Could this be a bug....I don't understand.

[GBS]

Trying to play "Endless Step" scenario as Germany. I have about 15 or so tanks that I place on the southern end of the map. On the first turn I activate a tank and move it forward several hexes and it shows it has 5 APs left. ( I just noticed that the APs are not showing above the units) I now want to move two or three more tanks forward and I cant deactivate the original tank I moved. NONE of the other tanks on the game board will activate and I can only take (move or fire)action with the original tank. Before I began I did change the rule to "classic" APs rather than normal because I wanted to see what effect this had since there was no explanation in the manual(DUHH). Could that be causing this.

[Joram]

Not a bug. It's as you surmised due to you using Classic rules. In Classic, you would normally completely finish moving a unit before moving to the next unit. This is how the board game works. You can choose not to completely use the unit but then you sacrifice all remaining APs.

The interface action you are missing is that you have to hit the 'escape' key to deselect the unit before selecting a new one. This is so you don't accidentally move on to the next unit before you are sure you are done with the previous unit because as I mentioned, you lose all remaining APs when you move on to the next unit.

[GBS]

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

[Lebatron]

Only the board gamers of this game will understand right off the bat how to play with classic AP. For the most part I would steer away from using it at this time because classic AP is not fully working yet. I personally think the game is a much deeper experience under classic, but even I am still using persistent at this time until classic is fully ready.

[ericbabe]

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

I believe the Classic AP rule is described in the ReadMe file. I recommend reading the ReadMe file that accompanies our games, as it often contains small changes to the manual, game interface, or similar.

We added the Classic AP rule in response to gamer requests after the manual had been finalized. I had some reservations about adding a fundamental feature like this that would not be mentioned in the manual. Also it was late in development to be adding such a large feature (and many of the UI bugs being reported now are related to other parts of the game that were affected by this change). However, despite these reservations, it seemed that enough people wanted this feature to warrant the aforementioned risks.

[JR5555]

Eric,

What are the reasons you would give for making this game for the pc?

Is the awards that it won one of the reasons?

What set of rules won those awards?

I bought this game on account of the reputation of the board game, I have to say I'm disappointed to see that the game was released without the original rules that won the awards not fully implemented yet.

In my opinion the original rules are much more than just a feature..

[IronFist00]

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.

[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

[ioticus]

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.

That's not true in the board game because you have command actions which can activate a spent unit. The PC version does not have that feature.

[Lebatron]

Well true and not true. It's not as bad as JFalk makes it sound, but yes you can use a CAP points or a command action card to fire with a spent unit. That has not changed between Persistent and Classic.

[Lebatron]

I like Persistent for when it's late and I'm tired. To be able to play without thinking to much about the order of execution can be nice at times. It makes for a more relaxed game. However, when I really want to see some advanced and clever usage of units and cards I turn to classic. Nothing can replace it for tournament level play. Classic can separate the really good players from the pack. Persistent not so much.

[JR5555]

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.

VR_IRon_Fist-

Where do you see that I have any problems with the changes they made to the game?

Did I comment at all regarding persistent AP's?

Like I said previously, I bought the game based on the reputation of the board game. The board game won a number of awards, this is how I heard of it. I will say that after reading Eric's comments above, I was a bit dismayed to find out they didnt plan on including the ORIGINAL RULES upon release of the game. I have heard that the developers wanted to create the game exactly like the board game. Now me reading what was said from Eric had me confused. Why leave out the original game rules if your intent was to get it as close as possible to the original board game?

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...

[JR5555]

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

JFalk68, you said "people can enjoy the game however they like!"

Do you really really mean that? Whats the point of the comments then?

It seems to me that you might be criticizing the way I might want to play the game..

Just my opinion..

[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!

[JR5555]

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!

Hi JFalk68,

No need to apologize.

I wouldnt say I was exactly offended, but I did defend my position. Its a war gamer habit I think..

[Lebatron]

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...

The game won those awards because it was recognized to have some very interesting play mechanics that obviously only come into play when units are actually activated. It did not receive such recognition IMO because it has action points you use to 'buy' actions with. That idea is not new. If it somehow did come to market with only that idea alone, ie. Persistent AP, using little dice or a larger track sheet to keep tract of all units AP it would not have been recognized as great. Fortunately for Uwe he did not go down that route and created the activation system and probably latter tacked on group actions as well to offer greater choice and flexibility. It was this decision, I believe, that saved this game from mediocrity. This great depth was probably an accidental invention! For it is a fact that he did not set out to go down that route at first. He even said so. It was a compromise for him. Fortunately for him, and the game system, something great emerged from this compromise. I'm sure he did not really realize at first the depth of play that activation provided players seeking to pull off some clever orders of executions. For that is what classic AP provides. Persistent AP does not require much thought on the order of execution since you can switch units on the fly without penalties. In classic AP it is this second layer of depth where one has to decide his best order of execution and when to do it that made the system shine and won it it's awards. Only classic has this second layer of decision making. Persistent only has one layer. In other words, it's much more shallow if you will. A shallow system where all you do is spend action points to take actions would not have made it stand out. That's to simple for any game judges to award game of the year to. Granted the board game had stand out artwork. Way better than the rest of the field. But without activation limits on units I don't see how this game could have won that award. It couldn't have won on artwork alone. There must have been something else. And that something else is what I have been trying so hard to get newbies to the system to see. And also to get WCS to put back into the game.

[Joram]

The differences in play remind me of the differences between chess and checkers - but with firepower!

[ericbabe]

I'm not sure of the dates offhand, but I believe the original ATB release won awards with the original rules for the phase structure, which involve interrupts and players taking an entire turn with one unit at a time. My understanding is that Uwe changed this rule for SOS and retroactively changed the rules for ATB after SOS was released. So I think the rules for which most people are clamoring are not the actual original rules at all. Is anyone troubled that we don't have the actual original rules that were printed with the first release of the board game (involving interrupts and one unit activated at a time)?

[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/in ... demy-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

[IronFist00]

Erik, sounds very reasonable, logical, and fair to me. I look forward to being able to play both styles, depending on what I'm in the mood for. But most of all, I look forward to you guys/gals adapting all the expansions to the PC. Which brings me to one question: is there any plans to support up to 4 players like the board game? Specifically, the ability to play co-op with a friend against 2 AIs? I have a lot of friends that are PC leaning and would purchase the game with the ability to play with me against two AI opponents but wouldn't if they had to face me 1v1 (something about me being too into wargames).