Persistent AP's better than classic AP's?

[PenCapChew]

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.

[Jamm]

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.

[Ratzki]

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.

[JMass]

I prefer to play with persistent APs, in my opinion they limit gamey situations.

[tyrion22]

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.

[PenCapChew]

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.