|
Seth Gunar
United States
New City
New York
|
I've played CC quite a few times, and I recently purchased Conflict of Heroes, a game that fits into the same WWII tactical genre. I gotta be honest. I find CoH to be more fun. While the presence of tanks is definitely a plus, it is not the main reason I think that CoH is more fun. It all comes back to that thing that many critics say about CC - its unpredictably surreal nature. When you play CC, the game is playing you at least as much as you are playing the game. If you've played CC enough, you know the wonderful experience of waiting to draw a fire or move card while your opponent walks up to your units and blows them away with nary a peep outta your boys. I've heard the typical response - "war is unpredictable... yada... yada... yada..." OK, as unpredictable as war may be, I think that the human desire to survive by shooting at an advancing enemy lugging satchel charges is very predictable . In fact, I think it is predictable enough to make sure a unilateral cease-fire never happens in a wargame. CoH, by comparison, does not leave you with that "What the f--k!" feeling. It is still unpredictable - within limits - with the use of dice and chit pulls to resolve combat. Alternating activations of unit(s) also adds to the unpredictability. However, you don't ever end a game feeling like you got gang raped by Fortuna. Not that CC is not fun. It is just less fun. I have to treat it almost as if it were a zen-like experience. "I am playing, but I am not playing." Games are also usually short enough to keep me from stroking out. Ultimately, I think that CC would greatly benefit from a "Wild Card" rule. For example, if a player could discard any 2 cards for either a "move" or "fire", this would prevent any uberstupidity. It would also restore enough power to the players to allow at least the illusion of control.
|
|
|
GameWhore wrote: Ultimately, I think that CC would greatly benefit from a "Wild Card" rule. For example, if a player could discard any 2 cards for either a "move" or "fire", this would prevent any uberstupidity. It would also restore enough power to the players to allow at least the illusion of control. I think that's a great idea - you should consider posting that in the variants area.
|
Colin Hunter
New Zealand
Auckland
|
Quote: Ultimately, I think that CC would greatly benefit from a "Wild Card" rule. For example, if a player could discard any 2 cards for either a "move" or "fire", this would prevent any uberstupidity. It would also restore enough power to the players to allow at least the illusion of control. Sure if you enjoy breaking the whole point of the game (hand and deck management), then it sounds like a great idea. To me it sounds like you want CC:E to be something it isn't. CC:E takes a lot of thinking, I think it is a lot less obvious the CoH (this isn't good or bad in my book), so working out how to manage your card in CCE provides tension and very interesting decision making, you may hate the feel of being restricted about the actions you take, that is fair enough, but I suggest this isn't a problem with the game, but simply a matter of CC:E not being what you want.
|
Gregory Smith
United States
Newark
California
|
It is true that CC (:E or :M) can be very random. When I want more control I play ASL. However, CC develops a great storyline, even in games that go poorly due to bad card draws. It plays very fast, and it is always EXCITING. It is a game where you are never out until the end. Games I have played frequently sway back and forth with each side alternately believing that they are winning. CoH is also a solid game which I have played a few times. However, I find it lacks the visceral excitement of both CC and ASL. I traded it away. I think the ASL starter kits are better games in the same category, and then you also have the advantage of being able to move from the starter kits to full ASL if you want to (This is of course just my humble opinion). Quote: Ultimately, I think that CC would greatly benefit from a "Wild Card" rule. For example, if a player could discard any 2 cards for either a "move" or "fire", this would prevent any uberstupidity. It would also restore enough power to the players to allow at least the illusion of control. Well, superficially this seems like a good idea, but it isn't. It will totally change the pace of game, and will also negatively affect play balance of scenarios, particularly in games where one side is a nationality with a low discard number. It will make the different nationalities play more similarly because the differences in their discard ability will be less important, as the wild card is essentially like a discard, but with the bonus that you know what card you get (fire or move). For example, currently I would play a hand with the French (1 discard) quite differently than I would play the same hand for the Germans (many discards). I like that difference and I would not like to see the nationalities all play more similarly than they already do.
|
Chick Lewis
United States
Claremont
California
|
What Jaggedtech said - - - in Spades.
Chick
|
Wes Nott
United States
Warrensburg
Missouri
|
I see no reason not to own both.
Both use different, highly interesting systems.
Both have things I like and don't like.
While I prefer more control of my units ala CoH there are other aspects in CC:E that I like that more than make up for this such as random objectives which adds a great level of replayability.
|
Mark Beyak
United States
Santa Rosa
California
|
GameWhore wrote: OK, as unpredictable as war may be, I think that the human desire to survive by shooting at an advancing enemy lugging satchel charges is very predictable . In fact, I think it is predictable enough to make sure a unilateral cease-fire never happens in a wargame. There must be two types of people in the world, those that "get" CC and those that don't. No offense intended, I think CoH is a good game too and I am glad you enjoy it. But from the above quote I would maintain that you simply don't get CC. You are assuming several things in the situation you are attempting to describe above:  The soldiers that are not running away or firing are being attentive to the squads moving towards them to the point that they recognize them as enemy and that they have satchel charges. The squad that is under attack is not firing their weapons (just ineffectively). The squad under attack "knows" that should they leave the cover (hex) that they are in but enemy fire will definitely cut them down. They just saw some of the enemy in the back. (or did they?) The squad under attack is not reloading their weapons and dealing with an injured friend. And there are probably many other explanations for why that squad was not firing or running away, but I see this fairly often. Some folks view the units on board as not doing anything but watching and waiting until they have been given an Order or Action from the player. Others know that the card play is just the player exerting influence in the drama unfolding before them. For those that want/need to control the units in a tactical game there are better choices which are very fine games. ASL being probably the best. For those that like to watch an exciting dramatic battle in which elements of incredible heroism and despicable cowardice play their part CC is where you will find it.
|
Roger Leroux
Canada
Vancouver
BC
|
Beyak wrote: Others know that the card play is just the player exerting influence in the drama unfolding before them.
For those that like to watch an exciting dramatic battle in which elements of incredible heroism and despicable cowardice play their part CC is where you will find it. I think you just sold me on buying CC:E first.
|
Borat Sagdiyev
Spain
Madrid
|
GameWhore wrote: I've played CC quite a few times, and I recently purchased Conflict of Heroes, a game that fits into the same WWII tactical genre.
I gotta be honest. I find CoH to be more fun. Lucky you. I traded away my copy as I found CoH much less fun than CC or LnL. Quote:
While the presence of tanks is definitely a plus, it is not the main reason I think that CoH is more fun. It all comes back to that thing that many critics say about CC - its unpredictably surreal nature.
When you play CC, the game is playing you at least as much as you are playing the game. If you've played CC enough, you know the wonderful experience of waiting to draw a fire or move card while your opponent walks up to your units and blows them away with nary a peep outta your boys.
How many CC games have you played? I'm asking because this is the kind of comment that I hear from people that it is not very familiar with the game and its subtleties. In fact, I can assure you that if you play against an skilled CC player you are not going to be able to easily "walk up to his units and blow them away with nary a peep outta his boys". Quote:
I've heard the typical response - "war is unpredictable... yada... yada... yada..."
OK, as unpredictable as war may be, I think that the human desire to survive by shooting at an advancing enemy lugging satchel charges is very predictable . In fact, I think it is predictable enough to make sure a unilateral cease-fire never happens in a wargame.
Well, this is basically not true. The human desire to survive can manifest itself in many ways: Running away, Digging in, Surrendering,... Btw, if you don't have a Fire card in your hand when the enemy is advancing maybe you need to ask yourself first if you've been adequately managing your hand earlier on. Quote:
CoH, by comparison, does not leave you with that "What the f--k!" feeling. It is still unpredictable - within limits - with the use of dice and chit pulls to resolve combat. Alternating activations of unit(s) also adds to the unpredictability. However, you don't ever end a game feeling like you got gang raped by Fortuna.
I certainly felt very frustrated quite a few times while playing CoH. For example, when my opponent got lucky an drew a KIA chit on my most powerful unit. Or when he got a Dual Attack card and killed some of my units in CC without me being able to respond. Or when he rolled a 6 after getting a +1D6 CAPs card and magically got quite a few CAPs out of the blue. Not to mention the fact that given CoH's extremely high lethality, if a player gets hot with the dice he can wipe out quite a few enemy units in the blink of an eye. Quote:
Not that CC is not fun. It is just less fun. I have to treat it almost as if it were a zen-like experience. "I am playing, but I am not playing." Games are also usually short enough to keep me from stroking out.
Well, that is your POV. As subjective and partial as anybody else's. I've rarely felt played by CC. And I certainly feel that CC is much more fun than CoH. Quote: Ultimately, I think that CC would greatly benefit from a "Wild Card" rule. For example, if a player could discard any 2 cards for either a "move" or "fire", this would prevent any uberstupidity. It would also restore enough power to the players to allow at least the illusion of control. I strongly disagree. For the same reason already expressed by JaggedTech and a few others than had already been discussed in this forum several times. In any case, each to his own.  Edited for typos
Last edited on 2008-12-08 18:12:14 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
|
Joel Tamburo
United States
Unspecified
|
One thing I would add is that if the card events were making Combat Commander too random, then it should show up in places like tournaments. For example, we should not see the same players consistently winning across multiple years, as that typically is evidence of a skill based game versus a game dominated by luck.
At WBC I run a pretty large (50+ players) Combat Commander tournament. I track winners, losers, scenario played and such. What I have seen is consistency. I mean the following in this context:
First, the same players are advancing and getting to finals, semifinals and the like (with the obvious caveat that the player played in multiple years). In my specific example 3 out of my 4 semifinalists got the same distance the previous year.
Second, the scenario balance numbers did not radically shift. There was a little movement, but it was not gigantic.
So the evidence from tournament play does not support the idea that CC is too random.
|
steven richard
United States
seattle
Washington
|
Well, apparently the same people win at Poker tournaments all the time...I hardly think that means that Poker isn't a "random" game. A game doesn't have to be completely luck-based to be considered "random" after all...especially if skill in the game is measured by your "hand management". I don't think that the original poster meant to imply what you seem to be arguing against...that the game requires no skill to win consistently. I believe what he meant to say was that the game had a weak grasp on some of the simulation aspects of wargaming that a lot of Grognards require. Against this, the one and only argument I've ever heard is "well, if you pretend that what is happening isn't really happening and some other thing that isn't happening is happening..." or words to that effect. See Beyak's post above for some really premium examples.
Last edited on 2008-12-08 20:32:05 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Joel Tamburo
United States
Unspecified
|
m:cafe wrote: Well, apparently the same people win at Poker tournaments all the time...I hardly think that means that Poker isn't a "random" game. A game doesn't have to be completely luck-based to be considered "random" after all...especially if skill in the game is measured by your "hand management". I don't think that the original poster meant to imply what you seem to be arguing against...that the game requires no skill to win consistently.
I believe what he meant to say was that the game had a weak grasp on some of the simulation aspects of wargaming that a lot of Grognards require. Against this, the one and only argument I've ever heard is "well, if you pretend that what is happening isn't really happening and some other thing that isn't happening is happening..." or words to that effect. See Beyak's post above for some really premium examples.
Actually Beyak's post supports my point. What he is doing is ilustrating that the total control seen in other tactical games is not really "simulation", but is really making unrealistic assumptons about tactical combat. Additionally, I have threads in this game topic that analyze Combat Commander subsystems and demonstrate that they are actually better simulations than the ones in the more traditional tactical games (for example the way CC models infantry firepower). Finally, you will find amongst those who here and at CSW hold that Combat Commander is an excellent simulation actual small unit commanders, who have actually commanded units at the scale of the game.
|
Seth Gunar
United States
New City
New York
|
I believe what he meant to say was that the game had a weak grasp on some of the simulation aspects of wargaming that a lot of Grognards require. Against this, the one and only argument I've ever heard is "well, if you pretend that what is happening isn't really happening and some other thing that isn't happening is happening..." or words to that effect. See Beyak's post above for some really premium examples.
Bingo!
Yes, I suppose I could come up with all sorts of explanations for why a particular squad goes Ghandi, but if I wanted to write fiction, I'd sit down at my wordprocessor instead of playing a wargame.
It's not that I don't "get" CC. I do get it. It's not even that I don't like it. I do. (And try to remember that just because someone has a different opinion does not mean they lack the cognitive capacity to grasp your perspective.) I actually think the remarks about filling in your own blanks kinda proves my point. Yes, CC is like watching a movie and every now and again you get to write part of the script. OK.
Essentially, CC is to wargaming what existentialism is to philosophy. Ya gotta be in the mood. Let events wash over you.
As for card management, I'm very familiar with the concept. I'm the two time world champ in Stockcar Championship Racing the Card Game (at the WBC) - which is also about card management.The final has about 20 people in it. Sooo...
I guess when I am playing a strategic game like PoG, Hannibal, or Twilight Struggle I feel like managing cards is oddly appropriate at that scale. When I am playing a tactical game, I wanna kill things and create massive carnage. That's what tactical level games are all about - or at least should be - IMHO.
In the meantime, I think that CC: Pacific will be better than CCE. The Pacific was an infantry war with a level of brutality and chaos that far exceeded what happened in Europe. I think the CC "gestalt" will work better there.
I'm glad y'all enjoy CC. Maybe I'll run into one of you and you can school me. But if I just march up to one of your squads and they happen to be reloading, reading Sartre, or just plain have their thumbs up there a**es, you better not start complaining.
|
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
|
m:cafe wrote: Against this, the one and only argument I've ever heard is "well, if you pretend that what is happening isn't really happening and some other thing that isn't happening is happening..." or words to that effect. See Beyak's post above for some really premium examples. The cards and chits don't tell you what's happening, because there are no cards and chits on the actual battlefield. There's a conceptual mapping from cards and chits to events on the actual battlefield. You insist on a particular mapping even though the results of that mapping make no sense, and then you complain that the results make no sense. That's pretty silly.
|
Tim McCarron
United States
Houston
Texas
|
Joelist wrote: m:cafe wrote: Well, apparently the same people win at Poker tournaments all the time...I hardly think that means that Poker isn't a "random" game. A game doesn't have to be completely luck-based to be considered "random" after all...especially if skill in the game is measured by your "hand management". I don't think that the original poster meant to imply what you seem to be arguing against...that the game requires no skill to win consistently.
I believe what he meant to say was that the game had a weak grasp on some of the simulation aspects of wargaming that a lot of Grognards require. Against this, the one and only argument I've ever heard is "well, if you pretend that what is happening isn't really happening and some other thing that isn't happening is happening..." or words to that effect. See Beyak's post above for some really premium examples.
Actually Beyak's post supports my point. What he is doing is ilustrating that the total control seen in other tactical games is not really "simulation", but is really making unrealistic assumptons about tactical combat. Additionally, I have threads in this game topic that analyze Combat Commander subsystems and demonstrate that they are actually better simulations than the ones in the more traditional tactical games (for example the way CC models infantry firepower). Finally, you will find amongst those who here and at CSW hold that Combat Commander is an excellent simulation actual small unit commanders, who have actually commanded units at the scale of the game. Spot on Joel 
|
Colin Hunter
New Zealand
Auckland
|
GameWhore wrote: I believe what he meant to say was that the game had a weak grasp on some of the simulation aspects of wargaming that a lot of Grognards require. Against this, the one and only argument I've ever heard is "well, if you pretend that what is happening isn't really happening and some other thing that isn't happening is happening..." or words to that effect. See Beyak's post above for some really premium examples.
Bingo!
Yes, I suppose I could come up with all sorts of explanations for why a particular squad goes Ghandi, but if I wanted to write fiction, I'd sit down at my wordprocessor instead of playing a wargame.
It's not that I don't "get" CC. I do get it. It's not even that I don't like it. I do. (And try to remember that just because someone has a different opinion does not mean they lack the cognitive capacity to grasp your perspective.) I actually think the remarks about filling in your own blanks kinda proves my point. Yes, CC is like watching a movie and every now and again you get to write part of the script. OK.
Essentially, CC is to wargaming what existentialism is to philosophy. Ya gotta be in the mood. Let events wash over you.
As for card management, I'm very familiar with the concept. I'm the two time world champ in Stockcar Championship Racing the Card Game (at the WBC) - which is also about card management.The final has about 20 people in it. Sooo...
I guess when I am playing a strategic game like PoG, Hannibal, or Twilight Struggle I feel like managing cards is oddly appropriate at that scale. When I am playing a tactical game, I wanna kill things and create massive carnage. That's what tactical level games are all about - or at least should be - IMHO.
In the meantime, I think that CC: Pacific will be better than CCE. The Pacific was an infantry war with a level of brutality and chaos that far exceeded what happened in Europe. I think the CC "gestalt" will work better there.
I'm glad y'all enjoy CC. Maybe I'll run into one of you and you can school me. But if I just march up to one of your squads and they happen to be reloading, reading Sartre, or just plain have their thumbs up there a**es, you better not start complaining.
Thanks for clarifying your position a bit better. I definitely can see the realism argument from both sides, I'm not going to get into that, I just would suggest that there is quite a bit of skill in this game and depth of play.
|
Peter Pariseau
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
|
JaggedTech wrote: CC develops a great storyline, even in games that go poorly due to bad card draws. It's funny, but the lack of a plausible storyline in a game that goes south due to bad draws is exactly what ruins CC for me. I can "storyline' my way through bad die rolls in ASLSK or ATS, but I just couldn't swallow what's possible in CC. I look forward to trying CoH this week, but I still like the idea of CC, and I wish there was a way to make it more...flexible, open to player input, even "plausible" in the extreme instances. The breaking of the illusion that is wargaming is just too jarring for me, even as seldom as it happens.
Last edited on 2008-12-08 22:26:59 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
|
steven richard
United States
seattle
Washington
|
Well said, Peter. I should throw in here that I rate CC an "8" and have yet to turn down a game when invited. In other words, I like it. But it is certainly not my favorite WWII tacsim and you pretty much nailed down why.
In other games of its scale, I have no problems imagining a "narrative", and one of my favorite parts of playing is looking at a finsihed game and reliving all the little stories that took place.
Whereas in CC, on occasion, I feel like I HAVE to come up with some way to JUSTIFY what just took place. I mean, it's a game (like they all are) so you just laugh and shrug and move along. But that's not really the sort of satisfaction I'm looking for in a squad level wargame.
As for CoH, I haven't had a chance to play it yet...so I guess I have no reason to be in this thread anyway.
|
Joel Tamburo
United States
Unspecified
|
Meanwhile I have never encountered a situation in CC that is too screwy to fit the storyboard, so to speak.
Is CC chaotic? Yes it is, and so is real small unit combat. Just like in real life, you cannot guarantee that your troops will execute your plans as you intended. However, it is not so chaotic as to be immune to planning and strategy.
For example, as a defender I hoard Fire cards, and also am sparing with my shots. I know one can hit dry spells in the deck (which is easily storyboarded - low ammo, poor visibility, etc.) and so I take precautions. Unless the situation is truly dire or potentially game winning, I am loathe to use my last one.
|
steven richard
United States
seattle
Washington
|
So, in every defensive scenario you play, you do so as if you were low on ammo & obscured by fog?
|
Joel Tamburo
United States
Unspecified
|
That's not what I said Steven. What I said is that, basically, I exercise prudence. Low Ammo and poor visibility (I didn't say fog) are just two of many easily plausible storyboards for lacking the right card.
So, being prudent, I am loathe to "shoot myself dry". In other words, if the game situation allows it I will not use my last Fire card in hand. Which by the way is realistic, as actual small units in the field are trained not to blow their ammo off unnecessarily.
|
Borat Sagdiyev
Spain
Madrid
|
GameWhore wrote:
Yes, CC is like watching a movie and every now and again you get to write part of the script. OK.
No. This is not true. This kind of statement is as ridiculous as saying that CoH is a game about rolling dice and drawing the right special cards. Both CC and CoH reward the player which is best at executing his tactical plan. And IMHO CC does a much better job in a more realistic way. Quote:
I guess when I am playing a strategic game like PoG, Hannibal, or Twilight Struggle I feel like managing cards is oddly appropriate at that scale. When I am playing a tactical game, I wanna kill things and create massive carnage. That's what tactical level games are all about - or at least should be - IMHO.
Well, that's maybe because you are making some pretty wrong assumptions about CC and tactical games in general: Real life tactical combat is not about killing things and creating massive carnages. You just need to read a little bit about the subject to realise it.  That's one of the reasons (amongst others) why CC is a much better simulation than CoH. Quote:
I'm glad y'all enjoy CC. Maybe I'll run into one of you and you can school me. But if I just march up to one of your squads and they happen to be reloading, reading Sartre, or just plain have their thumbs up there a**es, you better not start complaining.
Don't worry. I won't complain when I kick your butt in the battlefield.  In fact, I'll have fun while doing it. As I've had in every single game of CC that I've played so far (even when I've lost). Edited for typos
Last edited on 2008-12-09 04:02:24 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Borat Sagdiyev
Spain
Madrid
|
Peter Pariseau wrote: JaggedTech wrote: CC develops a great storyline, even in games that go poorly due to bad card draws. It's funny, but the lack of a plausible storyline in a game that goes south due to bad draws is exactly what ruins CC for me. I can "storyline' my way through bad die rolls in ASLSK or ATS, but I just couldn't swallow what's possible in CC. I look forward to trying CoH this week, but I still like the idea of CC, and I wish there was a way to make it more...flexible, open to player input, even "plausible" in the extreme instances. The breaking of the illusion that is wargaming is just too jarring for me, even as seldom as it happens. I can certainly see your point. So, I hope that you can see mine when I say that I had a very similar feeling when I played CoH. The whole APs/CAPs thing seemed incredibly abstract and most of the time I saw myself managing some kind of eurogame resources and not troops in a battlefield. Besides, CoH is so lethal and the scenarios are so short that the game lacks the ebb and flow of other tactical systems. It all seems to come down to which side is killing the other side faster, while in CC the strategic options at your disposal are way more diverse.
|
Christopher Hill
United States
Wilmington
North Carolina
|
Great post Seth. I think that these two games are both excellent, but for different reasons. I personally have never played ASL, but I do know it is a favorite among wargamers. The fact that CoH and CC are compared to ASL says volumes about both designs. Whether you prefer one over the other, to me, is irrelevant. The important thing is the impact these games have had in the wargaming genre to draw new players into the fold and keep the niche alive and well.
Last edited on 2008-12-11 11:23:58 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
|
Quote: I wanna kill things and create massive carnage. That's what tactical level games are all about... No, that's what first-person shooters on X-box are all about.
|
|
|
Posted Mon Dec 8, 2008 8:14 pm
