

The AP check system from the solo game would be great for the nonsolo game. Just need some AP check cards or maybe make it a dice roll check. This would replace the current AP point system with one unit being active. Also, the VP tracking from solo game could replace current VP tracking in nonsolo game. Both changes would simplify things and the new AP check system would greatly enhance gameplay.

Doug Click
United States Bristol Tennessee
Nothing to see here

I played a two player game over the weekend and we used the solo cards for AP checks, it worked great and added quite a bit to the gameplay. Every move was a risk, even just a one AP move, plus sometimes you got to use a unit more than "normal". It was a great addition to the game since neither of us could watch the AP track and factor that into the overall plan.

Lewis Karl
United States Vienna Virginia

I like the way CAPS are implemented for the AI. You never know when the AI might get a Mission order and activate a spent unit. Its particularly effective when enemy units are in short range or close combat. Also, in Firefight Generator games there are events whereby a removed Mission card will be added back. Seems like the AI rarely completely runs out of CAPs whereas the Player does after 46 killed units.
So what if in a 2player game, the CAP system was replaced by command cards, using the Mission cards for CAP orders, or something similar to the command cards. Give each play his own deck. Remove Mission cards when a unit is killed. Use the same deck for spent checks. Just ignore the actual order, but require the Mission cards be used for for CC, then Short Range, then whatever else with possible +1/+2 CAPS fire as indicated on the cards.

Danick Cloutier
Canada StFabien Québec

pisqueeter wrote: ...So what if in a 2player game, the CAP system was replaced by command cards, using the Mission cards for CAP orders, or something similar to the command cards. Give each play his own deck. Remove Mission cards when a unit is killed. Use the same deck for spent checks. Just ignore the actual order, but require the Mission cards be used for for CC, then Short Range, then whatever else with possible +1/+2 CAPS fire as indicated on the cards.
I think the cards(action and bonus cards from the base game) already do that job(more or less).

Danick Cloutier
Canada StFabien Québec

Sayburr wrote: I played a two player game over the weekend and we used the solo cards for AP checks, it worked great and added quite a bit to the gameplay. Every move was a risk, even just a one AP move, plus sometimes you got to use a unit more than "normal". It was a great addition to the game since neither of us could watch the AP track and factor that into the overall plan.
Did you use the 'unit remain fresh symbol rule' for your 2 player game? I remember having read that it is highly recommended(maybe even obligatory) to use that rule in a two players game.



To add AP checks to a two person game, I think you could do a dice roll instead of using order cards. I think the following might work well: roll two six sided dice and then subtract 6 six from the rolled number. For the unit to stay fresh, the result needs to be equal to or greater than the AP used by the unit that turn. Thoughts?

Øivind Karlsrud
Norway Bjørkelangen Unspecified
Avatar: My two sons

london23 wrote: The AP check system from the solo game would be great for the nonsolo game. Just need some AP check cards or maybe make it a dice roll check. This would replace the current AP point system with one unit being active. Also, the VP tracking from solo game could replace current VP tracking in nonsolo game. Both changes would simplify things and the new AP check system would greatly enhance gameplay. The problem (at least for me), is that this variant will introduce a lot of luck. First, you will never know how many APs a unit will get, so you won't be able to plan. A unit could stop in the middle of a field. From a gameplay perspective, I prefer random factors to be drawn before I make my decisions, not after. It is less realistic, but more fun for me as a game.
On top of that, the standard deviation for the number of APs a unit will get is huge. I'm assuming the cards are distributed so that the probability of being spent when you spend x APs is x/7, so that the expected number of APs is still 7. Lets first look at the normal way of playing the game. If you let units receive 2d6 APs, the standard deviation is 2.42. With the 3d6 hilo optional rule in the game, it is 1.85. That is probably the idea behind the hilo system: To get an expected value of 7, but smaller standard deviation. With the 3d6 hilo variant, the probability of getting 2 or 12 APs is 1/216, instead of 1/36 with just 2d6. Now, with your variant, the standard deviation rises to a whopping 6.48 for actions with 1 AP, 5.92 for 2 APs and 5.29 for 3 APs. One reason is that the probability of getting a small number of APs is huge. When you spend 1 AP, there is a 1/7 chance of getting spent, so the probability is 1/7 of getting just 1 AP. It is 6/49 of getting 2 APs (success on first check, failure on second). This means the probability of getting 1 or 2 APs is 1/7+6/49=13/49. That's an enormous probability of getting only 2 APs or less, compared to 1/216 for 3d6 hilo. This goes in the opposite direction of going from 2d6 to 3d6 hilo.
It could be that my probabilities are wrong. Maybe it is less likely than 1/7 of getting spent when spending 1 AP. But then the expected number of APs won't be 7.
The advantage of the new activation system is that it makes it possible to design an AI, since they don't have to make rules for when to activate a unit. But now I'm thinking it might be better to let the player use the normal AP system, although this would give the player an advantage against the AI, which would have to be balanced by compensating the AI in some way, maybe by lowering the probability of getting spent, so that the AI unit get more than 7 APs on average.



After looking at the statistics more, I agree subtracting 6 from the two dice roll will result in too many units failing AP check. However, subtracting 3 or 4 I think is just right. That gives you over +80% chance to pass a 1 AP check and about 10 to 15% less chance for each additional AP. Remember the units that pass also get full AP back to do another action unlike the regular rules where they have to subtract the APs previously spent, so you don't want to be overly aggressive in units passing AP check. The better player could subtract 4 and lesser player subtract 3 to even out play. Here are the percentages to pass AP check: Using 4 from 2dice roll (1AP 83%,2AP 72%,3AP 58%,4AP 42%, 5AP 28%, 6AP 17%). Using 3 (1AP 92%, 2AP 83%, 3AP 70%, 4AP 58%, 5AP 42%, 6 AP 28%). Subtracting 4 for AP checks of 4AP or more and subtracting 3 for AP checks of 3AP or less might really hit the sweet spot.

uwe eickert
United States Fremont Ohio

We are keen to implement the solo AP spent and CAP system to the 2 player game ourselves. I have been working on an expansion for ALL CoH games that would get rid of the AP AND CAP track entirely! It is a slightly different method than what was used in the solo but generally uses the same statistical model. We hope to release this later this year.
Gunter Academy Games

Lewis Karl
United States Vienna Virginia

That's a great idea. I will surely preorder such an expansion.



I checked the cards, numbers and setup for each scenario and I would say you can replace the cards for dice.
The human player can roll 2 sixsided dice, one white and another one black (or any color you have at hand). Take the roll of the white die as the number in the card, but if you roll a 6 in the black die it is an automatic success.
The AI player rolls just 1 sixsided die and use the result as the number in the card.
Probabilities are not exactly the same, but they are close enough for me.


