Persistent AP's

[jamespcrowley]

Perhaps someone who has played both the boardgame and the PC version could explain the difference in 'activation' and 'persistant activation' and why, exactly, they feel that the former is better than the latter.

I have not played either version but, from my reading of the rules as published on the Academy Games site, it seems to me that 'avtivation' is more of a 'game' device (gamey, not interpreted as inappropriate but geared more towards gameplay than realism).

The 'persistant activation' version, if I understand it correctly, seems more realistic in reflecting the fact that most of what is happening in a turn is, in reality, occuring more or less simultaneously.

[KEYSTONE07950]

To support COH, I will purchase this version.  I would be much happier if the game was released with an option as to which AP variant to be used.

I'm wondering if Uwe's civil war series (not yet released but VERY COOL looking) was part of the PC licensing deal.  It appears to be a natural for a PC port.

[Lebatron]

Yes I to would love to see Academy Games Civil war games land on PC someday.

[Capitaine]

Just learned of this game through another site and after checking it out I can say it's the first PC wargame in quite awhile that I'm truly excited about. This is the kind of wargame I want to play and the production values appear excellent.

I did look up the boardgame version and managed to read the rules after finding out about this "persistent AP" issue. It does seem, as many have asserted, that the boardgame version of activation/AP is central to the gameplay. While I don't mind having an alternate method available, I too would really like the boardgame method to be incorporated as an option. Maybe an "advanced" option if simplicity was the concern.

Nevertheless, I'm ecstatic that a board wargame is being ported so faithfully and will be inclined to stay with this series through numerous iterations. Echoing others, I hope a good response will encourage Matrix and other PC wargame publishers to do more of these projects.

[Lebatron]

Here is a pic from Bloody Crossroads the first in the Civil War series. If it ever gets ported I sure hope the developer doesn't get it in his head that the maps need to be turned into 3D. IMO you can't beat a quality map like this, so why try and reinvent the wheel. Just use the maps as is because they are 5 star stuff.

[tide1530]

The Civil War map is a beauty for sure.  Like I said over at BGG people should advocate to have the developers make Persistant AP's an optional rule...an easy enough fix in a patch. It was done with extreme assault in the JTCS game.[;)] 

[ioticus]

Not sure how easy it would be to patch persistant APs out of the game, since I imagine the AI would have to be changed quite a bit.

[tide1530]

I didn't work on the code for the change in the JTCS game but the programer had it changed in a short period of time without any problems to the AI... Although that is a pretty archaic game. The developers will know what can be done of course and hopefully they share that with people.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: wodin
Gil R..I bet your proud of this baby!

Yes, putting aside any comparison with the original boardgame, this is a pretty impressive piece of work in a number of ways.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

You know, a resonable person who is unfamiliar with these games could read through this thread and reach the conclusion that this game system descended from on high, several years back, chiseled in stone, and hasn't since evolved. Am I wrong, or haven't the rules been revised with newer editions? If that's the case, then another resonable person who is familiar with the boardgame could view the changes that emerge with the computer version as a simple step in that same progression.

[Lebatron]

Well as analogies go that one is poor. Yes the rules did change when Storms of Steel came out. In SoS actions became more IGOYOUGO then it was in AtB to begin with. It was a very good change, and since SoS all new editions of CoH will use the new rule.

But to say persistent AP is the bees knees, like you are implying, and that it's a natural evolution we all should embrace shows you really don't understand the nuances of tactical depth that activation provided. Persistent AP is a beginners system. I have always said that, and always will. It's fine to play that way and fun too, but being an advanced player I want the extra depth that activation provides. I enjoyed having to mull over whether or not I should pass and take the AP loss if I had an activated unit. In persistent AP no unit losses any AP if you pass. I enjoyed forcing an opponent into switching units and thus forcing him to lose the AP on it because I presented a more important threat elsewhere. In persistent AP my opponent just reacts in the new location without losing the AP on the other unit. So if that's the case, then why would I bother jumping to a new location on the map to do what is basically a flanking move. I does not hinder my opponent in any way under persistent AP to try this flank. It hardly matters what order you execute attacks in, but under the activation system the order of execution is everything. That is why CoH won awards. My options for cleaver tactics are very much diminished under persistent AP. In my book, anybody who says they think persistent AP is superior just tells me one thing. That they are a CoH novice.

Not all game changes are wise you know. Does Chess need to evolve a simultaneous movement system just to claim it's not stagnant and that it does indeed evolve?

[vonRocko]

Sounds like a very important change to me. Why did they go fix something that wasn't broken. For once, couldn't a pc version match the boardgame? [:@]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

Sounds like a very important change to me. Why did they go fix something that wasn't broken. For once, couldn't a pc version match the boardgame? [:@]

Actually, I believe that there's more than one version, which is to say that it's a work in progress.

As new product has emerged, the rules have been modified and updated.

One can only assume that changes in content were incorporated based on customer input.

If you're interested in the boardgame, you can visit the company website here:

http://academy-games.com/games/conflict-of-heroes

Edit: I'd also note that Erik Rutins mentioned further up the thread that the changes that have been incorporated in to Eric Babe's computer version were made at the behest of the boardgame designer. If that's not the case, or if I'm misinterpreting Erik's comments, then I apologize.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Edit: I'd also note that Erik Rutins mentioned further up the thread that the changes that have been incorporated in to Eric Babe's computer version were made at the behest of the boardgame designer. If that's not the case, or if I'm misinterpreting Erik's comments, then I apologize.

No need for apologies: you are absolutely correct. Uwe Eickert, the designer of board-COH, is in favor of the way WCS has implemented AP's in computer-COH. And, to be honest, we wouldn't feel right releasing a computer version of COH that caused him to have reservations.

[KEYSTONE07950]

Gil R:
How does the implementation of Persistent AP's affect group activations?  Wouldn't the whole concept of Persistent AP's negate the use of group activations?

[Gil R.]

Groups share pools of AP's, as in the original. After an action the AP's of each group member are reduced to the AP level of the one with the fewest AP's. And, in keeping with the persistent AP mechanics one can create and disband groups each turn. Overall, group movements remain useful, and are not "negated."

[london23]

With persistent AP, is there any need to have the concept of opportunity action in the game? With persistent AP wouldn't you just activate a unit where under the old boardgame rules you might have had to take an oppotunity action and marked the unit as used?

[genehaynes]

I definitely am interested in purchasing this game. I don't own the boardgame, but I've downloaded the rules for AtB and SoS. Am I correct in assuming the PC version will more closely follow the SoS rules, which allow for multiple unit activations.

[Gil R.]

London23,
Yes, you are correct.

genehaynes,
Yes, closer to Sos in this respect.

[Erik Rutins]

Hi everyone,

We've heard the feedback on this and we're going to test a gameplay option that will allow non-persistent APs before release. With any luck, it will be in the release version. Persistent APs are still the main mode of intended play for the computer version of COH, and this decision was made together with Uwe during development, but based on community feedback I'd say the chance is close to 100% that we would look to implement the full original non-persistent AP system as a gameplay mode in the future as well.

We hope that the gameplay option we are looking at now will work out and allow those who want to try a more classic COH AP gameplay to do so at release, though more work would be needed in the future to fully implement the entire non-persistent AP system and all its options.

We also encourage you to give the persistent AP system a try - this has Uwe's full blessing and after playing with with it through months of beta versions, it makes for a great game of COH. In my opinion, especially given that we did this fully together with Uwe, this is a variant of the official COH rules that works well on the computer, where the type of AP tracking that would be more of a chore on the tabletop is not as much of a concern.

I think you'll find the implementation of Fog of War and Line of Sight to also add to the gameplay of COH when played on the computer, without making it something other than COH.

Regards,

- Erik