Gustavo
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi everyone,

I'm very interested in the Conflict of Heroes system for its rules simplicity, but I'm looking for a tactical game with highly-replayable and exciting scenarios. Could anyone compare the scenarios in Awakening the Bear with Storms of Steel (and maybe Lock 'n Load: Band of Heroes) regarding replayabilty and variety?

I don't really care for the number of scenarios, but rather to have goodfirefights that keep calling me back for more.

Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
uwe eickert
United States
Fremont
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Gustavo,
Storms of Steel is now out of print.
But the 2nd Edition Awakening the Bear will be released next month. We have posted the firefight book to BGG this weekend and it should be up by now. Check it out. There is a reason this game won so many awards world wide.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse LeBreton
United States
Kingsford
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
uweeickert wrote:
We have posted the firefight book to BGG this weekend and it should be up by now. Check it out.


Not sure why BGG is taking so long to approve the upload of the firefight book. I just checked and it still says pending. Lets hope it's very soon now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I have not played all of the scenarios for either game system but here is my input and impressions.

Both are fun systems but they do differ in the details. Neither is extremely detailed, both designer groups having spent time and effort to boil the games down to important basics for fast game play.

Most of the LnL scenarios I played felt more like competitive puzzles to me. This is not a bad thing for it means that they can be played fairly quickly or in an evening or tournament. I felt that the long term replayability was a little lower, however because once the "perfect plan" was found things were a little less fun. This was easily rectified by adding/removing units or altering VCs, though.

The CoH scenarios had less of that puzzle feel because of randomness of the command cards. Certainly some of the scenarios were likewise constrained (this is just a general observation) and CoH tended to take a little longer to play.

One interesting thing I noticed while playing LnL is that because of how the dice are used in combat LnL felt more dependent on the dice and scenarios often had a moment or place where a sequence of rolls determined more of the outcome. While playing CoH there were times when what I did depended on what command cards I had, but I did not feel as straightjacketed as I did with LnL and the cold dice.

Most of the people I game with did not enjoy LnL or CoH as they felt that too many details were left out so we play ATS (a couple play ASL). I do still enjoy CoH, just not as often.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustavo
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
martimer wrote:
I have not played all of the scenarios for either game system but here is my input and impressions.

Both are fun systems but they do differ in the details. Neither is extremely detailed, both designer groups having spent time and effort to boil the games down to important basics for fast game play.

Most of the LnL scenarios I played felt more like competitive puzzles to me. This is not a bad thing for it means that they can be played fairly quickly or in an evening or tournament. I felt that the long term replayability was a little lower, however because once the "perfect plan" was found things were a little less fun. This was easily rectified by adding/removing units or altering VCs, though.

The CoH scenarios had less of that puzzle feel because of randomness of the command cards. Certainly some of the scenarios were likewise constrained (this is just a general observation) and CoH tended to take a little longer to play.

One interesting thing I noticed while playing LnL is that because of how the dice are used in combat LnL felt more dependent on the dice and scenarios often had a moment or place where a sequence of rolls determined more of the outcome. While playing CoH there were times when what I did depended on what command cards I had, but I did not feel as straightjacketed as I did with LnL and the cold dice.

Most of the people I game with did not enjoy LnL or CoH as they felt that too many details were left out so we play ATS (a couple play ASL). I do still enjoy CoH, just not as often.


Thanks for your input Martin. It is interesting because I always heard people saying how LnL scenarios are "cinematographical" and fun to play, but apparently they are not as good in the long run.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
LnL has some fairly large and "epic" scenarios. The game system is a little simpler and it forces player's to focus tighter on what is going on. The designer's intent is to focus on what is important rather than on all the details (the company slogan is "more game, less guff"). It works and really does focus attention nicely. Unfortunately for LnL it appears that I like some of that fluff left out.

(Note that ASL adds in too much fluff for my tastes and the tactics required to win in competitive play are not reflective of what would be taught in the real world. LnL requires more realistic tactics to win and is a MUCH better "simulation" than ASL in my opinion.)
 
 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.