geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Dominion - Stash Promo Card
Runewars
Dominion: Alchemy
Thunderstone
Dominion
Dungeon Lords
Alexander the Great
Agricola
Twilight Struggle
Murder at the Four Deuces
Stronghold
The Republic of Rome
Race for the Galaxy
Small World
Arkham Horror
Founding Fathers
Race for the Galaxy: The Brink of War
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Vapor's Gambit
Battlestar Galactica
Chaos in the Old World
Le Havre
Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game
Mystery Express
Puerto Rico
Endeavor
Power Grid
Vasco da Gama
Warhammer: Invasion
Descent: Journeys in the Dark
Space Hulk (3rd Edition)
Pandemic
Hansa Teutonica
Carson City
Campaign Manager 2008
War of the Ring
Livingstone
Cosmic Encounter
Stone Age
Le Havre: Le Grand Hameau
Tobago
Cosmic Encounter: Cosmic Incursion Expansion
Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
Summoner Wars
War of the Ring Collector's Edition
Macao
Carcassonne
Dominion: Prosperity
Neuland
Steam
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Tom Hancock
United States
Charleston
West Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron06070809
mbmbmbmbmb
EDIT/DISCLAIMER: A small part of this review (and a large part of the comments that follow) discuss my mild criticism of the CAPS system and some resulting "gameyness" which left a bad taste in my mouth. I am writing now to tell the erstwhile reader that the second game in the series, Storms of Steel, has a minor tweak to the CAPS/turn order rules which totally eliminate the problems I had with the CAPS system. Additionally, SoS's new rules are 100% backwards compatible with this game. I'm leaving the review as is for historical purposes, but writing this little disclaimer so anyone looking at buying this game knows that my criticism of the CAPS system is now out of date- and I'm still loving Conflict of Heroes!



Introduction

Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at. - Anonymous

I'm not a tactical wargamer. They never seem to strike the balance between rules complexity/playability correctly while maintaining decent realism. In strategic level games, a little abstraction in the name of playability is fine with me. For some reason, it really bothers me when it comes to tactical games, which is one reason I have stayed away from them. I desperately WANTED to like a tactical WWII game, but so far one just hasn't really caught me.

So my buddy Travis shows up at game night with Conflict of Heroes, made by a german guy from South America, who apparently thinks the nazis and communists are heroes. Draw your own conclusions about that.

Apparently you can teach the game in ten minutes, the scenarios are under two hours, it will support 2-4 players, and there is no downtime- you can react to everything your opponent does. At this point, I figured that Trav was full of shit and this was some sort of evil trick to get me to play some new Caylus expansion... I had recently played Pillars of the Earth Expansion with Travis, and I will never forgive him until the day I die. My children will hold a grudge against his children for that abomination.

I mean, no downtime? Playable under two hours? Sign me up, but color me skeptical. Of course, it did look good.



Rules

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally."
Actual Quote from Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's


The Rules in the game are very simple for the level of strategic depth involved. The rulebook is very concise and well written. The rules are concise, have lot of pictures/examples and are well written. They are printed on cheap glossy paper, like a magazine. We used the reference card a lot for the terrain effects, but didn't reference the rulebook that much.

The scenarios are varied and include some "starter" scenarios. For example, the first scenario is just infantry, no vehicles. Later scenarios introduce smoke launchers, tanks, trucks, hidden land mines, and lots of other stuff. There are a lot of scenarios and multiple ways to approach each scenario, so I think the replayability factor is here.

Components


"Never worry about the bullet with your name on it. Instead, worry about shrapnel addressed to 'occupant.'"
- Unknown




The components are one area where this game really shines. The game is played on several smaller gameboards which are connected together to make a larger gameboard. It comes with 6 boards. The boards are mounted on heavy cardboard, like you would expect to see an a very expensive eurogame.

The board art for the terrain is attractive and functional. The counters are absolutely gorgeous. They have actual unit art instead of the typical nato symbols. They are one inch counters with rounded edges and a canvas-style finish. They are attractive and feel very durable. Once people get a look at the counter and boards, they will be at the doors of GMT headquarters with pitchforks and torches!

The cards that come with the game are a little cheap compared to the other components. The box is of good quality but it is a little small. All the components fit, but it is a tight, snug fit. I blame the eurogamers whining about overly large boxes for this problem. With one inch counters, this game is begging for plano boxes to sort them all out, but planos would not fit in the snug box.

Theme

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. - George S. Patton

The scenarios are not based on any specific historical battles. I really wish they would have done a little research and tried to come up with more historical context for each of the battles. Some of the scenarios have a 2 or 3 sentence blurb, but this the history is pretty weak here. The back of the instruction booklet has some information on the units, which is much appreciated, but it feels like a consolation prize when what I really wanted was more information about the battles the game simulates.



Gameplay

One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine...
- From a Soviet Junior Lt's Notebook


Although the components will be the subject of much discussion, the gameplay is really what sets CoH apart from other tactical level wargames. CoH takes a lot of mechanisms from other wargames and puts them to good use, then improves on the command and turn structure in a way that I can only describe as beautiful.

Moving Around and Shooting Things

The easiest way to explain the gameplay is to take a look at some of the unit counters.



What are all these numbers? Don't be scared, its pretty easy. I will look at the Pioneers Squad at the bottom of this picture to explain. First, this is a german unit, according to the cross in the bottom center. Russians have a red star. The "4" inside the cross is range, or how many hexes this unit can fire without incurring a penalty. The top two numbers are the costs to activate the unit. On the right is the movement cost and on the left is the firing cost. Terrain effects increase the base move cost. You can see that the Pioneers are a lot cheaper to move than the anti-tank gun. I'll talk more about how you pay for movement and firing in a moment. T

The bottom left are attack values and the bottom right are defense values. Red attack values are used for firing against infantry and blue attack values are used for firing against tanks or mech units. There are two defense values in the bottom right. The bottom one is for normal attacks and the upper one is for attacks against your rear. Interestingly, some units are mechanized for frontal attacks but count as infantry if you attack them from the rear. Hence, the blue AND red defense numbers of the anti-tank gun.

To attack, you pay the cost in the upper left corner, check range & line of sight, then roll 2d6 and add your attack value. You have to roll equal or greater than your opponent's defense value to score a hit. If you score a hit, the defender takes a damage marker from the damage chit cup and secretly places it under his unit. Another hit will now kill him. The damage markers have different effects and you can rally to get rid of them on your turn.

2d6 creates a pretty nice attack bell curve, so luck isn't a huge factor here. There is some uncertainty, but you can usually see what your chances are. There are a couple of other modifiers that come into play. For example, you get a +3 bonus for short range (adjacent) and you can shoot twice your range for a penalty. There are also terrain modifiers which differ depending on unit type. Those are on the summary card for easy reference.

Command System and Turn Structure

The command system is where the game really shines. As I said above, you pay for movement and firing with action points. Each player takes turns choosing a unit to activate. That unit gets 7 action points to spend. When you've spent your 7, you flip your unit over to show it is used and its my turn to pick a unit to activate. As you can see from looking at the costs on the units, 7 points is enough to do a lot and fire several times with a weaker unit, but for more powerful units it isn't. In the game, this shows the mobility and flexibility of the smaller units and makes every piece useful.


You can see here the player track sheet where you keep track of VPs, action points, and command action points.

The most innovative mechanism in the game, the one that made me want to review it, is called Command Action Points. In addition to the 7 points you get to spend moving and firing each unit, each scenario grants the player a number of CAPs each turn. You can spend the CAPs to supplement your 7 point allotment OR to take actions on your opponent's turn. THIS is why there is no downtime in the game. You have a very limited number of caps, so you must use them wisely, but you can really muck up your opponent's plans with them.

Basically, when one player activates a unit, he does each of his expenditures of action points, pausing between each to give the other player a chance to react. For instance, I might be planning to move, move, move, then fire. Between each movement, my opponent would get a chance to react by spending his CAPs. He could see what I am doing and move his unit out of my range. Perhaps he could get some opportunity fire on my advancing unit. Of course, he must spend his CAPs wisely, because running out leaves you open to all kinds of problems. This means there is never any downtime. While your opponent takes his turn, you always have a chance to counter him - as long as you have CAPs left.

CAPs are the centerpiece of the game design and eliminates a lot of the unrealistic tactics you see from time to time in other games without adding too many rules. While another game might ignore opportunity fire or have a complex mechanic for when you get it, this game just lets you go to town if someone stumbles into your field of fire. Sneaking up behind a tank for a rear shot is a lot riskier when the tank can turn around and blast your ass on your turn! Of course, with a limited number of CAPs, you need to spend them wisely. You also lose one CAP a turn for every unit you lose, so if you start getting shot up, its tough!

Scenarios

Each scenario sets a number of turns to be played. You get a certain number of VPs for each unit you kill and a certain number for completing various goals- controlling a bunker or certain areas vital to the mission, etc. Whoever has the most VPs at the end of five turns wins.

Because I am far from being an expert at the game, I am hesitant to comment on the balance of the scenarios. In all the scenarios I played, the defender (who started closer to the VP hexes) seemed to have an advantage, but that was likely because of our inexperience. Typically, the rewards for controlling hexes or capturing objectives are large enough that you can't ignore them completely and win by just killing units.

Chrome

While CoH is a pretty simple system, I don't want you to think it is totally without its bells and whistles.

The game also features cards which give you random bonuses and powers. One common card gave one unit +1d6 action points, another allowed you to mark one opponent's unit USED, the sniper card lets you take 1-3 CAPs from the other player. There is a whole deck, parts of which are removed for certain scenarios. These add some needed unpredictability to the game.

There are other special cards with certain weapons you can give troops, like hand grenades, rockets, etc. I am not mentioning these things in detail here because the scenarios I have played did not use them. I think there is an off-map artillery card, secret objective cards, and some other things we didn't really get to use.



Other chromey bits include truck units which carry troops, very simple hidden unit rules which allow for limited fog of war, hidden land mines, smoke launchers, modular terrain tiles representing things like barbed wire, roadblocks, etc., and tough-to-crack bunker tiles. All of these things add interesting twists to the gameplay and tactics without adding too much additional rules baggage. Plus, they aren't used in the introductory scenarios.


My Thoughts

In wartime truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.

- Winston Churchill


This is a brilliantly designed game, and it might be "the one" as far as tactical level wargames go. It plays very fast and the rules are simple. You are constantly analyzing what is going on and you have to react throughout the game with your CAPs and cards. It makes for a very tense game where you second guess your decisions CONSTANTLY- usually the sign of a good game. There is never a moment where you aren't watching what is going on with bated breath because every maneuver of your opponent is important.

Its fairly short and time flies, but the five turns are enough to create a pretty good narrative of the battle. At times, it reminded me of chess, as I tried to analyze my opponent's next move, then analyze what I should do, only to realize that there are so many possibilities I just needed to make a plan and stick to it.

Attacking a unit with overwhelming firepower superiority from a heavy tank, or tripping someone up with a land mine, or revealing your cleverly positioned hidden unit are all a LOT of fun. Having the other guy blow up your tank with his squad of random soldiers who got good position and a strong die roll can be fun too. This is a great game, and I think it even has the potential to catch on as a bit of a euro crossover hit because of the light rules, 2-3-4 player support, fast playing time and overall low chaos level for a wargame.

I have to admit, about twenty minutes into the first game, I was in love. I had kablooed a couple units with a big tank, my opponent was shooting up smoke grenades to screw with my line of sight and coming around my flank to breach my perimeter without messing with my roadblocks. He didn't think I would risk my big tank since it was a VP objective for him. I drove it right at his forward units, forcing one of them to have to move through a road block and risk immobilization to avoid getting blasted! Unfortunately it breached my line and wreaked havoc on me for the rest of the game. What a blast!

Although I was in love after the first few minutes, by the time we completed the other scenario, the system's little warts had shown themselves and I was having second thoughts. This is a very good game, easily the most engaging tactical WWII wargame out there with a rulebook and playing time this short. BUT there are a few little issues I wish the designer would have handled differently.



Criticism

We are not retreating - we are advancing in another direction.
-General Douglas Macarthur


CAPs. I really hate to criticize these, because this system is completely brilliant and really makes the game innovative. One thing that really bothered me were the gamey situations that came up because of the CAPs. You have a limited number of CAPs per turn and your opponent can really alter his tactics once you have used them all up. You become much less flexible on your opponent's turn if your CAPs are gone. This leads to some VERY gamey tactics.

For instance, we found ourselves taking infantry units and running circles around tanks. Your opponent only has 6 caps in this scenario. Your infantry unit can't hurt his tank unless he is adjacent to the tank for the +3 bonus AND he can get behind the tank at its rear armor. So, you can take your 7 action points, a weaker unit, and move behind the tank to get this shot. Tank's owner can spend a CAP to shoot you, but then he is out of CAPS and you will have enough action points left to rally and possibly remove the damage marker. He can pivot to deny you his rear, but every time he does that, he spends a CAP while you spend only an action point.

We had several situations where infantry units were running circles around tanks, to run the tanks out of CAPs. This seemed gamey to me... but running your opponent out of CAPs by doing whacky stuff, then going on the real warpath, is a solid strategy in this game. If not, he lets you have his rear and you can kill a tank with a scrub infantry unit. It just felt odd!

Clarification: People are totally misunderstanding what I was saying here, obviously I was not being very clear. I wasn't criticizing the tank movement rules, or rear armor. If you notice what I titled this subsection, this is a criticism of how the CAPS can cause some gamey tactics as you try to run your opponent out of CAPS before you do important things. In our game, one way we tried to force our opponent to use up CAPs was moving towards the flank of a unit to force it to move.



Line of Sight- In Conflict of Heroes, you have a tactical wargame that builds on its predecessors, taking the things that work, and changing things that don't work. Except LOS, where the designer took the same confusing argument causing system that many wargames use and left it totally untouched... adding complex hill rules that are a total pain in the ass. Line of sight typically resolves cleanly, but you will find several situations where it really frustrates you. The game doesn't come with a straight edge except for the books and paper. Keep them handy, as you will often draw a line from the center of one hex to the center of another. Of course this telegraphs your plans to your opponent and can cause arguments if people disagree over whether a line crosses a certain hex.

Too much open information! Knowing the exact stats of every unit, being able to calculate your exact probability of success in an attack, knowing exactly how far your opponent is going to be able to move.... it doesn't feel like war. There isn't enough chaos at times. I mentioned earlier that the game sometimes feels like chess. Thats sometimes good and sometimes not! There is a variant where you roll 2d6 for action points instead of just taking 7 per unit. I think this would help the too much information problem. The cards and hidden unit chrome provide another level of hidden information. There is a balance to be struck between leaving too much information out in the open and making the game too luck based. I don't want this to become a luck dependent dicefest, but at the same time I think the game has too much open information for a wargame.

The VPs occasionally create some gamey situations, like where you drive your trucks to an obscure part of the map to deny your opponent easy VPs for blowing up a truck. Pretty minor issue really...

Finally, the price. This game is $75. Its definitely worth that much looking at the great components. Problem is, it could have had "GMT level" components and sold for $40-50, and it would have played exactly the same. Mounted maps are best sold as optionals, I'll keep my plexi thank you. The chits in this game are gorgeous to the eye and the finger, but in the end I would have preferred it to be a little cheaper.



Conclusion

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
- Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb


I don't want all of my bitching about this game to give people the wrong impression. This is hands down the best tactical WWII wargame I've ever played. It avoids a lot of the bad genre tropes and strikes a real good spot on the realism/playability/complexity scale. The game is simple, short, does 2-4 players and isn't overly luck dependent. Every second of the game is tense and you are constantly thinking, reacting, formulating new plans, etc. Even euro players should take a look at this. It might not be your thing, but it will probably make you say "hmm, I see how some folks like that" the same way playing a really great eurogame might garner admiration from non-fans of the genre.

Conflict of Heroes really sets the bar higher for wargames in a number of ways, and I hope that other wargame designers follow what Eickert, CoH's designer, has done with the CAP reaction system eliminating downtime. I'm sure they will after this game has the commercial success that it should have.
Last edited on 2010-01-25 09:03:58 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
Jon Badolato
United States

Connecticut
flag msg tools
Nice review. Looking forward to my copy so I can experience all of this myself.
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron07080910
mbmbmbmbmb
Good review, but...
hancock.tom wrote:
For instance, we found ourselves taking infantry units and running circles around tanks. Your opponent only has 6 caps in this scenario. Your infantry unit can't hurt his tank unless he is adjacent to the tank for the +3 bonus AND he can get behind the tank at its rear armor. So, you can take your 7 action points, a weaker unit, and move behind the tank to get this shot.

Moving tanks forward without infantry support deserves to be punished. Isn't there some way that infantry can opportunity fire on the enemy trying to get behind the tank?

EDIT: Check the video clip on item 16 of this Geeklist for a superb illustration of Armoured Overrun with infantry support...
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/33217

Wulf
Last edited on 2008-07-20 12:15:58 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
United States
Worthington
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron080910
mbmbmbmbmb
hancock.tom wrote:
For instance, we found ourselves taking infantry units and running circles around tanks. Your infantry unit can't hurt his tank unless he is adjacent to the tank for the +3 bonus AND he can get behind the tank at its rear armor. So, you can take your 7 action points, a weaker unit, and move behind the tank to get this shot.


This isn't an exampe of a flaw in the game sysytem, it's an exapmle of a flaw in game play. Two words came to mind when I read this, Combined Arms.

Last edited on 2008-07-20 22:09:08 CST (Total Number of Edits: 12)
Tom Hancock
United States
Charleston
West Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron06070809
mbmbmbmbmb
kaufschtick wrote:

Yes, this isn't an exampe of a flaw in the game sysytem, it's an exapmle of a flaw in game play. Two words came to mind when I read that section, Combined Arms.


Flaw in game play? I didn't make myself clear in the review. My point was to force the other player to use his CAPs so that I could run wild for the rest of my turns without worrying about him using CAPs to stop me.

I would be absolutely delighted if my opponent shot me up with infantry (combined arms) in that situation. If the enemy infantry tries to shoot at me while I am moving to get a close shot at the tank's rear armor, that would cost my opponent at least 2 CAPS per shot, probably more depending on what infantry unit he is using for "combined arms." Plus if you shoot at me, you didn't move your tank, meaning I would get my desired shot on the back armor at +3.

The whole purpose of the "ring around the tank" tactic is to get you to use up your CAPs. If you do it by shooting at me with infantry instead of pivoting or moving the tank, then I get the added bonus of a nice shot on your tank. You are still out of CAPs, which in Conflict of Heroes, means all sorts of unrealistic crap can happen because without CAPs its an I go - U go type of thing.

Again, I don't want this review to look like some huge bashing of Conflict of Heroes. It is an absolutely incredible game with a really innovative design. I just feel like I need to point out some of the things I thought were a bit odd about the game.

By the way, this review is supposed to have a lot more pictures, but the BGG image database shit the bed.

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for the tip, Wulf.
Last edited on 2008-07-20 12:36:52 CST (Total Number of Edits: 3)
Jim Cote
United States

Maine
flag msg tools
Avatar
050607080910
mbmbmbmbmb
hancock.tom wrote:
Basically, when one player activates a unit, he does each of his expenditures of action points, pausing between each to give the other player a chance to react. For instance, I might be planning to move, move, move, then fire. Between each movement, my opponent would get a chance to react by spending his CAPs.

I assume you were being deliberately brief here, but just to be more detailed...

There is one and only one activated unit, and it gets 7 APs to spend. However, both players may spend CAPs, use opportunity actions, and/or play cards to take actions. For example, I activate a squad and move it for 3 APs. You take an opportunity action to move an unused unit, flipping it over to its used side. I spend 4 CAPs to fire with any unit (even a used unit or the currently activated unit). You play a card that allows you to take an action with any unit. I fire at you with an unused unit, flipping it over. You pass. I continue spending my original AP. You can continue to react to each action I take...
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron07080910
mbmbmbmbmb
hancock.tom wrote:
I would be absolutely delighted if my opponent shot me up with infantry (combined arms) in that situation. If the enemy infantry tries to shoot at me while I am moving to get a close shot at the tank's rear armor, that would cost my opponent at least 2 CAPS per shot, probably more depending on what infantry unit he is using for "combined arms." Plus if you shoot at me, you didn't move your tank, meaning I would get my desired shot on the back armor at +3.

So there's no capacity in this game to Opp fire? ANY activation uses up a unit's activation, and only one unit activates at a time? You should still be capable of using bounding fire though (keep a few units stationary to provide covering fire while moving others up). If this game really doesn't have a technique to provide Combined Arms covering fire, it's seriously broken - but no-one else has pointed this out previously, so I'd guess I'm missing something.
United States
Worthington
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron080910
mbmbmbmbmb
hancock.tom wrote:
Too much open information!... knowing exactly how far your opponent is going to be able to move.... it doesn't feel like war.


I've made the "Optional: Variable Action Point" rule a standard. Instead of every unit getting 7 APs, you roll 2D6 to see how many APs that unit gets. I highly recommend using this optioal rule. thumbsup


hancock.tom wrote:
Finally, the price. This game is $75. Its definitely worth that much looking at the great components. Problem is, it could have had "GMT level" components and sold for $40-50, and it would have played exactly the same.


To each his own, but for my money, I'll take mounted boards and quality components every time. You can order CoH from online retailers for as low as $48.80 (Boulder Games).


Last edited on 2008-07-20 19:42:50 CST (Total Number of Edits: 9)
James Palmer
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0809
mbmbmbmbmb
hancock.tom wrote:

For instance, we found ourselves taking infantry units and running circles around tanks. Your opponent only has 6 caps in this scenario. Your infantry unit can't hurt his tank unless he is adjacent to the tank for the +3 bonus AND he can get behind the tank at its rear armor. So, you can take your 7 action points, a weaker unit, and move behind the tank to get this shot. Tank's owner can spend a CAP to shoot you, but then he is out of CAPS and you will have enough action points left to rally and possibly remove the damage marker. He can pivot to deny you his rear, but every time he does that, he spends a CAP while you spend only an action point.


First of all, thanks for the review! I really enjoyed it, and it's good to hear a few criticisms as well.

In the situation you mention though, couldn't the tank just, you know, move away? Tanks can generally move multiple hexes per movement where infantry can only move one, correct? So a tank could move away pretty cheaply and the infantry wouldn't easily get back around to the flank. I haven't played the game yet so I could be wrong on this, but this would seem like another possible way to deal with this situation.
James Palmer
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0809
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm fairly sure on open ground many vehicles can move multiple hexes per action - is that not true? I'm positive I read that somewhere.
United States
Worthington
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron080910
mbmbmbmbmb
Felkor wrote:
I'm fairly sure on open ground many vehicles can move multiple hexes per action - is that not true? I'm positive I read that somewhere.


Depends on the terrain, which would have to be open or road only.

BTW, you could move away as you say, but there are a lot of situation specifics here that could come into play, terrain being just one. In order to move away if you're not the active player, you would move once for every move by your opponent, not just in one big swoop. But yeah, you could do that.

Last edited on 2008-07-20 19:53:07 CST (Total Number of Edits: 10)
James Palmer
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0809
mbmbmbmbmb
In that case it doesn't surprise me that infantry can run circles around tanks in rougher terrain.

Anyways, I'm interested to see if this situation comes up in my games when I get it. As a Euro gamer just getting into wargames, having a bit of "gameyness" doesn't bother me too uch - I mean, my only current game that really could be called a wargame is "Battlelore", which is about as gamey as things get.
United States
Worthington
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron080910
mbmbmbmbmb
Felkor wrote:
Anyways, I'm interested to see if this situation comes up in my games when I get it.


Again, I'm sure that these guys will see soon enough that the "ring around the tank" is a product of their game play decisions, and not of the game system.

In looking back on this thread, I'm wondering if the players didn't miss some key rules.

First, for most infantry to even damage a tank, it's a pretty risky gamble at best, except for pioneers. It kinda looks like they may have missed the part where red attack factors get halved (and rounded down on top of that) against blue defense values?

Secondly, they may have missed the close combat rules altogether, which gives a same hex attack a +4 bonus as opposed to a +3 adjacent hex bonus? Why shoot at +3 when you can shoot at +4?

Thirdly, there is an optional "Cautious Movement" rule that penalizes a unit moving with a -1 defense modifier if it does not do so "cautiously". Cautious movement costs an extra AP per hex, but avoids the reduction in the defense value.

As far as infantry vs tanks go in the first place, let's look at the best Soviet infantry squad (PPSh squad) vs the weakest German tank (Pnzr IIf). First in attacking from an adjacent hex, then attacking from the same hex.

If the Soviet squad attacks adjacent against the tanks flank, it's going to be 4 (attack value) + 3 (adjacent attack bonus)= 7. All rounding down occurs after adding all modifiers, so this becomes a 3. So it's 3 + 2D6. That against the flank defense value of 12 for the Pnzr II. The attacker needs to equal the defense value to score one hit, or exceed the defense value by four for two hits (a kill).

You can see that, without any CAP modifiers (which would be subject to halving) or defensive terrain modifiers, that the Soviet PPSh would need to roll a 9 on 2D6 to score a hit. Pretty slim (27.7%) odds, no chance for a one shot kill (unless the one hit marker pulled was the single "killed" marker).

The same attack, if made in the same hex, would be 4 (attack factor) + 4(same hex attack bonus)= 8, rounded down to 4. That + 2D6 against a DV of 12. An 8 or better to hit (41.6%), or a kill if he rolls boxcars (2.7%)!

Based on all of this, I'd say there is a fair chance that a couple of rules got missed. Hey, it happens to all of us!:)


Last edited on 2008-07-20 20:21:33 CST (Total Number of Edits: 27)
Sean McCormick
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
hancock.tom wrote:
Introduction
So my buddy Travis shows up at game night with Conflict of Heroes, made by a german guy from South America, who apparently thinks the nazis and communists are heroes. Draw your own conclusions about that.


The conclusion I would draw is that physical courage has very little to do with geopolitical causes.

That quibble aside, this is an excellent review. Thanks for writing it.
Sean Shaw
United States

Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good review. I'll differ in one thing, I'd much rather pay more money and get better boards than not, but then that's a matter of opinion.
United States
Worthington
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron080910
mbmbmbmbmb
seanmac wrote:
That quibble aside, this is an excellent review. Thanks for writing it.


At first glance, I thought so too, but IMHO, he is in serious error in his "Critisms" section regarding his conclusion of "ring around the tank" tactics. This is clearly a fault in game play, and not a fault in game design.

It appears to me that this review has been made by a new player who has missed a couple key elelments of the rules. Other than that, it is a good review.

Last edited on 2008-07-20 20:22:34 CST (Total Number of Edits: 5)
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron07080910
mbmbmbmbmb
kaufschtick wrote:
It appears to me that this review has been made by a new player who has missed a couple key elelments of the rules. Other than that, it is a good review.

I quite like that. It's not just a review, it's a FAQ in the making...
uwe eickert
United States
Helena
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
patron080910
mbmb
Tom,
What an excellent review, thank you for taking the time to do this.

There are several clarifications that I would like to make.

1. Using CAPS. Any unused unit may take any action without using CAPs. So a used tank with infantry support would be rather safe, since any enemy infantry moving non-cautiously would be mowed down by the supporting infantry. These supporting infantry could react using an opportunity action (no CAPs involved), command action (with CAPs), or with action cards (again no CAPs). It is often difficult to decide when to send a tank forward into enemy territory without support (even though most are pretty invulnerable to infantry and MG fire).

2. Vehicle movement. James is correct in his vehicle movement assessment. A vehicle gets a complete action movement, before any reactions occur. Ex: A German Pioneer cautiously moves next to a T-34 for 2APs. The T-34 could now reaction move 3 open hexes for 1CAP, before any other action takes place. The Pioneer would have to spend an extra 6APs in cautious movement to catch up. In the mean time, the Soviet could react to it 3 times! So it is seldom that infantry can actually run circles around a tank.

These are subtleties that become evident with further play.

Again, thank you for the review, I appreciate the effort.

Uwe

Uwe Eickert
Academy Games
Last edited on 2008-07-20 17:11:50 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Randall Shaw
United States

Georgia
flag msg tools
"Too Much Open Information!"

Isn't this also addressed to a degree by the hidden wound chits?
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron07080910
mbmbmbmbmb
Sokadr wrote:
"Too Much Open Information!"

Isn't this also addressed to a degree by the hidden wound chits?

Considering I'll be playing solo 99% of the time, it's not a great concern for me :D
Richard Savage
United States
Clearwater
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Put me down for quality boards and counters for the extra price also. A
lot of gamers bemoan the thin maps and counters in wargaming, now's the chance to show that we're willing to pay for quality.
Jonathan
United States
Orlando
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
04050607080910
mbmbmbmbmb
This is exactly the kind of review I want to read. It gives a straightforward opinion, with both pros and cons. I want CoH even more now. Thank you!
Tom Hancock
United States
Charleston
West Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron06070809
mbmbmbmbmb
uweeickert wrote:
Tom,
What an excellent review, thank you for taking the time to do this.

There are several clarifications that I would like to make.

1. Using CAPS. Any unused unit may take any action without using CAPs. So a used tank with infantry support would be rather safe, since any enemy infantry moving non-cautiously would be mowed down by the supporting infantry. These supporting infantry could react using an opportunity action (no CAPs involved), command action (with CAPs), or with action cards (again no CAPs). It is often difficult to decide when to send a tank forward into enemy territory without support (even though most are pretty invulnerable to infantry and MG fire).

2. Vehicle movement. James is correct in his vehicle movement assessment. A vehicle gets a complete action movement, before any reactions occur. Ex: A German Pioneer cautiously moves next to a T-34 for 2APs. The T-34 could now reaction move 3 open hexes for 1CAP, before any other action takes place. The Pioneer would have to spend an extra 6APs in cautious movement to catch up. In the mean time, the Soviet could react to it 3 times! So it is seldom that infantry can actually run circles around a tank.

These are subtleties that become evident with further play.

Again, thank you for the review, I appreciate the effort.

Uwe

Uwe Eickert
Academy Games


Uwe, I wasn't criticizing anything about the rear armor rules or the tank rules... my criticism was that its often in your best interest to try to run the other player out of CAPs before making your key moves in a turn. Once the other player is out of CAPs, you have a lot easier time of it. I've added a clarification in my original review, above. I am sure some folks will disagree with that too, I just want to make it clear what I was complaining about :p

As I said in the conclusion of my review, I did not want my minor niggling criticisms of the game to overshadow my praise for it, unfortunately it appears that is exactly what has happened. This is an excellent game, easily one of the top one or two games that has come out this year, and one of the best tactical wargames I've ever played. I really dislike that people have dwelled on my criticisms of the game, because I think it is a fantastic design and I don't want this review to bring about any negative press for it.

United States
Worthington
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron080910
mbmbmbmbmb
hancock.tom wrote:
Clarification: People are totally misunderstanding what I was saying here, obviously I was not being very clear. I wasn't criticizing the tank movement rules, or rear armor. If you notice what I titled this subsection, this is a criticism of how the CAPS can cause some gamey tactics as you try to run your opponent out of CAPS before you do important things. In our game, one way we tried to force our opponent to use up CAPs was moving towards the flank of a unit to force it to move.


Trying to turn an ememy units flank, or feinting such a move, is anything but gamey!?!:wow:

I think I see what you're trying to say though, you're saying that trying to make your opponent waste his CAPs is a strategy. I agree, but that is exactly what the game is trying to represent! It's not a flaw of the game, nor should it be labelled a critism, it's actually one of the main strengths.thumbsup

If a units leaders waste all of their attention and efforts on an enemy diversion, then they are going to be more vulnerable to the real threat. It should be that way.

Last edited on 2008-07-20 22:13:33 CST (Total Number of Edits: 15)
James Palmer
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0809
mbmbmbmbmb
hancock.tom wrote:

As I said in the conclusion of my review, I did not want my minor niggling criticisms of the game to overshadow my praise for it, unfortunately it appears that is exactly what has happened.


This is bound to happen just because you're the first person to bring any criticisms about the game.

Anyways, I'm happy you've enjoyed the game and your review has actually made me more excited to play it.

Thanks,
James
Last edited on 2008-07-20 21:09:28 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | DMCA | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.