamm


Posts: 375
Joined: 10/2/2009
Status: online
I prefer the persistent APs.
I've never played the board game version, so I don't believe it's a sin to play with a different ruleset.
A computerized version of a board wargame will always offer some clear advantages which should be acted upon.
An example is FOW. Gladly, we have true FOW and not a bunch of counters with question marks on them.
I'm sure if ASL is ever computerized, some designs will be changed to make a better game.
I just want to play a tactical game in a form which best suits me and in my opinion the game itself.

_____________________________

When the going gets weird,... the weird turn pro

Hunter S Thompson

(in reply to PenCapChew)
Post #: 2
RE: Persistent AP's better than classic AP's? - 10/30/2012 8:56:28 PM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 362
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline
I would imagine that there are some who would prefer to play with the classic APs, but I, like Jamm have never player the boardgame version and I do not see where this will be any improvement to the game. I guess that it is a good idea to keep the options open and include both styles of play.

(in reply to Jamm)
Post #: 3
RE: Persistent AP's better than classic AP's? - 10/30/2012 10:53:30 PM   
JMass


Posts: 2176
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Italy
Status: offline
I prefer to play with persistent APs, in my opinion they limit gamey situations.

_____________________________

"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!"Generaloberst Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 4
RE: Persistent AP's better than classic AP's? - 10/31/2012 7:21:00 PM   
oivind22

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline
I want to use this game as practice for the board game, so I'm waiting for the classic AP option to be implemented properly before I play it again. Fortunately, this should finally happen in the next patch. As for which option I prefer, I think you're onto something when you mention FOW. True FOW probably makes the game interesting, even with persistent AP, but without true FOW I can't see how you can surprise/outmaneuver your opponent with persistent AP. If you can both see everything your opponent does, and react immediately at no extra cost, I can't see how the game can be interresting as a game. That's why I would never try persistent AP in the board game, and as I said, I want to use this game as practice for the board game. I know some people play the board game with persistent AP, using small dice to keep track of how much AP each unit has left, but this is not for me.

Whether classic AP is gamey or not is not really an issue for me. It's a game, like every other game. Having an overview of the whole battlefield and at the same being able to give a precise order to any unit is gamey, any which way you look at it. I've never played a game that makes me feel like I'm a commander. As long as the game has interresting decisions to make, and the story that unfolds is reasonable, I'm happy. Some people feel it's gamey to be able to force the opponent's hand by doing something on the other side of the board, but it's just as gamey to be able to allocate CAPs. By allocating CAPs you decide which of your units gets a lucky break. This is extremely gamey, if you think about it. In the battle of Gettysburg, Meade wasn't able to decide that Joshua Chamberlain should suddenly do something extraordinary like making his famous bayonet charge, but this is excactly the kind of decisions you, as a player, are able to make. By forcing your hand your opponent forces you to do the opposite (waste APs), or pay the cost somewhere else. This is also gamey, of course, but I don't see how it's more gamey than being able to decide which of your units should suddenly do something extraordinary. However, forcing your opponent's hand and allocating CAPs both lead to interresting game decisions. When playing the board game I like to add a little to the story: If I were forced to waste APs on my MG because I had to react somewhere else, maybe it was because the MG jammed. I'm certainly not imagining two gods (players) forcing each others hands and allocating something as abstract as CAPs. Forcing hands and allocating APs/CAPs is what the game is about, but it's not what the story is about.

So, to summarize, classic AP all the way for me, but that's because I'm primarily interrested in the board game, and true FOW is not an option in the board game.

< Message edited by oivind22 -- 10/31/2012 7:41:00 PM >

(in reply to PenCapChew)
Post #: 5
RE: Persistent AP's better than classic AP's? - 11/1/2012 2:17:46 AM   
PenCapChew

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline
Thank you all for the interesting replies. I have never played the board game since I don't know anyone that would fancy a game. I might test out some games with both persistent and classic AP's to get a feel for both.

(in reply to oivind22)
Post #: 6
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Conflict of Heroes Series >> Persistent AP's better than classic AP's? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.066