Matrix Games Forums

Hello again!

I had posted yesterday on the absence of the KV1 tanks in the "Black Knights of the Steppe" firefight. Having played that scenario several times, there are a number of other issues with the firefight that have become apparent. Can anyone please address these? Thanks!

1) The KV1s: As I mentioned in a different post, the board game version gives the Soviets two hidden KV1 tanks. These two tanks were apparently NOT included in the PC version. Their omission, however, seems to make the scenario unbalanced in favor of the German player. Without the KV1s, the German can run to the back edge of the rear map almost without concern, as the two Churchill tanks are not a threat. This allows the German player to set up, in effect, an "ambush" at the Soviet T-34 tanks' entry hex. (More on that requirement in a moment.) It seems that the omission of the KV1s makes the scenario almost unplayable. Thoughts?

2) Soviet T-34 Entry Hex: As mentioned above, the three T-34 tanks that the Soviets receive on Turn 3 MUST enter on ONE hex. In other words, they are placed on the map, stacked in that one hex. This creates a major problem. Due to the just mentioned absence of the hidden KV1s, the German player is almost certain (barring the Soviets getting a lucky draw of a "Mark as Used" card) get their Tiger tank into position to "ambush" that entry hex. Since all three T-34s must enter at that hex, the German simply gets his Tiger into position, spends two CAPs on the Initiative roll for Turn 3, and most times will end up with the initiative -- and with it a free THREE shots at the T-34s before the Soviet player can do anything. Very unfair. In the board version, the Soviet player can stagger the entry of the T-34s over several activations, rather than them all having to be on the board at once. I understand that the PC version has a limitation in that units cannot "enter" the map like in the board game version, but surely there could be some adjustment here to prevent the "ambush" gamey tactic I have just described. Perhaps give the Soviet player a range of entry hexes (maybe add the ones adjacent to the current entry hex?) . . . this would prevent the German ambushing them all in the same hex when they enter.

3) CARDS: In almost every board game firefight, the instructions tell the players to remove certain cards from the deck. This is done to ensure that cards which have no applicable use in the firefight are not in play. For example, what is the point of having "defuse land mine" cards in a firefight where there are no land mines? The PC version, however, does not "filter" the non-applicable cards out of the deck. This can make for some player frustration as cards are dealt out which are totally useless. This issue applies not only to FF8, but to all FFs in the PC version. Should be corrected.

4) The Churchills: In the board game version, the Germans enter the map, but do not start ON the map. In the PC version, they start ON the map (due to the previously mentioned limits of the PC version in having units "move onto" the map). The implications of this change for the Churchills are HUGE. In the PC version, the Soviet player has NO chance to move at least one of his Churchills out of the line of fire from the Tiger (assuming the German has set up his Tiger in an intelligent manner). Basically, there is a very high probability that one of the two Churchills is basically useless. Given that the PC version requires units to be set up on map and not "enter" the map, the starting location of the Churchills should be modified from the board version in order to put them in cover and/or out of the line of fire of the Germans. This would allow them to be useful units that might slow the German race to the back edge of the map as they attempt to use the gamey tactic described in #1 in this list.

HOPEFULLY SOMEONE AT MATRIX CAN ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND CORRECT THEM. THE PC VERSION IS OVERALL A WONDERFUL ADAPTATION OF AN OUTSTANDING BOARD GAME. ERRORS LIKE THE ONES I HAVE LISTED HERE DIMINISH THE QUALITY OF THE PC VERSION. THAT IS NOT FAIR TO THOSE OF WHO US WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE GAME. IT IS ALSO UNFAIR TO MATRIX AND TO ACADEMY, AS IT GIVES WHAT IS GENERALLY A GREAT PC GAME A DISAPPOINTING TASTE.

THANKS TO ANYONE WHO CAN ADDRESS THESE ISSUES! [:)]

PS: I think the +4 Close Combat error has still not yet been fixed. I reported it almost six weeks ago . . .

I wish you well in getting any of these issues fixed. It took me a while to understand that the dev is not able (or more likely has little spare time) to make this a mirror of the board game, so those of us expecting it to be will always be frustrated. I think the PC game will appeal more to those who have never played the board game.

cheers

Hi Chris! Thanks for the reply!

Yeah, I am hoping someone at Matrix can address these issues. To be clear, I am not expecting the PC version to be an "exact" port of the board game. I fully understand that there are limitations which come with an adaptation. I can live with things like units having to stay on the exit hex to "exit" the map at the end of the turn.

I can also live with (if I have to) having the cards not be "filtered" so that useless cards are removed from a particular firefight.

What is not acceptable, however, is having fundamental errors such as removing the two KV1s and/or putting units in starting positions that virtually guarantee the loss of a key unit, simply because the PC version cannot accommodate units "moving onto" the map. As I said, I can accept that the PC version requires all units to start "on the map". But given that, then some adjustments to starting locations of other units should be made in order to keep the firefight balanced.

Also, I cannot accept an oversight like having the +4 Close Combat modifier not working correctly. That is just sloppy. This error (which should NEVER have been allowed to get past testing and make it into the published game) was reported six weeks ago and has apparently not yet been fixed?

These types of things are frustrating because, as I said in my original post, I think the PC version (based on AtB and Ghost Divisions) is a really excellent adaptation. I am very disappointed in these errors in SoS, especially since I bought a copy not only for myself, but as a gift for a family member, who having now experienced these errors, is pretty much down on the game. If he feels that way, I can only imagine what other customers new to the CoH series must think . . .

I'm new to the series. Not bothered by, indeed oblivious to the problems. In the larger scheme of things, these imperfections seem like nitpicks. I'm enjoying the game all the same.

Hi Berto! Thanks for your reply! [:)]

I would (respectfully!) take issue with your characterization of the issues I mention as "nitpicks".

To my thinking, "nitpicks" would be griping that the PC version allows movement in half-hexes while the board version does not. That kind of gripe would definitely be a nitpick, because the use of those half-hexes doesn't really impact the game.

The things that I pointed out, however, really DO impact the game play and game balance. Something as fundamental as not having the +4 Close Combat modifier functioning correctly (especially when it DOES function correctly in the AtB PC version) is not, to my thinking, a "nitpick", but rather a major programming error/oversight.

Similarly, failing to include essential units in a firefight or having units set up in positions that cause a firefight to be totally unbalanced are also not "nitpicks", but structural deficiencies in the program.

As I had mentioned in my original post, I really enjoy the PC version of AtB (along with Ghost Divisions). My disappointment in these basic errors in SoS is stronger because of the quality of the other CoH modules.

All the best,

Commish [:)]

It would be nice to see the developers on the forum again.
I mean, I actually want to send them money but have some concerns.

Thanks for your post. I should be able to fix these scenario errors in a patch.