Comparing the Incomparable:
Tide of Iron and Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!

After reading a review by a Mr. Cheng at this address: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/351971, I thought I'd write my own review on how these games compare from the perspective of a moderately experienced wargamer.

My Qualifications (or Creditability)



My name's Chris, and I'm 32 years old. I've been wargaming since my junior high school days playing Onslaught! D-Day to the Rhine with my Uncle John, and fanning out into MechWarrior and other miniatures gaming in high school. Yes, I cut my teeth on Axis and Allies, and I loved the game until I realized it just didn't hit the sweet spot. My friend, who's also a BGGer and more of boardgamer (as opposed to a wargamer) also played throughout our high school and college years, including Hannibal: Rome v. Carthage. I have attended several different conventions in my eighteen years of gaming, including GenCon a couple times, Origins in 2007, and this year I will be attending my first BGG Con. I don't have the stomach for ASL, but have delved pretty seriously recently into Age of Sail miniatures and boardgaming.

As for the two particular games at issue, it should be said that I love them both, but for different reasons, and there are aspects that I don't like about either game, but for different reasons. I will discuss these shortly.

Tide of Iron. When it comes to Tide of Iron, I've played about five times solo and five times face-to-face. I've taught Tide of Iron to five other people, and two of my plays included some of the larger scenarios offered. I don't know the rules completely (they are rather finicky in some areas, and I would argue arbitrarily so), but I know them well. Well enough, at least, to know that I need to go to the rules booklet for certain things. One of our games was a marathon 10-hour session that was fun, rewarding, but also tedious toward the end. I feel completely comfortable discussing my likes and dislikes of this game.

Conflict of Heroes. I want to state once, and only once, that the full title of this game is: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Russia (1941-1942). Whew. It will now be referred to as Conflict of Heroes throughout. The reason for the long title is that this game is expected to expand into a series that explores the evolution of combat from World War II through (probably) the modern day. Conflict of Heroes is a more recent acquisition for me, and I have played it four times solo and three times face-to-face. I have taught the game to three people, and yes, there were plenty of bumps and roadblocks along the way, but it was all worth it. I feel completely comfortable comparing this game to ToI.

Those are my qualifications. I would ask the reader to be patient and forgiving if I erroneously state rules, or leave some exceptions to those rules out. The goal of this review is not to delve into the super-fine workings of each game, but to give a detailed explanation of what is truly different about these games to allow the reader to make a decision about which one to purchase.

Overview of the Games

I'm not trying to re-hash all the reviews that's been through the various threads, but I want to briefly discuss each game so that you, as a prospective buyer/player/wargamer of these games are aware of what each game entails before we explore the inner workings of the games how they are different. Describing wargames succinctly, though, is like trying to tell someone what chicken parmesan tastes like, so I try to draw as many comparisons as I can: "It's sort of like what you'd get if Lasagna and a Chicken Breast had a baby." It's not perfect, but it gives the person an idea. So let's make sure we're all on the same page.

Mr. Cheng, of course, listed all the components, and there are a number of reviews on each game if you are wondering what they are like as games. This section is just a summary to give you a Chicken Parm example.

First, what do the games have in common? Well, if you don't know already, both games are simulations of World War II tactical combat. In general, each player (in either game) acts as a platoon leader commanding a platoon of infantry plus any company attachments (like tanks, artillery, trucks, etc.). Company-level actions are available in either game, but doing so would probably be a very time-consuming affair. One "base" (ToI) or "counter" (CoH) of infantry represents 1 squad. One vehicle miniature (ToI) or vehicle counter (CoH), in either game, represents one vehicle. Both games have rules governing advanced wargaming concepts such as cover, suppressive fire, and many others.

Now, let's discuss each game in turn.

First, Tide of Iron.



I summarize this game when explaining it to people by saying "Memoir '44 on steroids." That is an oversimplification, but it serves the purpose.

Infantry squads are represented by small plastic bases on which are mounted a myriad number of tiny figures--officers, regular infantry, elites, machine guns, mortars, etc. Like so:



The players set these up how they like, with some restrictions. Squads may have specializations which confer additional abilities, and the squads with these specializations (such as engineers or anti-tank) are designated as such by mounting a counter onto the base (such as the ones in the picture above). Vehicles in ToI are represented by tiny plastic miniatures of tanks, trucks, and (in the single expansion so far) artillery. The vehicles and infantry make the game look really cool and you will get a flip in your stomach when a tank rolls the corner in front of any exposed infantry squad. Here's an example of unpainted and painted vehicles:



The miniatures come with the game unpainted and are serviceable as delivered. The plastic has been dyed the color of each side. The game also comes with 12 geomorphic mapboards, each of which has two sides and can be placed in (almost) any combination. The maps are overlaid with huge printed hexes allowing several vehicles or squads to occupy the same hex (probably 2-3 inches wide each). All the components are Fantasy Flight Games quality (the game's publisher), and while there was some grumbling about the compatibility of the figures and bases and some issues with the boards warping, the overall production is simply awesome. The rules are 42 pages long, but most of them are intuitive and easy to grasp. The game takes a while to set up, but it looks gorgeous when it's done:



The game plays in as little as an hour for very small scenarios to marathon games of 12+ hours if you have the stomach for it. I played a team game with my friend and his sons that lasted more than 10 hours, and it was fun, but tedious by the end. Tide of Iron has an Ameritrash feel, with gobs of six-sided dice being tossed and Axis and Allies-looking figures. But to that feel is added a layer of elevated concepts of modern combat, such as Opportunity Fire, indirect fire, and terrain cover, among others--essentially, all the WWII tactical concepts are included in the game in one form or another, including off-board artillery.

Gameplay involves a series of "rounds." Each round is divided into player "turns." This has confused many (if not most) first-time players of the game. A typical round consists of many "turns" where each player alternates moving a portion of his units on the map. A typical round would be as follows:

Player 1 has 10 units. On his turn he takes three actions by activating and then moving/firing three units. Player 2 has 8 units. On his turn he takes three actions by activating and then moving/firing three units. Player 1 then moves/fires three different units. And so on, until all units on the mapboard are fatigued or in opportunity fire mode. Then back to Player 2, etc. Once all units have been activated or are in opportunity fire mode, the game round is over, and you move on to the next round. Units, in general, may be activated and use one of several orders, including Move, Fire, Move AND Fire (with penalties to both), or Assault. There are more orders than this, including special actions with specialized units (like digging trenches or removing barbed wire), but most units will use one of the orders I listed.

Again, concepts such as cover, combined fire, opportunity fire, indirect fire, off-board artillery, and many other "advanced" wargaming concepts are used in the game.

The combat system is very Ameritrash. Units have no facing. There are no flanking maneuvers. Add up how many dice are attacking, and roll that against how many defense dice there are (generally awarded for cover, armor, and a bunch of other sources). The attacker chooses to either lay down suppressive fire or normal fire. The attacker rolls a number of six-sided attack dice and based on range to the target, hits are scored on either 6s (long range), 5s and 6s (normal range), or 4s, 5s, and 6s (close range). This is very similar to Warhammer.

Under normal fire, a figure is removed for each hit (if infantry), or a damage token is placed (for vehicles). Under suppressive fire, infantry squads may be pinned, disrupted, or disbanded, but no casualties are created, and vehicles may not be suppressed. Generally, suppressive fire is used in the game to end an attacking unit's turn and fatigue that unit, while normal fire is used to kill figures.

That's the basics.

Next, Conflict of Heroes . . .



Just as with Tide of Iron being "Memoir '44 on steriods," Conflict of Heroes is a stream-lined, lighter, and much more evolved Advanced Squad Leader. The mapboards have awesome artwork, and are mounted. They look like what I would want ASL mapboards to look like if they updated the game. The maps actually look like a top-down view of a battlefieldf with an overlaid hex-grid:



As you can see, these maps look very similar to ASL maps, or what I would call "modern ASL maps," if ASL had been updated.

The rules for this game are succinct. They are not complex on paper and the rules use programmed learning, so that you play with simpler concepts then advance to more complex concepts, play another scenario, then advance again, etc. The rules are 12 pages long. Once you are done learning the rules, you can start over with Scenario 1 that you played with only part of the rules, and use the full rule set for a whole new experience of the same Scenario. While simple to learn, the rules are complex in application--that is to say, game-play is deep, though the rules are simple.



The scenario cards are also similar to ASL, for those who have seen them. It lists the units to be used, reinforcements, special rules, and the game-turn track on the scenario card.

Conflict of Heroes uses counters with micro perforations. My counters were cut so well, they practically fell out of the sprues on their own. The corners of the counters (just as with ToI's markers, mind you) are pre-rounded, and they measure a full inch in size! Here's a picture comparing Carcassone tiles, a Conflict of Heroes counter, and an ASL counter:



Similar to ToI, the production quality for this game is extremely high. Though I hate to keep drawing comparisons between ASL and CoH, I think the comparison is fair as far as the look and feel of the game is concerned. It feels like ASL with a huge, awesome facelift. The counters have great artwork, the maps, like I said, also have great artwork.

The gameplay, however, is entirely different. And since I'm not an ASLer, let's talk a little about how CoH is played.

The typical game turn in Conflict of Heroes is interlaced. While not necessarily new (some other games have used a similar format, such as Crossfire), I call it "Non-Active Player Interrupt" because the non-active player can interrupt the active player's turn at literally almost any point.

In Conflict of Heroes, the active player may either pass, or activate a unit. If the player activates a unit, that unit is then assigned a specific number of action points (APs) with which it may do any number of actions, including Move, Fire, Move and Fire, build Hasty Defenses, set landmines (with appropriate cards), and a whole slew of other possible actions. The game includes the same advanced concepts as ASL and ToI: cover, indirect fire, opportunity fire, assaults, combined fire, etc. After a player does anything (and I mean ANYTHING) the non-active player may react to that action by spending a special type of action points called Command Activation Points, or CAPs.

So, when Player 1 moves an infantry squad 1 hex, Player 2 can say, "I want to react to that. My machine gun is firing on your squad, here." Now, the kicker is that Player 2's machine gun squad could fire on a different squad on a completely different part of the map. He could also choose to simply move a unit, or other types of actions. While I don't want to get bogged down in too much detail, the bottom line is that the Active Player is always subject to having his enemy react to his movement or firing.

To a large extent, Conflict of Heroes is a resource management game within a wargame, because it offers difficult decisions with regard to CAPs. If a player uses them all, his opponent (assuming he has units left or CAPs of his own) can simply overrun his enemy. If you're out of CAPs (for the most part), then you can't react. (There are some exceptions to this rule, including Action Cards.)

Because of this interlaced style of play, both players remain heavily involved in the game.

The combat system in CoH is very straight-forward. Each unit as an attack rating and each unit also has a defense rating. While it is more complicated for armored vehicles and the like, you essentially roll 2d6, add the attacking unit's Attack Rating, and if that number is higher than the defending unit's Defense Rating, a hit is scored. Thus, if you roll high enough, you hit. When you hit, a chit is randomly pulled from a pile and that chit modifies the attributes of the unit on the board. For instance, the damage chit Pinned prohibits the target unit from moving. The chit is placed under the affected unit. A unit hit twice is eliminated, and there is a separate pile of hit chits for infantry and vehicles. Units may be killed on one hit, either by drawing the Unit Killed chit or by rolling extremely well on the attack roll.

Again, the game during play looks simply awesome. Here's a game in play showing a wounded unit with a chit underneath it, and some units that are getting a little too close for comfort:



In a nutshell, that's Conflict of Heroes.

Obvious Dissimilarites

Big things between the two games that are very different, but not worth a whole section in this review are:

In Tide of Iron, there is no such thing as a truly hidden unit. All units on the map are known, their status is known, and the game is simply a matter of managing your units to attain victory with full knowledge of the composition of your enemy's forces, location, and condition. The same is even true of minefields--minefields are represented on the map with counters. Simply avoid those hexes, and you're good. There are no snipers (though there is a sniper card), and generally, the game is pretty straight-forward when it comes to strategy because you know where your enemy is.

Conflict of Heroes, on the other hand, has a vast fog of war system. Units may go to ground and hide, and they are removed from the map and their hex recorded. These hidden units may also move up to 1 hex a turn, and do not necessarily hide in the last hex your enemy saw them. Mines may be placed, and units may be ambushed. There is even optional rules allowing for hidden unit damage--so you don't even know how effective your own shooting was! The hidden unit factors can lead to units firing into a building that is "empty" simply because it is a good position for an enemy to be in. This can lead to bluffing and counter-bluffing as your opponent checks his sheet to "see" if his unit is in there, when no unit really exists.

Another difference are the turn/round ending events. In ToI, a round is not complete until all units on the board have been fatigued or placed in opportunity fire mode. Only then do you move to the next game round. In Conflict of Heroes, a game turn ends when both players pass one after the other. This can lead to interesting tactics in CoH. Your enemy, who simply needs to hold "X" objective for "X" number of turns, may keep passing and passing, forcing you, as the opposing player to activate units in order to keep the round moving. This, of course, leaves your opponent with the opportunity to attack with all his fresh units after you, as the attacker have moved. If you, as the attacker pass, your opponent can also pass, ending the turn. It creates an interesting interrelationship between tactical choices--it forces the player with a time constraint to keep up an attack; if he doesn't, he loses.

Summary and Conclusions

I find that these two games are entities unto themselves. Both games require radically different styles of play, look completely different, and play completely different. IMHO, at the end of the day, the only thing similar between these two games is the theme: World War II tactical combat. Aside from that, they are games unto themselves.

Tide of Iron is good for wargamers looking for a game that appeals to new wargamers because it looks awesome once it is set up, and you get to roll gobs of dice and play with plastic miniatures. The game is relatively light when it comes to simulating WWII combat in any realistic way, but that is more than made up for in the game play experience. ToI is bloody, and that is the point of the game. ToI probably has Conflict of Heroes beat when it comes to new wargamer appeal, but not when it comes to the game's usefulness as a simulation. Tide of Iron is also more limited in its selection of units, with only a few types of tanks and generic infantry types. I see Tide of Iron as "the next step up" from Axis and Allies and/or Memoir '44. In other words, don't expect historical accuracy in the finer details of this game. At its heart, it's Ameritrash, but oh so fun.

Conflict of Heroes also looks absolutely awesome, but appeals to the more traditional gamer with the counters. The design for this game is unique, sleek, and sure to be mimicked in the future. Conflict of Heroes has a wide variety of tank types and the squads in the game are meant to really reflect the strengths and weaknesses of the squads that they represent. You will not win CoH scenarios unless you use the tactics that your side used in the war. Conflict of Heroes is a much better simulation of World War II, but loses from the perspective of getting new players into the hobby. Additionally, unlike ToI, Conflict of Heroes isn't the game that Axis and Allies players are going to pick up. I would recommend Conflict of Heroes for the gamer who wants a quick, fast-playing game that is realistic as a simulation.

As for playability, CoH will be learned faster and will (in my opinion) yield more "historically accurate" results. But CoH does not compare to rolling 14 dice for your Tiger Tank against a base of infantry out in the open with no cover dice. It's just awesome. In that respect, both games are extremely playable. This is a tie.

As for RE-playability, both games also tie. Each game has various maps with different scenarios to play on each map. If you want a clear winner, here, then it's Tide of Iron by a smidgen: it has many different map configurations with the mapboards, plus tile overlays that let you modify those maps, plus on-line scenarios (both "official" and "user created"). The plethora of scenarios would give the lead to ToI, but as I said, both games are awesomely replayable.

As for rules, both games are moderately hard to learn, but CoH has simpler (and IMHO more realistic) rules. The rules systems will be a problem for the first couple games, but once you have a group of players who all know the rules, games will progress very briskly in either game. I have found that almost uniformly, new wargamers and new players like ToI more than CoH because of the look, feel, and play of the game. Using counters, even if they are completely beautiful, requires more imagination than seeing your miniature army and tanks roll across the huge-hex battlefields of ToI.

I lean more toward Conflict of Heroes because I see myself as a more mature wargamer, but I get both of these games to table as much as I can these days. Once you have a group of guys that knows the rules, ToI is a beer and pretzels game while CoH is fast, fun, but more serious.

Cheers. And happy gaming.

For more information:

Tide of Iron: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/tideofiron.html

Conflict of Heroes: http://www.conflictofheroes.com/

Edit: Corrected an inconsistency.
Edit: Corrected typos and added pic of Conflict of Heroes during play.