[Consim-l] My gaming 2008

[Markus Stumptner]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Dave Kohr wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Mircea Pauca <mircea.pauca at gmail.com> wrote:
>>   Here in Bucuresti, Romania we have got a bit closer to the
>> West by the opening of the first FLGS.
>> ...
>> The
>> owner seems to swear by BoardGameGeek.com and also brought
>> the new #1, Conflict of Heroes (worthy ? really replaces ASL for
>> the masses ?)
>
> Conflict of Heroes is extremely promising. I like it better than
> Lock'n'Load (less fiddly, a bit less random), and much better than
> Combat Commander (which I find extremely random, plus it deliberately
> lacks vehicles). It's distinctly more complex and longer than Memoir
> '44, yet simpler and faster-playing than Lock'n'Load or Combat
> Commander. I think it's better as a strategy game and "feels" more
> realistic than any of those 3. It is too simple to appeal to hardcore
> ASL players, but a lot of people who are inclined to like the ASLSK's
> may prefer CoH instead. If you like tactical WWII games, it's
> definitely worth checking out.

Interesting comments.  I had a choice between CoH and Combat Commander: 
Pacific last week and eventually decided to grab CC:P first, for a couple 
of reasons.

I agree that the lack of vehicles in the Combat Commmander series is a 
restriction, but I see CC mostly as "Up Front with a map" - I've played 
hundreds of UF scenarios and perhaps half a dozen with vehicles, so I 
don't see that as a killer restriction.  I wasn't quite sure about the CC 
system so I waited until the Pacific edition came out - (a) because I'm 
more interested in the Pacific anyway and (b) because in that theatre, 
armour isn't going to be as strongly felt.  I agree that it's a bit slower 
than I'd expect.  Chris Harding and I had our second game last night and 
spent in excess of 3 hours on the smallest scenario.  I hope it will get 
faster.

One thing that I find a bit disconcerting in CC is that, due to the scale, 
the small map size, and the large hexes, the heavier support weapons can 
fire right across the map, and not only that, but there is no modifier to 
their effectiveness based on range.  This means that once you have a 
firing position with good lanes of fire you just have them sit and blast 
away.  (Shades of the Up Front "LMG on the hill at RR 1" situation, I 
guess.)  Also, some of the effects that in UF were random (e.g., weapons 
failure and repair) are here more a "finger of God" kind of thing where 
you can pick which gun on the other side is going to jam.  That gets in 
the way of the illusion.  However, I'm still considering getting the 
European and Med boxes. We'll see.

Concerning Conflict of Heroes, I've heard from a number of people 
(independently) the concern that the activation point system (or whatever 
they're called) leads to situations where machine guns fire more often on 
the attack than on the defense (not due to any intrinsic property of the 
counter, but because of how the point system leads to fire being dished 
ou).  That's been quite worrying for me, since any notion of representing 
historical tactics would go down the drain if that's true...

Markus

Last 3 games played:  Race for Space, Chaco War, Combat Commander: Pacific
--------------- http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/user/mst/games/ ---------------
"Bakayaro! Bakayaro!"  ("Stupid Bastards!  Stupid Bastards!") -- Admiral 
Aritomo Goto's last words to his staff, October 11, 1942