Matrix Games Forums

On boardgame geek there is talk that the AP's are now "persistent"; meaning if you have an active unit "A" and it is more advantageous for you to activate another unit "B", you can activate "B" perform actions with it and then go back to unit "A" and use it's remaing AP's.

I would hope that we can have the option to use AP's as in the boardgame or use "persistent" AP's.

Any comments?

delete double post.

If you're referring to Shared Activations (ie multiple current active units but all sharing the same AP pool) then they should be part of the PC game as they are in the latest version of the boardgame rules and are non-optional.

edit ah you're referring to this thread:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/8574358#8574358

Hmm what other deviations from the board game are we going to discover.

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

Hmm what other deviations from the board game are we going to discover.

I am also wondering what other changes were made. This is not a minor change. It changes the complexion of the game.

Hi Keystone,

We actually made this change originally at the suggestion of the original designer. We've found that it works quite well and does not detract from the design, which making it a lot friendlier to new players. With that said, adding an option to have APs be non-persistent is something we'd like to support as well, but it would be an option to add post-release.

I have to say that personally I prefer this variant.

Regards,

- Erik

Just to add, this is Conflict of Heroes - it is not a new or different game. As Uwe was part of the original design process, he did work along with us to implement a few changes or improvements, but I don't think there's anything else in the same ballpark as the persistent APs when it comes to rules variants.

Regards,

- Erik

Very disappointed to hear about the change. I have a feeling they did it because the AI couldn't play well otherwise.

Hi Ioticus,

Have you tried playing with this option? This change was not driven by the AI.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi Ioticus,

Have you tried playing with this option? This change was not driven by the AI.

Regards,

- Erik

Sorry, I posted before reading your above comments, which sound good. I have not tried the persistent variant, but if it has the blessing of the designer then I feel more optimistic about the change.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi Keystone,

We actually made this change originally at the suggestion of the original designer. We've found that it works quite well and does not detract from the design, which making it a lot friendlier to new players. With that said, adding an option to have APs be non-persistent is something we'd like to support as well, but it would be an option to add post-release.

I have to say that personally I prefer this variant.

Regards,

- Erik

If this design change has Uwe's blessings I am more inclined to try the PC game. I will play several AtB & SoS scenarios with this change and see how it plays.

At this point, I'll just echo what Erik wrote.

This was not the case of someone (i.e., Uwe) just selling a license and wiping his hands of the matter: Uwe has been in regular contact with WCS and Matrix, and has most certainly had a say in the computer version's development.

Gil R..I bet your proud of this baby!

The game's designer, (Uwe) developed AP usage for a particular design reason. Why is that reason no longer valid for the PC game? The boardgame rulebook contains copious design notes. I would like to see the design notes which rationalize the change in AP handling.

I tested several scenarios from AtB, SoS, and PoH with my understanding of the Persistent AP usage, and decisions as to which units to activate in which order is no longer present (as you can go from activated unit to activated unit as long as the 7 AP's have not been consumed) - a step backwards in design to my mind.

Please convince me I am wrong.

I'm worried about the same lack of decision making, Keystone. I hope they at least include an option to play without persistent APs in a patch.

the more I read the new posts in the BGG thread, the more I worry about this board game port.

The AP system is the essence of the game - I am really hoping that Matrix and WCS consider adding in the option to play by the original activation rules as soon as practicable, even if it means that it is only available as a multi-player option, thus avoiding AI complications.

I will give the PC game a go nevertheless, as I am very happy to support companies that put time and effort into producing quality strategy games.

Listen, if there is a slightest change in the design from the boardgames then you can bet your life the boardgames will be up in arms bemoaning the whole game and saying it's a failure.

I'd take it with a pinch of salt. I have no worries at all. It will either be great or it wont. I really couldn't care less if it has some changes that are different to the boardgame. I mean there is Vassal out there. Seriously no fan of the boardgames is going to put me off.

If the AI is good and i has a historical feel then I'm happy.

sure Wodin, I understand how to filter out noise from useful comments.

However when comments come from core developers of this boardgame system I take notice.

James Palmer is credited with rules development for the series, and expresses concern.

Jesse leBreton is credited with help in development for the series and expresses balanced concern.

cheers

Wodin does have a point. It is true that sometimes when people love something the slightest change causes them to scream sacrilege. Let me point out that what I dubbed the persistent AP system is a perfectly fine way to play the game. Most will like it just fine. It does change the gameplay from the boardgame, but for the most part it still is CoH at it's core. The costs to fire and move etc are all still the same.

But my opinion is that the original activation system had a charm to it that I miss in the PC version. Also it created very interesting tactics. So yes, everyone knows where I stand. But this is just one man's opinion, so leave it at that. Most will be happy with persistent AP I think. If the original activation ever gets patched in, then that would be a nice bonus. Then everyone will be pleased. Both crowds could play the game under whichever system they like best.

James and Jesse may also not like their baby being altered. I'm sure the beta testers have balanced the scenarios. Thankfully I haven't played the board version so I'm non the wiser. For me it will all be down to the AI. No point having a certain way of playing and the AI stinks. Then it would only be fit for multiplayer, and there is VASSAL for that so it would make the game pretty pointless.

For me it will all be down to the AI.

+1

There may be changes in the game mechanics but as long as the game is enjoyable I'm OK with that. I need to play it to decide. And if I crave non-persistent APs, break out the boardgame or fire up Vassal.

Cheers