$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 100.68

6,373 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
40.2% of Goal | left

Support:

Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Am using Vassal to teach my brother how to play CoH before bringing my copy for a visit ... have gotten to the point where we're ready to use the alternate AP rule (roll three dice, AP is sum of high and low). I assume this is why the module has a "roll three dice" feature.

But the problem that I can see, is that when you roll the dice, the result shows in the activity log window. This of course allows the opponent to see the roll results, which is contrary to a significant purpose of the alternative method!

So do you have a workaround method that you implement, to avoid this? We talked about scrolling the dice results out of view, sliding the right edge of the activity log window to the left to hide the results, or even sticking a "sticky" note on the monitor, to cover the results. But all those solutions fail when the other player needs to roll dice for any reason, as he now is going to HAVE to look at the same window to view his results!

In the end, we decided perhaps the best way is to simply abandon the built-in three dice roll feature and each of us roll three real dice and use the "honor system".

If any of you have faced the same issue, what method works for you?

Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin L. Kitchens
United States
Gainesville
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
There's two factors to the 3-Dice rule...

1. Simply a variable number of APs (so Vassal is fine)

2. Is a hidden number of APs (what you're after) and I cannot think of a way to hack to mod to allow for that. You could do a hidden die roll, but it would still be the honor system.

It would be great if the mod developer would implement the even superior spent-check system from the solo module (which many are now using in 2P games as well). Gets rid of the whole AP tracking/single activated unit method altogether.

But regardless, since you're just playing a teaching game, the number of APs being 7 is probably simpler to just leave as is and then add in person the variable/secret method.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

klkitchens wrote:
...APs being 7 is probably simpler to just leave as is and then add in person the variable/secret method.

Kevin, thanks for the reply! Yeah, we talked about this also - simply waiting till we play in person - and barring any great ideas from the crowd, will likely end up going this route.


And not to derail my own thread, but I am curious about the "Spent-Check" system that you mentioned. I also have the solo expansion and find that system to be elegantly simple. But without playing enough games yet to draw my own conclusion, I consider that system to be only a workaround, necessary in order to make the solo system work.

So (again, with having tried it enough to comment intelligently), I have a notion that the "Spent-Check" system "breaks" the AP system designed for the 2-player game. I just have this feeling that as the game is designed so that each unit gets (an average of) 7 APs to use, then I surmise that to introduce a different system would break that designed intention.

Basically what I'm trying to say, is I'm surmising that the 7 APs is part of the game's design for a specific purpose, and thusly to alter that design element would "break" that purpose.

Obviously, you and many others more experienced players say that it works great for the standard two-player game. I'm struggling to think of why that would be the case - especially when compared to the alternative 3-dice AP rule. Thoughts?

I know there are other threads that discuss this topic... I should go seek them out.. but I wanted to grab you here, while I can!

Thx!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin L. Kitchens
United States
Gainesville
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
bgm1961 wrote:

klkitchens wrote:
...APs being 7 is probably simpler to just leave as is and then add in person the variable/secret method.

Kevin, thanks for the reply! Yeah, we talked about this also - simply waiting till we play in person - and barring any great ideas from the crowd, will likely end up going this route.

And not to derail my own thread, but I am curious about the "Spent-Check" system that you mentioned. I also have the solo expansion and find that system to be elegantly simple. But without playing enough games yet to draw my own conclusion, I consider that system to be only a workaround, necessary in order to make the solo system work.

So (again, with having tried it enough to comment intelligently), I have a notion that the "Spent-Check" system "breaks" the AP system designed for the 2-player game. I just have this feeling that as the game is designed so that each unit gets (an average of) 7 APs to use, then I surmise that to introduce a different system would break that designed intention.

Basically what I'm trying to say, is I'm surmising that the 7 APs is part of the game's design for a specific purpose, and thusly to alter that design element would "break" that purpose.

Obviously, you and many others more experienced players say that it works great for the standard two-player game. I'm struggling to think of why that would be the case - especially when compared to the alternative 3-dice AP rule. Thoughts?

Thx!


I know the team at Academy likes the idea. They allowed me to convert the cards into counters for this very purpose -- so that players could add it to the 2P game without owning the solo expansion.

I think that like the variable AP method, it introduces more uncertainty. It also allows you to switch easily between units and not be locked into one activated unit (some still do this in the regular game with the set 7APs by using dice to denote the number of APs each unit has left and switching units at will).

The bigger the move in a single action, the bigger the risk they become spent. So when you use a unit, you never know if they're done for the turn -- and neither does the opponent -- until that turn is complete. But then on your next turn, if you need to respond somewhere else on the map, you can without having to prematurely end the active units' turn.

I don't think I'll ever play with the APs again.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benny Bosmans
Belgium
Mechelen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
klkitchens wrote:
bgm1961 wrote:

klkitchens wrote:
...APs being 7 is probably simpler to just leave as is and then add in person the variable/secret method.

Kevin, thanks for the reply! Yeah, we talked about this also - simply waiting till we play in person - and barring any great ideas from the crowd, will likely end up going this route.

And not to derail my own thread, but I am curious about the "Spent-Check" system that you mentioned. I also have the solo expansion and find that system to be elegantly simple. But without playing enough games yet to draw my own conclusion, I consider that system to be only a workaround, necessary in order to make the solo system work.

So (again, with having tried it enough to comment intelligently), I have a notion that the "Spent-Check" system "breaks" the AP system designed for the 2-player game. I just have this feeling that as the game is designed so that each unit gets (an average of) 7 APs to use, then I surmise that to introduce a different system would break that designed intention.

Basically what I'm trying to say, is I'm surmising that the 7 APs is part of the game's design for a specific purpose, and thusly to alter that design element would "break" that purpose.

Obviously, you and many others more experienced players say that it works great for the standard two-player game. I'm struggling to think of why that would be the case - especially when compared to the alternative 3-dice AP rule. Thoughts?

Thx!


I know the team at Academy likes the idea. They allowed me to convert the cards into counters for this very purpose -- so that players could add it to the 2P game without owning the solo expansion.

I think that like the variable AP method, it introduces more uncertainty. It also allows you to switch easily between units and not be locked into one activated unit (some still do this in the regular game with the set 7APs by using dice to denote the number of APs each unit has left and switching units at will).

The bigger the move in a single action, the bigger the risk they become spent. So when you use a unit, you never know if they're done for the turn -- and neither does the opponent -- until that turn is complete. But then on your next turn, if you need to respond somewhere else on the map, you can without having to prematurely end the active units' turn.

I don't think I'll ever play with the APs again.




I agree Kevin. And as someone who played a great amount of CoH over the last 1.5 years I can say that the solo card spend mechanism hardly has an influence on play balance in the game.

I played several scenarios of AtB over different systems and even platforms (Steam) and the solo mechanic is by far the best one to use in 2 player games.

There is no significant "persistent" change in using the default 7 AP system (random or not) with the spend mechanism of the solo cards (or your chits).

At first I thought that with a small number of units there would be a bigger influence, so I tested it with the KV scenario numurous times. It is a good scenario to test this out as there are not many units and the KV can only do things once in normal 7 AP mode without counting on Combat cards or CAP's...

In the end all these sessions turned out to be great experiences, but the VAST superior tension was with the solo spend mechanics really. Even your tactical use of group moves, combined with CAP spending and card play is simply BETTER with the push your luck style of playing.

The computer version already had this hopping between units (and so auto retaining non used AP points), but the solo spend mechanics are simply superior.

It makes the game feel less gamey, one of the most commonly heard criticism of fans of other tactical games .

I don't use the "head" symbol though as both players should be on their tactical toes with CAP's and tactical cards...

As a matter of fact: with this testing I realise I can play the KV scenario endlessly really. It shows what an incredible game the CoH system really is.

I haven't been playing boardgames a lot lately but this post already made me long for another go at the system !

And yes: I am going to use your chits instead of the cards too, as they are handy and just can sit in the basic box.

In fact, playing like this is as fun as the pure solo/generator expansion for normal scenarios in solo mode.

I wish Uwe and his son would include these chits as a small official rule expansion too btw. The system goes through the roof with this .

Thanks for the chit design
2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Ben_Bos wrote:
I wish Uwe and his son would include these chits as a small official rule expansion too btw. The system goes through the roof with this .

Thanks to both of you for the great discussion!
Yeah, the above excerpt is what would "seal the deal" for me (Uwe making this system "official" for the PvP game), and releasing the components as a "kit" to current owners. Notice I said, "kit" instead of "expansion"...

Because to really seal the deal, it would take Uwe taking the "chit system" and declaring it to be the standard Action Point method, while keeping the 7 AP and 3-Dice methods but declaring them as optional! All official, of course.

And if he was to do that, then he could offer the chits as a "rules change kit".

But I say all this based on your comments, and a few other comments here in the BGG forums. I'll definitely be trying this system when I play against my brother next month and perhaps will motivate me to lend a helping voice to "the cause"!

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.