Board Game: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942

Thread: Re: Firefight 1 (Partisans) - Question regarding initiative

Prodromoi — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:36:03 +0000

Excellent, thank you. I suspected that interpretation would probably be the case from how it was phrased but am glad to get some disambiguation.

Definitely think I'll like this game - we only had time to play the scenario over once, but from that small sample of the elementary rules, it looks to have a lot going for it...

Thread: Re: Firefight 1 (Partisans) - Question regarding initiative

gh0ul — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:17:23 +0000

hi, alex.
I think they're working to fix that problem in the firefight book (they're so busy working on kursk) :)
The website means the soviets get to activate first on the 1st turn. and then roll like usual for the 2nd turn and so forth.

Thread: Firefight 1 (Partisans) - Question regarding initiative

Prodromoi — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:37:17 +0000

Very much looking forward to playing this game - having read through the rules I think/hope that I'm going to like it a lot.

Just set up to give it a try, playing the first scenario. A few days ago I checked the CoH website for updates, errata and so forth and found that the 'Latest Versions of Published Firefights' states:
"The setup hex for the Soviet MMG has been corrected from D11 to C11. Soviets activate first."
http://academy-games.com/index.php/firefights-a-updates/late...

The printing of the scenario booklet that I have already has the correct setup hex listed, but includes no mention of "Soviets activate first", and the updated .pdf of the firefight on the CoH site doesn't either.

So, the question is...

Assuming that the Soviets activate first in this scenario, does that mean first every turn (effectively replacing initiative rolls), or simply first once and then initiative is rolled as normal from Turn 2?

Thanks in advance.
A

Thread: Re: Couple of questions about BUNKER scenario

Bowmangr — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:05:54 +0000

Felkor wrote:
To answer your first question, when setting up, you can place a hasty defense counter on a hidden unit, and then that hasty defense is hidden too (and does not count towards the number of hidden units.)

For the second question, if a hidden unit creates a hasty defense, it becomes visible. See 10.0 in the rules, where it is quite clear - ANY action except hidden movement will reveal your unit.

Thanks!!! :thumbsup:

Thread: Some questions after reading the Summary sheet and manual.

Bowmangr — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:03:11 +0000

I was browsing the summary sheet
http://www.academy-games.com/images/stories/downloads/summar...
and noticed a few things.

1} The cost for Hasty Defense hasn't been changed from 8 AP to 7 AP.

2} I've noticed a row in the FORTIFICATIONS & DEFENSIVE COUNTERS table that mentions
Vehicle +0AP for FOOT Movement, +1 for WHEELED, +0 for TRACKED and so on.

What's this about? Towing? Moving into a hex with another Vehicle? I couldn't figure it out.

The same row can be found in the manual, page 10, Section 4, 14.0 Vehicle Movement

3} The +1AP cost for entering trenches & bunkers is not fixed in the summary, unless these rows are meant for moving in a hex with trench/bunker and not actually entering the fortification.

4} The new rules regarding smoke haven't been updated. It only mentions that the DM bonus affects fire going in the hex and not originating from the hex.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
After checking the new rules I saw a problem that needs clarifications.

Look at:

Section 7.63 Same Hex and Close Combat (CC)
• Units in CC must use red FP against units with red DRs.

then look at the large example at page page 13 above Section 5:

..............The
Soviet rifle then moves onto the
tank for 1AP. The tank reacts for
3CAPs and CC attacks with 7FP.
The Soviet only has an 11DV.
The German rolls a 2 and misses!
The rifle squad’s FP is increased
to 7FP, but halved to 3FP since
the tank’s flank 14DV is blue. The Soviet modifies his roll with 1CAP, now
needs a 10 to hit and succeeds! The tank pulls a vehicle red gun disabled
hit counter. The Soviet rifle has 0APs left and passes. The German plays
a command action card. The tank can only fire with its blue FP since it
has a red gun disabled hit counter. The tank CC fires at the Soviet rifle
with 4FP (5 blue FP +4 CC modifier x 1/2 since blue is firing at a red
defense). The Soviet has an 11DV, so the German must roll a 7 to hit..........

So I'm guessing that units in CC are forced to use their Red Firepower rating UNLESS they can't {because of damage for example as above}.
If that is not the case then they MUST use red FP.

What happens in CC if there are enemy units with red FP and with blue FP? Can I choose to attack with my blue FP and announce that I'm targeting the armored unit {even though I know that the unarmored unit will get hit too ;) }

Thread: Re: Couple of questions about BUNKER scenario

Felkor — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:55:08 +0000

To answer your first question, when setting up, you can place a hasty defense counter on a hidden unit, and then that hasty defense is hidden too (and does not count towards the number of hidden units.)

For the second question, if a hidden unit creates a hasty defense, it becomes visible. See 10.0 in the rules, where it is quite clear - ANY action except hidden movement will reveal your unit.

Thread: Re: Couple of questions about BUNKER scenario

Bowmangr — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:22:11 +0000

Will092345 wrote:
andywatkins1963 wrote:
Will,

My main question was placing hasty defence as part of initial set up. Presumably you are ok with being allowed to do that on a hidden unit?

I see where you are coming from but Uwe's rulling that you can place a hasty defence on a hidden unit during game play as long as it is hidden and out of LOS of enemy units seems reasonable?

I suppose you could say that it makes the unit un hidden and then on their next activation they would just have to rehide themselves for 8AP?

Andy

Yes initial placement seems OK... and the hidden rules do say that ANY unit (examples given in the rules includes bunkers) can be hidden, the only question might be if the firefight states that a number of units can set up hidden then does hiding a squad and a hasty D count as 2 hidden units or 1 ? I think as the rules are written it would have to be 2 but it might be more reasonable to say that any unit fortification is hidden for free if placed with a hidden 'Unit'.

In play then I dont think the rules should be changed to allow it.. Its more to keep track of on paper and raises the question of what other actions are allowable while remaining hidden which would require a rule change introducing greater complexity.

Having said all that if Uwe / Nick change the rules to allow it then I will be more than happy to follow the revised rules.

Will.

We played the Bunker yestarday and we stumbled on the same questions. Does a hasty defense counter count as a unit or it can be placed for free in excess of the 4 allowed hidden units?

Also, what is the final answer regarding hasty defenses and hidden units? They become unhidden or not? I'm guessing that they reveal themselves trying to make the defenses {make noise, create smoke,dust etc.} or something like that.

Thread: Re: Romanian Troops

brauerle — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:05:19 +0000

Do you also plan to make a game of the blitzkrieg campaigns in Scandinavia and Frane/Benelux in 1940?

Thread: Re: Romanian Troops

uweeickert — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:27:26 +0000

Val,
Yes, We definitely plan on adding the Rumanians in the Stalingrad salient, etc. But this will be after the Pacific Theatre game. :)
Uwe

Thread: Re: Artillery - FF6 question.

TommieSL — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:06:48 +0000

Thanks James.

Thread: Re: FF 1, 2 & 3

Chairman7w — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:58:54 +0000

Great post, man - thanks! A very interesting read.

Thread: Re: Artillery - FF6 question.

Felkor — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:43:05 +0000

Saan wrote:
EDIT: that actually leads to another question. Do units that have not yet entered the map have LOS? For example, could turn 1 OBA be targeted on the woods hex at 2-D08?

I missed your edit. Units not on the board yet are not considered to be in play, so no, they couldn't be used for LOS.

Thread: Re: Artillery - FF6 question.

Felkor — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:41:43 +0000

No, the Soviet cannot use the mortar's "spotter" to spot the OBA strike.

The rationale:

* The firefight clearly states it needs to be within LOS of a unit - the mortar's spotter isn't a unit.

* For a mortar to use a spotter, it needs to spend AP (it costs more to fire with the spotter than to not fire with the spotter.) You cannot spend a unit's AP at this phase of the game, and thus you cannot use the spotter.

Thread: Re: Artillery - FF6 question.

TommieSL — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:35:10 +0000

I have a similar question to David's follow up query above.

Felkor wrote:
... Strike hexes must be in the LOS of
any on board Soviet unit."

Can the Soviet player plot OBA strike hexes with a LOS from one of his on-board mortar 'spotting' hexes? (i.e. a non-enemy occupied hex within 2 hexes from the mortar unit).

I read the Fire Fight rule as quoted by James quite literally that the LOS has to be from an on-board unit i.e. that unit's hex. My opponent thinks otherwise and plotted his 1st strike from one of his mortar's spotting hexes.

Anyone know the official take on this?

Thread: Romanian Troops

Belz — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:29:29 +0000

I know this may be considered an odd question, but is there a chance that there may be a future expansion that would include Romanian troops?

Thread: Re: Variant: Instant-Death Chit

Gorgoneion — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:36:07 +0000

So you agree on the variant, will you play it that way?
Or are you simply criticizing what I write? :D

You are right saying that you may well calculate even the risk from the instant death chit, so I will reformulate my thought and what I was saying.
:blush:

Without the instant death chit (at longer ranges than adjacent or CC), damage taken by fire will be a little less lethal, if that goes with you, by all means play it.
But as I think that firepower should be a little more dangerous in this game, then I prefer to keep the instant death chit.

Thread: Re: Variant: Instant-Death Chit

DaviddesJ — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:24:50 +0000

Gorgoneion wrote:
Agreed. But you can calculate your risks.

Why can't you calculate your risks when the kill chit is in the cup? You just add up the two probabilities.

Thread: Re: Variant: Instant-Death Chit

Gorgoneion — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:22:33 +0000

DaviddesJ wrote:
Gorgoneion wrote:
Hm... I disagree. If you take away the death chit you will start to count on the fact that there is not even a small chance of a kill, if you make that dash through open terrain. :ninja:

You can always get killed because the opponent rolls +4. In fact, that's more likely most of the time than drawing the kill chit.

Agreed. But you can calculate your risks. With the chit, you know that enemy fire can be lethal even if your odds are good in getting only a chit (and for instance having a quick autorally card).

Thread: Re: Lowering luck factor while preserving uncertainty - no more "I lost because all my dice rolles were bad"

Bowmangr — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:54:13 +0000

DaviddesJ wrote:
Bowmangr wrote:
You simply can't enjoy playing a scenario if after 3 hours of thinking, maneuvering and tactical positioning you just can't roll higher than 5. :robot:

Yes, I can.

Good for you. Happy gaming.

Thread: Re: Variant: Instant-Death Chit

DaviddesJ — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:52:03 +0000

Gorgoneion wrote:
Hm... I disagree. If you take away the death chit you will start to count on the fact that there is not even a small chance of a kill, if you make that dash through open terrain. :ninja:

You can always get killed because the opponent rolls +4. In fact, that's more likely most of the time than drawing the kill chit.

Thread: Re: Variant: Instant-Death Chit

Gorgoneion — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:49:05 +0000

Hm... I disagree. If you take away the death chit you will start to count on the fact that there is not even a small chance of a kill, if you make that dash through open terrain. :ninja:
I don't think combat in CoH is that lethal, compared to other experiences such as Squad Leader (ok, in CoH there are even a LOT less units).

Thread: Re: Lowering luck factor while preserving uncertainty - no more "I lost because all my dice rolles were bad"

DaviddesJ — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:30:04 +0000

Bowmangr wrote:
You simply can't enjoy playing a scenario if after 3 hours of thinking, maneuvering and tactical positioning you just can't roll higher than 5. :robot:

Yes, I can.

Thread: Re: Lowering luck factor while preserving uncertainty - no more "I lost because all my dice rolles were bad"

Bowmangr — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:34:44 +0000

canucklehead wrote:
I agree with this, but let's face it, there had to be some battles fought in WW II where it was a lucky shot, break, etc that won or lost a battle. I KNOW in a game this isn't much fun (perhaps), but then tell that to the Tiger crew that had their tank shot out from underneath them by a lucky shot, or information that landed by sheer chance into the wrong hands, and changed a battle, etc etc. HOW do YOU know that your battle in history wasn't decided by some fluke decision or freak of luck shot??? The game was meant to simulate history - and that means all of the breaks come with it. Not ranting - just saying that that's how it goes sometimes (and TRUST ME - I do not roll dice well in ANY game!!!)
Thanks for reading - and game on!

Canucklehead you are right about lucky shots in a battle affecting the outcome etc. The problem is that sometimes you sit and devote 3-5 hours of your life to play a game.
You simply can't enjoy playing a scenario if after 3 hours of thinking, maneuvering and tactical positioning you just can't roll higher than 5. :robot:
This sucks out all the enjoyment that was built up during the game and sparks the usual conversation: "you got lucky" and "what if" etc.

When I play any tactical wargame I assume that I'm "viewing" the battle from above. I'm watching the most interesting part of a battle not some battle that was resolved with lucky shots.

I wouldn't use this home rule if the players rolled a LOT of dice during the game as the luck balances out but in CoH {especially the Soviets that can only fire 1 time per turn without CAPs/Cards} if your one and only attack with favorable odds misses because of abyssmal rolls it is frustrating and NOT fun. Realistic maybe but not fun.

As I've said above I assume that the players "watch" the most interesting part of a battle and that's what their scenario is simulating. In order for this part of the battle to be interesting, it must be balanced and the players should have an equal chance to be victorious.

If we accept that some Firefights can simply simulate that a battle was determined by lucky shots or whims of fate then we shouldn't have discussions about scenario balance either. Because this is also not realistic. Real battles were never balanced.

Since this is a game about something chaotic, it should have chaos generators {aka dice, cards} but if a simple die roll or card can determine the outcome in some cases I believe that there should be a chance for the players to avoid the "lucky shot" effect sacrificing {a little bit of} realism for {a lot of} fun and a sense of accomplishment. So the Fate card rule was borrowed from Combat Commander. I think this rule is great because it doesn't help one player more than the other and it's making the "I needed a 3+ and I rolled a 2" scenario less likely but not impossible.
Moreover, it solves the problem about draws.

We also added the rule about discarding Action cards to force rerolls in order to make the "I draw unusable cards {Disarm Mines for example} and my opponent draws powerful cards {Mark as Used for example}" scenario seem less relevant since no Action card is unusable.

These rules don't "brake" the game IMHO but add a chance for the players to "watch" {play} a Firefight that noone knows the outcome {assuming equal skill} and not a Firefight that had lucky shots or information that landed on the wrong hands as you mentioned. It can happen but I always assume that the player's session is about an interesting part of a larger battle.

It's like a movie. The viewers don't watch the boring parts, they watch the interesting parts. I believe it is the same with a CoH Firefight. These home rules help promote that even more.

Just my 2 Geekgold...

P.S. If anyone uses the rules, I would really like to hear some feedback.

Thread: Re: Stug d

Andy L — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:29:06 +0000

The StuG Ausf D was made May to September 1941, not 42. So they do fit in with the time period.

Thread: Re: Lowering luck factor while preserving uncertainty - no more "I lost because all my dice rolles were bad"

canucklehead — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:42:11 +0000

Bowmangr wrote:
Talenn wrote:
In the end, it doesnt seem worth it me to try and change the 'luck factor' in the game. It's set up the way it is for a purpose and messing with that is likely to change the feel of the game quite a bit.

I dont like losing to lucky dice any more than the next person, but I think with a game of this low complexity, it's a bit of overkill to try and 'even out' the luck.

I usually hate using house rules unless it's absolutely necessary. I read this thread because I have noticed this "You got lucky" effect 3 games in a row {last one played just yesterday}.

We were playing the Monsters, with me having the Soviets. This scenario is a blitzkrieg attack for the Germans until Turn 3 when the T-34s reinforce the Soviets and then they push them back. {they are the monsters after all... ;) }

I was being overrun by the German Panzer and patiently waited for my T-34s. When they arrived I proceeded in a bad roll streak like no other rolling 2 and 3s here and there, even in Short Range attacks. I needed 4 or 5 to hit and I rolled 3. It was frustrating and there was nothing I could do about it since I had already gained all possible modifiers from maneuvering and potitioning.

Yesterday's Firefight was not the first time I rolled badly and lost the game because I couldn't hit anything. If I needed a 9 or 10 and I rolled a 2 it wouldn't matter to me but after a lot of planning and maneuvers I repeatedly needed a 4 or a 5 and I rolled 2s and 3s.

So as of yesterday we added 2 new house rules in order to reduce the frustration while keeping the uncertainty as the OP wrote.

Rule A1
At any time a player can choose to force a reroll. If this is the first reroll of the game, he immediately gives his opponent a Fate card {yes I know, it's a rule "borrowed" from Combat Commander but it is a good rule}. From now on the other player can give the Fate card to his opponent and force a reroll too even for the roll that gave him the Fate card in the first place. This goes back and forth until someone chooses to not give the Fate card to his opponent and to keep the result of the last roll.

In later turns, the player who has the Fate card can use it at any time to force a reroll {giving it to the opponent ofcourse} etc.

Rule A2
If the game ends in a draw, the player having the Fate card wins! {this solves another problem regarding draws}

Rule B
A player that DOES NOT have the Fate card can at any time discard an Action Card and force a reroll.
{If the other player wants to force a 3rd reroll he MUST use his Fate card. He can't chose to discard an Action Card instead.

This rule solves the "problem" with holding irrelevant or weak cards {Attempt Rally for example is by far the weakest card in the game and we have removed it from the deck}. You can simply discard them to force a reroll.

I believe the Fate card Rule and the discard action card to force rerolls will fix this "You got lucky" effect that strangles some of the enjoyment of this otherwise awesome game.

P.S. Can't wait for Kursk. Maybe it'll have optional rules regarding this subject... :whistle:

I agree with this, but let's face it, there had to be some battles fought in WW II where it was a lucky shot, break, etc that won or lost a battle. I KNOW in a game this isn't much fun (perhaps), but then tell that to the Tiger crew that had their tank shot out from underneath them by a lucky shot, or information that landed by sheer chance into the wrong hands, and changed a battle, etc etc. HOW do YOU know that your battle in history wasn't decided by some fluke decision or freak of luck shot??? The game was meant to simulate history - and that means all of the breaks come with it. Not ranting - just saying that that's how it goes sometimes (and TRUST ME - I do not roll dice well in ANY game!!!)
Thanks for reading - and game on!

Image

Your Buddy Chester — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:17:50 +0000

Here is a card from WWII TANKS [it's the 'wild card' so there is only one 'counter' on it] using the COH stats.

Image

Crescent — Sun, 03 May 2009 09:50:40 +0000

End of firefight 1: Soviets concede

Image

30ought6 — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:27:33 +0000

Conflict of Heroes: The Christmas Invasion! - England 2005-2006

Image

DrZero2 — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:44:41 +0000

Another day, another savage beating at CoH - this time at the hands of my fiancee.

Image

AvidHunter — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:54:11 +0000

CoH is serious business in this house

Image

silvanus321 — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:33:06 +0000

Germans Charge in FF10

Image

Kortatu — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:33:02 +0000

FF#6 - Mzensk Pocket. Russian player thinking his first turn.

Image

BobRoberts — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:09:38 +0000

Bob and Art playing Conflict of Heroes at Conquest NW 2009.

Image

BobRoberts — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:04:26 +0000

Art teaching Bob Eubanks to play Conflict of Heroes at Conquest NW 2009.

Image

BobRoberts — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:02:50 +0000

I sat down with Art Brochet and he taught me to play Conflict of Heroes. This picture was taken at Conquest NW 2009.

Image

BobRoberts — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:01:14 +0000

Ken Casady looks on as Art Brochet teaches Jay White to play Conflict of Heroes at Conquest NW.

Image

turtleback — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:36:36 +0000

Custom foot and armored hit draw bags.

Image

charlescab — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:17:29 +0000

firefight 4

Image

charlescab — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:26:32 +0000

control point

Image

charlescab — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:25:04 +0000

1st scenario