Persistent AP's (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Conflict of Heroes Series



Message

KEYSTONE07950 -> Persistent AP's (2/25/2012 3:02:28 PM)

On boardgame geek there is talk that the AP's are now "persistent"; meaning if you have an active unit "A" and it is more advantageous for you to activate another unit "B", you can activate "B" perform actions with it and then go back to unit "A" and use it's remaing AP's.

I would hope that we can have the option to use AP's as in the boardgame or use "persistent" AP's.

Any comments?



KEYSTONE07950 -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/25/2012 3:04:32 PM)

delete double post.



e_barkmann -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/25/2012 10:52:16 PM)

If you're referring to Shared Activations (ie multiple current active units but all sharing the same AP pool) then they should be part of the PC game as they are in the latest version of the boardgame rules and are non-optional.

edit ah you're referring to this thread:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/8574358#8574358

Hmm what other deviations from the board game are we going to discover.



KEYSTONE07950 -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/26/2012 2:22:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

quote:

Hmm what other deviations from the board game are we going to discover.


I am also wondering what other changes were made. This is not a minor change. It changes the complexion of the game.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/26/2012 3:09:21 AM)

Hi Keystone,

We actually made this change originally at the suggestion of the original designer. We've found that it works quite well and does not detract from the design, which making it a lot friendlier to new players. With that said, adding an option to have APs be non-persistent is something we'd like to support as well, but it would be an option to add post-release.

I have to say that personally I prefer this variant.

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/26/2012 3:11:48 AM)

Just to add, this is Conflict of Heroes - it is not a new or different game. As Uwe was part of the original design process, he did work along with us to implement a few changes or improvements, but I don't think there's anything else in the same ballpark as the persistent APs when it comes to rules variants.

Regards,

- Erik



ioticus -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/26/2012 3:11:56 AM)

Very disappointed to hear about the change. I have a feeling they did it because the AI couldn't play well otherwise.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/26/2012 3:19:19 AM)

Hi Ioticus,

Have you tried playing with this option? This change was not driven by the AI.

Regards,

- Erik



ioticus -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/26/2012 3:29:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi Ioticus,

Have you tried playing with this option? This change was not driven by the AI.

Regards,

- Erik


Sorry, I posted before reading your above comments, which sound good. I have not tried the persistent variant, but if it has the blessing of the designer then I feel more optimistic about the change.



KEYSTONE07950 -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/26/2012 1:19:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi Keystone,

We actually made this change originally at the suggestion of the original designer. We've found that it works quite well and does not detract from the design, which making it a lot friendlier to new players. With that said, adding an option to have APs be non-persistent is something we'd like to support as well, but it would be an option to add post-release.

I have to say that personally I prefer this variant.

Regards,

- Erik


If this design change has Uwe's blessings I am more inclined to try the PC game. I will play several AtB & SoS scenarios with this change and see how it plays.



Gil R. -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/27/2012 7:51:16 AM)

At this point, I'll just echo what Erik wrote.

This was not the case of someone (i.e., Uwe) just selling a license and wiping his hands of the matter: Uwe has been in regular contact with WCS and Matrix, and has most certainly had a say in the computer version's development.



wodin -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/27/2012 8:10:28 AM)

Gil R..I bet your proud of this baby!



KEYSTONE07950 -> Persistent AP's (2/27/2012 6:35:19 PM)

The game's designer, (Uwe) developed AP usage for a particular design reason. Why is that reason no longer valid for the PC game? The boardgame rulebook contains copious design notes. I would like to see the design notes which rationalize the change in AP handling.

I tested several scenarios from AtB, SoS, and PoH with my understanding of the Persistent AP usage, and decisions as to which units to activate in which order is no longer present (as you can go from activated unit to activated unit as long as the 7 AP's have not been consumed) - a step backwards in design to my mind.

Please convince me I am wrong.



ioticus -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/27/2012 6:55:45 PM)

I'm worried about the same lack of decision making, Keystone. I hope they at least include an option to play without persistent APs in a patch.



e_barkmann -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 12:49:35 AM)

the more I read the new posts in the BGG thread, the more I worry about this board game port.

The AP system is the essence of the game - I am really hoping that Matrix and WCS consider adding in the option to play by the original activation rules as soon as practicable, even if it means that it is only available as a multi-player option, thus avoiding AI complications.

I will give the PC game a go nevertheless, as I am very happy to support companies that put time and effort into producing quality strategy games.



wodin -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 1:56:24 AM)

Listen, if there is a slightest change in the design from the boardgames then you can bet your life the boardgames will be up in arms bemoaning the whole game and saying it's a failure.

I'd take it with a pinch of salt. I have no worries at all. It will either be great or it wont. I really couldn't care less if it has some changes that are different to the boardgame. I mean there is Vassal out there. Seriously no fan of the boardgames is going to put me off.

If the AI is good and i has a historical feel then I'm happy.



e_barkmann -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 2:17:48 AM)


sure Wodin, I understand how to filter out noise from useful comments.

However when comments come from core developers of this boardgame system I take notice.

James Palmer is credited with rules development for the series, and expresses concern.

Jesse leBreton is credited with help in development for the series and expresses balanced concern.

cheers



Lebatron -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 4:58:26 AM)

Wodin does have a point. It is true that sometimes when people love something the slightest change causes them to scream sacrilege. Let me point out that what I dubbed the persistent AP system is a perfectly fine way to play the game. Most will like it just fine. It does change the gameplay from the boardgame, but for the most part it still is CoH at it's core. The costs to fire and move etc are all still the same.

But my opinion is that the original activation system had a charm to it that I miss in the PC version. Also it created very interesting tactics. So yes, everyone knows where I stand. But this is just one man's opinion, so leave it at that. Most will be happy with persistent AP I think. If the original activation ever gets patched in, then that would be a nice bonus. Then everyone will be pleased. Both crowds could play the game under whichever system they like best.



wodin -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 8:36:51 AM)

James and Jesse may also not like their baby being altered. I'm sure the beta testers have balanced the scenarios. Thankfully I haven't played the board version so I'm non the wiser. For me it will all be down to the AI. No point having a certain way of playing and the AI stinks. Then it would only be fit for multiplayer, and there is VASSAL for that so it would make the game pretty pointless.



PirateJock -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 9:03:04 AM)

quote:

For me it will all be down to the AI.


+1

There may be changes in the game mechanics but as long as the game is enjoyable I'm OK with that. I need to play it to decide. And if I crave non-persistent APs, break out the boardgame or fire up Vassal.

Cheers



jamespcrowley -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 11:33:57 AM)

Perhaps someone who has played both the boardgame and the PC version could explain the difference in 'activation' and 'persistant activation' and why, exactly, they feel that the former is better than the latter.

I have not played either version but, from my reading of the rules as published on the Academy Games site, it seems to me that 'avtivation' is more of a 'game' device (gamey, not interpreted as inappropriate but geared more towards gameplay than realism).

The 'persistant activation' version, if I understand it correctly, seems more realistic in reflecting the fact that most of what is happening in a turn is, in reality, occuring more or less simultaneously.



KEYSTONE07950 -> Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 1:12:09 PM)

To support COH, I will purchase this version.  I would be much happier if the game was released with an option as to which AP variant to be used.

I'm wondering if Uwe's civil war series (not yet released but VERY COOL looking) was part of the PC licensing deal.  It appears to be a natural for a PC port.






Lebatron -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 6:31:12 PM)

Yes I to would love to see Academy Games Civil war games land on PC someday.



Capitaine -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 6:37:28 PM)

Just learned of this game through another site and after checking it out I can say it's the first PC wargame in quite awhile that I'm truly excited about. This is the kind of wargame I want to play and the production values appear excellent.

I did look up the boardgame version and managed to read the rules after finding out about this "persistent AP" issue. It does seem, as many have asserted, that the boardgame version of activation/AP is central to the gameplay. While I don't mind having an alternate method available, I too would really like the boardgame method to be incorporated as an option. Maybe an "advanced" option if simplicity was the concern.

Nevertheless, I'm ecstatic that a board wargame is being ported so faithfully and will be inclined to stay with this series through numerous iterations. Echoing others, I hope a good response will encourage Matrix and other PC wargame publishers to do more of these projects.




Lebatron -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 6:38:47 PM)

Here is a pic from Bloody Crossroads the first in the Civil War series. If it ever gets ported I sure hope the developer doesn't get it in his head that the maps need to be turned into 3D. IMO you can't beat a quality map like this, so why try and reinvent the wheel. Just use the maps as is because they are 5 star stuff.

[image]local://upfiles/16830/DCEBA462D0A94197966F1C18340A223C.jpg[/image]



tide1530 -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 10:12:10 PM)

The Civil War map is a beauty for sure.  Like I said over at BGG people should advocate to have the developers make Persistant AP's an optional rule...an easy enough fix in a patch. It was done with extreme assault in the JTCS game.[;)] 



ioticus -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 10:23:09 PM)

Not sure how easy it would be to patch persistant APs out of the game, since I imagine the AI would have to be changed quite a bit.



tide1530 -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/28/2012 10:49:38 PM)

I didn't work on the code for the change in the JTCS game but the programer had it changed in a short period of time without any problems to the AI... Although that is a pretty archaic game. The developers will know what can be done of course and hopefully they share that with people.



Gil R. -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/29/2012 1:44:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Gil R..I bet your proud of this baby!


Yes, putting aside any comparison with the original boardgame, this is a pretty impressive piece of work in a number of ways.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Persistent AP's (2/29/2012 11:14:27 PM)

You know, a resonable person who is unfamiliar with these games could read through this thread and reach the conclusion that this game system descended from on high, several years back, chiseled in stone, and hasn't since evolved. Am I wrong, or haven't the rules been revised with newer editions? If that's the case, then another resonable person who is familiar with the boardgame could view the changes that emerge with the computer version as a simple step in that same progression.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875