Is this game better than CC:E ? what u guys think?

Personally, I find Combat Commander:Europe more fun.

Certainly, CoH is so much different than CC

Personnaly, I'd recommend buying both, for example CC:Pacific and CoH:AtB

There's a review and discussion specifically on this issue here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/337611

There are of course widely varying opinions, but most seem to agree the feel of each game is quite different and both are great in their own ways.

No.

No.

Both games are fun to play.
CC:E is in fact of 5 games (CC:E + CC:M + BP#1 +BP#2 & CC:P). Have more scenarios to play.

CoH has top quality in component, and unique system with Action points and Command points.

You should try both of them and decide which one you prefer.

At the moment the consensus on BGG is that Conflict of Heroes is better than Combat Commander. CoH has 436 ratings averaging 8.51: CC:E 1210 ratings averaging 8.07. I happen to disagree ... but so what. I own and love both games. My advice to those who can afford it, is to buy both games!!

While I like commbat commander more. I think the casual gammer can get into conflict faster.

In my subjective opinion: Yes.

I think Combat Commander has more intense decision making, but CoH is easier to learn. Personally I much prefer CCE.

I don't think that's a consensus. I think it's actually harder to get 1210 ratings averaging 8.07 than 436 ratings averaging 8.51, just because the early adopters of a game tend to be the most enthusiastic. (This is, more or less, the phenomenon that the BGG "Bayesian average" attempts to address and it's why CC:E ends up higher in the BGG rankings than COH.)

I completely agree David.

Here is a better comparison. Those who have rated both Combat commander and Conflict of heroes

Combat Commander: Europe - 8.02
Conflict of Heroes: 8.20

This still isn't definitive, but at least it is a slightly fairer comparison. Personally I'd rather play CCE any day of the week.

They're both great games worthy of purchase. I bought and have played them both, and they give you each a different perspective of tactical combat, but both are addictive and fun. As a side note both designers are effusive with praise for the others products, which I think speaks well of their character.

I agree. I have both games and love both. A lot of the answer depends on your background. If you are a Euro gamer without experience in wargames, I think you will find CoH easier to learn and more fun to play. But if you have experience playing wargames, I think you will tend to enjoy CC more.

Here you have another thread on the same subject: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/353019

I'm not sure this is universally true. I've been playing wargames for close to 40 years and I prefer COH. I think the key is how much chaos and loss of control you can stand. If you don't mind it, and find it a cards-and-cardboard analogy of the chaos of combat, you'll like CC:E. If you want to feel a bit more in control, I'd advise going for COH.

I disagree. I've been playing wargames since (well, too long ago to admit) and much prefer CoH. CC is neither fish nor fowl: it's basically a chaotic card game with lots of chrome slapped on; CoH is feels more like a carefully crafted euro-wargame. I'd take CC over Panzer Grenadier (or Memoir '44 for sure); but I like CoH much better than CC.

Combat Commander is better. However, personal opinions may vary - for example, someone with Euro preferences will generally prefer Conflict of Heroes to CC.

CoH is more accessible than CC, and has some nice components (though the counter artwork? blech! CC does much better on counter art, CoH on the maps).

CC is not just a wargame, it's a beautifully crafted piece of art. One of the best designed systems simply for its cleverness. It is also much more difficult to learn and master. Scenarios are also much more flexible and better designed, allowing for a huge variety of planning.

CoH is much more abstract - for example, the CAP system completely abstracts the roles of leaders. It also has some clever mechanics - the blue vs. red firepower is quite streamlined, and I happen to like the huge variety of results from the chit-pull system. (Though it's big advertising point - the "trading actions" - really isn't that different from any other I-GO U-GO wargame system. Players can move, the other player can react - every tactical wargame does that.) I think it's much harder, however, to really execute a WWII tactical plan than most other tactical games, including CC.

From a wargamer's point of view, CC is by far the superior game. However, I would note that many wargamer purists dislike the command and control difficulties inherent in the CC card-driven system, so you'll see some diehards (particularly all you dedicated ASLers! You know who you are! ) really react negatively to the CC game. (I think this is why the stats differ - dedicated hardcore wargamers are generally going to stay away from a lighter game system like CoH, but are likely to have been exposed to and played CC.)

But that's just my opinion.

As we have already discussed in another thread, I strongly disagree with this kind of statement.

Neither is CC "basically a chaotic card game" nor is CoH a game exempt of a pretty high degree of randomness (event cards, KIA chits, way too lethal dice, etc.) and lack of control.

As it has been already said here, both games are soooo different that I would advice anyone to try both and make a decision by himself.

IMHO, CC is a much better game and a much better simulation of WWII tactical combat. But that's just my opinion.

Do you think? It may be more streamlined than most tactical WWII games, with some minor Euro influences, but to blight it with the Euro tag is disingenuous. It is far more a wargame than it is a Euro. Grumpy old bastard wargamers might hrumph a bit about it "WHAT? WHY ARE THE COUNTERS SO HUGE! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO CLUMISILY KNOCK OVER GIANT STACKS WITH MY OAFISH FAT FINGERS? WHERE IS MY COMFORT BLANKET, THE CRT? AND WHY DOES IT LOOK NICE!??! DOES NOT COMPUTE!!!" but that is because they rolled a "Fun: eliminated" result on the CRT of life, and it certainly doesn't make it a Euro.

Just because something is well done doesn't mean it's a eurogame.

I'd say what gives Conflict of Heroes a "euro" feel is the components, which are reminiscent of eurogames, the resource management that the game has (There are several "resources" to spend for any action - cards, CAPs, APs, opportunity actions), and also the feeling that you have some ability to carefully plan ahead a few moves, which many wargames have too much chaos and randomness in them to be able to plan far ahead.

For someone like me who likes resource management and puzze-like strategy, CoH really fits the bill. I -like- eurogames, and certainly don't see it as a derogatory description.

Now whether these things add up to a more realistic wargame can be up for debate, and whether they add up to a -better- wargame completely depends on what you're looking for in the game.

It's more than that. CoH focuses on a thoughtful abstraction of theme, which is a key feature of a good euro game. And since the theme here is conflict in time and space among units with differing capabilities, which is also the heart of a true wargame, CoH is also a great wargame.

Much of this boils down to your definition of "wargame" and "eurogame" of course.

The theme in most euro games is completely superficial. Theme is not thoughtfully abstracted throughout eurogame design, it's patched on later when the game system is already developed. I think Mr Eikert planned well ahead of time that this game would be about the Second World War.

I completely agree, in CoH the masses of rules and rigid game play of older tactical systems is very thoughtfully processed into a very playable game. However, this innovative process happened in game design a long time before the term "eurogame" was broadly known. Using this comparison to eurogames for advertisement is misleading (but that's probably the goal of advertisement).

What I really think is that I pretty much despise the whole genre of eurogames, because I find most of them to be of repeating, shallow and boring game play, and therefore a comparing a (war) game to a eurogame gives me a completely negative impression of a game.


In almost any war game you're sort of managing resources, simply because you try to command units to their best effect while also trying not to lose them. Action points, command points, etc. were used in many war games before CoH. I agree though that the components are really something unique in the war gaming market which is dominated by the bland artwork GMT published for years. However, some (even) smaller publishers focused on artwork very much, e.g. Clash of Arms.


If you're for example playing a game about linear warfare, or any war game which has Zones of Control or a focus of maneuvering feel very "puzzle-like".


As I write in my comment on the game, CoH manages to capture an overwhelming part of WWII theme in much simpler rules than those which were required in games before it.