Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Conflict of Heroes: Eastern Front – Solo Expansion» Forums » Rules

Subject: Solo Mission 1 Misprint Correction rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
btrhoads
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For those that already have their copies this post may help to confirm a suspicion. I was playing mission 1 with both Gunter and Uwe (taking turns walking me through it) at Origins and this misprint came up.

On the Mission Track, box 2 for sniper fire should read Russian instead of German CAP loss. This is meant to punish the human player and the human player in this mission is Russian.

This is a very good scenario by the way. It is small and the action is immediate. Great starter scenario.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Piepho
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it surreal that after all the delays, reboots, erroneous announcements of release, video promises, etc. that there would be an error in the first scenario?! If this was picked up on an early playthrough now that release has finally occurred, how much playtesting was actually done? This correction would seem like the low-hanging fruit is terms of error recognition, particularly after all that has been said on these forums regarding the extensive development over some three years.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W McG
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
skystalker wrote:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it surreal that after all the delays, reboots, erroneous announcements of release, video promises, etc. that there would be an error in the first scenario?! If this was picked up on an early playthrough now that release has finally occurred, how much playtesting was actually done? This correction would seem like the low-hanging fruit is terms of error recognition, particularly after all that has been said on these forums regarding the extensive development over some three years.


I'm less disappointed in the error than I am in the 'revolutionary new solo combat system' which is little more than checking if X condition exists and then going through a list of results based on that condition. This kind of system has existed in my own games, and every solo game developer I've ever known... so not sure what is so special about this system... Pretty underwhelmed by the Chief's preview of it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Goodrich
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
Why can't more games have a handicapping mechanism?
badge
Becoming immortal!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
New_Sheriff wrote:
skystalker wrote:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it surreal that after all the delays, reboots, erroneous announcements of release, video promises, etc. that there would be an error in the first scenario?! If this was picked up on an early playthrough now that release has finally occurred, how much playtesting was actually done? This correction would seem like the low-hanging fruit is terms of error recognition, particularly after all that has been said on these forums regarding the extensive development over some three years.


I'm less disappointed in the error than I am in the 'revolutionary new solo combat system' which is little more than checking if X condition exists and then going through a list of results based on that condition. This kind of system has existed in my own games, and every solo game developer I've ever known... so not sure what is so special about this system... Pretty underwhelmed by the Chief's preview of it.


I understand what you're saying, but I was not underwhelmed. For me, the proof is in how well it functions as an A.I. Is it overly painful/fiddly to check the conditions? If not, and the deck provide a flexible, strong opponent that uses different tactics from play to play, I'll be more than satisfied.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael J
United States
Folsom
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
New_Sheriff wrote:
skystalker wrote:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it surreal that after all the delays, reboots, erroneous announcements of release, video promises, etc. that there would be an error in the first scenario?! If this was picked up on an early playthrough now that release has finally occurred, how much playtesting was actually done? This correction would seem like the low-hanging fruit is terms of error recognition, particularly after all that has been said on these forums regarding the extensive development over some three years.


I'm less disappointed in the error than I am in the 'revolutionary new solo combat system' which is little more than checking if X condition exists and then going through a list of results based on that condition. This kind of system has existed in my own games, and every solo game developer I've ever known... so not sure what is so special about this system... Pretty underwhelmed by the Chief's preview of it.


Other iterations of this type of logic system exist in Gears of War and the D&D Adventure Series games. But those conditionals usually involved "If X creature is within 2 squares of an enemy move one spot closer" or "If X Creature is on adjacent square, fire" or "if X creature is on same square, melee attack". The choices were pretty simple. It looks like in CoH, the choices are:

1) Far more numerous, like at least 5-7 different action options per card
2) For more complex, like "weakest unit", "unit with highest FP", "unit closest to enemy", "unit closest to weakest human unit with highest lowest", etc... These are FAR MORE SOPHISTICATED as options than the previous iterations of this mechanic and offer a far more detailed and intelligent decision tree than the more general branching options in other games.

Additionally, the game has potential enemy contacts, whispers of noise and shadow that may or may not be enemies. These noises move around and spook your units, forcing you to adapt different strategies.

AND, mission tracks have custom events that can happen specific to that mission but not all of these events will happen every time. In the D&D adventure games, you'd have a few random events that came out, but had no real relation to the specific mission. And occasionally, there was a mission specific event like "when you reach the cauldron, three monsters appear". Same in Gears of War. You'd have a specific creature that did something upon a trigger, or a specific door that when opened would release a new monster, but nothing complex. In CoH solo-missions, there are 10-15 different events that could happen, and they are specific to the mission itself so will have very believable and thematic results.

All in all, I'd say the CoH system is far more complex than what I've seen before in the "if X chose Y else do Z" systems that have been released previously.

I wouldn't call the system "revolutionary" or "ground-breaking" like they did leading up to release, but I would call it a significantly improved version of systems that existed before. In my mind, that's OK. Especially if the game is fun, and that's what it is about.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W McG
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mjacobsca wrote:

I wouldn't call the system "evolutionary" or "ground-breaking" like they did leading up to release...


Exactly. My beef was with the hype, not how the product plays, nor as it may have read from the poor wording in my previous post the Chief's presentation of the material.

All that matters is that the game is good and fun. Hype-wise though, I haven't seen anything in this 'new, revolutionary solo system' that I haven't seen in other home-brew rules systems. That's not a knock on their design, that's just pointing out that the hype itself may be unfounded.

They managed to fit common sense on a card though, whereas I usually just see these rules as agreed upon or within tables in home brew rule books. The concept of phantom troops is a nice touch, but nothing new... to me at least. Having to fire into it to see if it's real doesn't strike me a good mechanic, unless it's an airstrike or arty, but whatever. Back in the day we did this by putting stickers on the bottom of our Axis & Allies minis and then deploying them alongside real troops. Your opponent could never tell if you were deploying real or fake units unless they conducted intelligence checks or entered the engagement. We used the same system when to converting A&A to a coop/solo game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Palmer
Canada
Ayr
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For myself, I find the AI is a case where the sum is greater than the parts. It doesn't include one specific "revolutionary" mechanic (at least, not that I'm aware of), but a lot is accomplished with this AI:

- It can play either offensively or defensively
- It uses the same units that the player uses (i.e., not a horde of simpletons, like with a game like Gears of War)
- The units act using (more or less) the same rules that the players play by.
- It's so flexible you can use the new Firefight Generator to create a more-or-less random battle and have the A.I. play admirably.
- All the above and to work it, you just need to flip a card each turn and do what it says, nothing more.

Personally, I haven't seen another board game AI work well enough that the above are true. So to me, that's a big step in boardgaming AI.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich M
United States
Greenwood
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I actually think the AI is a derivative of the Matrix Games PC version.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kurt R
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
All life is only a set of pictures in the brain, among which there is no difference betwixt those born of real things and those born of inward dreamings, and no cause to value the one above the other.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
skystalker wrote:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it surreal that after all the delays, reboots, erroneous announcements of release, video promises, etc. that there would be an error in the first scenario?! If this was picked up on an early playthrough now that release has finally occurred, how much playtesting was actually done? This correction would seem like the low-hanging fruit is terms of error recognition, particularly after all that has been said on these forums regarding the extensive development over some three years.

I'm excited for this game, but I cannot disagree with that observation. I'm hoping that's the last of it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael J
United States
Folsom
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
New_Sheriff wrote:
mjacobsca wrote:

I wouldn't call the system "evolutionary" or "ground-breaking" like they did leading up to release...


Exactly. My beef was with the hype, not how the product plays, nor as it may have read from the poor wording in my previous post the Chief's presentation of the material.


Honestly, I think a lot of the hype was coming from the system that John Butterfield was working on. He has always been the master at solitaire systems (in my opinion), and since he was at the helm, they claimed the system he was designing was going to be revolutionary. I wasn't going to doubt them, as John is an amazing designer that has created great solitaire experiences for two generations of gamers now.

But when they switched over to the agent-based-logic, I agree that the system was no longer revolutionary. But they kept the marketing going just the same, and continued the party line about the new system.

Sure, it's similar to what was done before, but they added a ton of stuff to those systems. And what they ended up with is incredibly versatile.

For example, in many of the D&D Adventure game missions I played, the enemy would attack too little, or it would attack too much, or you'd be walking down the hall and then a trap would arise that would kill everyone. Sometimes the game just didn't play smooth; you couldn't count on a mission playing to the last dying breath every time. It was often just a cakewalk, or a blood bath. But heck, even the best play-against-the-system-games have this. Take Pandemic. I've read about games that ended on Turn 1. And most of my own games seem to go all the way to the end. You can't control for everything.

In another example, in Gears of War, the enemy AI often did really weird things. Like not attack at all until you spawned more monsters on the board. So what was your response? You would just avoid killing the last monster so that a new spawn card wouldn't come up. It was very gamey.

I think, from what I can tell, that the CoH system is going to be far more intelligent and believable than those other games. And let me tell you, playing those other games was really fun (most of the time), so an improvement on them in a WWII setting is going to be INCREDIBLE.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Piepho
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I actually think the AI is a derivative of the Matrix Games PC version.

I sure hope that you're wrong on that, as it's pretty easy to beat the AI in the PC version. The hype on this system has been how tough it is to beat, so I'm thinking this must be different.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich M
United States
Greenwood
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
skystalker wrote:
Quote:
I actually think the AI is a derivative of the Matrix Games PC version.

I sure hope that you're wrong on that, as it's pretty easy to beat the AI in the PC version. The hype on this system has been how tough it is to beat, so I'm thinking this must be different.

It looks like it is doing a lot of if and then logic, at least from the video's. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with that as I already have done the same thing for other wargames to play them solo.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Bosmans
Belgium
Mechelen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
New_Sheriff wrote:

Exactly. My beef was with the hype, not how the product plays, nor as it may have read from the poor wording in my previous post the Chief's presentation of the material.

All that matters is that the game is good and fun. Hype-wise though, I haven't seen anything in this 'new, revolutionary solo system' that I haven't seen in other home-brew rules systems. That's not a knock on their design, that's just pointing out that the hype itself may be unfounded.

They managed to fit common sense on a card though, whereas I usually just see these rules as agreed upon or within tables in home brew rule books. The concept of phantom troops is a nice touch, but nothing new... to me at least. Having to fire into it to see if it's real doesn't strike me a good mechanic, unless it's an airstrike or arty, but whatever. Back in the day we did this by putting stickers on the bottom of our Axis & Allies minis and then deploying them alongside real troops. Your opponent could never tell if you were deploying real or fake units unless they conducted intelligence checks or entered the engagement. We used the same system when to converting A&A to a coop/solo game.


How does it come that anything new that's worthwhile to look at and to enjoy ... some guys Always come bashing in to try to deny this is as a fun new experience for some fans.

Pff: Look at the MANY errors in Ambush or earlier Butterfield games and see how much we enjoyed them nevertheless.

And dude ... please stop putting Axis and Allies (WTF) at the front of game design .... Duh ....

I like the basic CoH game and if this makes me play it solo even more whenever I want it's a win/win.

I don't need 50.000 other people to play/enjoy it/agree and quite frankly I don't care either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lewis Karl
United States
Vienna
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
For once I agree with Benny.

I may be proved wrong when I finally get the game, but I'll wait until I get the game and play several times before criticizing.

I'm was glad when they went with something different from the Butterfield approach. The little circle, triangle, square thing is not all that revolutionary either (at least not anymore). While enjoyable, the Butterfield games I have (D-Day and Dieppe) don't play like I think a true AI system should. I don't know how to describe it, but they are too mechanical in a way.

I expect the CoH solo system, at least the firefights with a mission track, to be a more realistic gaming experience.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W McG
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ben_Bos wrote:
New_Sheriff wrote:

Exactly. My beef was with the hype, not how the product plays, nor as it may have read from the poor wording in my previous post the Chief's presentation of the material.

All that matters is that the game is good and fun. Hype-wise though, I haven't seen anything in this 'new, revolutionary solo system' that I haven't seen in other home-brew rules systems. That's not a knock on their design, that's just pointing out that the hype itself may be unfounded.

They managed to fit common sense on a card though, whereas I usually just see these rules as agreed upon or within tables in home brew rule books. The concept of phantom troops is a nice touch, but nothing new... to me at least. Having to fire into it to see if it's real doesn't strike me a good mechanic, unless it's an airstrike or arty, but whatever. Back in the day we did this by putting stickers on the bottom of our Axis & Allies minis and then deploying them alongside real troops. Your opponent could never tell if you were deploying real or fake units unless they conducted intelligence checks or entered the engagement. We used the same system when to converting A&A to a coop/solo game.


How does it come that anything new that's worthwhile to look at and to enjoy ... some guys Always come bashing in to try to deny this is as a fun new experience for some fans.

Pff: Look at the MANY errors in Ambush or earlier Butterfield games and see how much we enjoyed them nevertheless.

And dude ... please stop putting Axis and Allies (WTF) at the front of game design .... Duh ....

I like the basic CoH game and if this makes me play it solo even more whenever I want it's a win/win.

I don't need 50.000 other people to play/enjoy it/agree and quite frankly I don't care either.


ROFL. Your post has so misconstrued my point and is so out of context it doesn't even merit a response...nevertheless, I'll deconstruct your purposely obtuse view anyway and give you one...

Ben_Bos wrote:

How does it come that anything new that's worthwhile to look at


The point of the post was to suggest that it's not new. It may be new to CoH, but the concepts, originally billed as something like 'revolutionary' and such are nothing of the sort.

Ben_Bos wrote:

some guys Always come bashing in to try to deny this is as a fun new experience for some fans.


I didn't bash anything. Only pointed out what I previously said that these mechanics fall far short of their marketing claims, which has little to do with whether the game is enjoyable, and even less to do with whether the game is worthwhile to look at.

Ben_Bos wrote:

Pff: Look at the MANY errors in Ambush or earlier Butterfield games and see how much we enjoyed them nevertheless.


Has nothing to do with the conversation, or at least your quotation of me.


Ben_Bos wrote:

And dude ... please stop putting Axis and Allies (WTF) at the front of game design .... Duh ....


The fact that I heavily modified A&A to be a game considerably different than it originally shipped should be evidence enough that I didn't 'put it at the front of game design'... Duh... I also did this in what... 1989 or something... Duh dudebro?

Given how off base your response is to what I wrote, I can only assume my post was lost in translation.
 
 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.