I think it's a sad day for TOI when the game's support forum degenerates into the bashing of another designer's game. Can we get back to TOI?

For the historical record, remember Panzerblitz? Took the gaming world by storm and remained on top for years. That was Russian v. German...in an American market. Panzer Leader came later.

Bazookajoe said:

Panzer Leader is still one of my all-time favorite wargames. It was the first AH game I ever bought, for $12 at a local hobby store. $12!

I'll always have a copy on my shelf, even though it rarely makes it to the table anymore.

KlausFritsch said:

Maybe if we could *see* those SU-122, it would *help us* wait for this expansion.

Bazookajoe said:

PanzerBlitz was released during the cold war, when the Soviet Union was still being described as the "Evil Empire". The soviets were still the bad guys back then. The old adage, "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" was having a large effect in the US at that period in time. West Germany was our friend then too. WWII was over, and the Cold War threatened to go hot at any moment. At that time, the ghosts of WWII could be overlooked with the cold war staring us in the face.

That was also during the golden age of wargaming, when the wargaming market was being inundated with games. I mean literally bombarded with games. You had SPI cranking them out, and Avalon Hill, along with a whole host of smaller companies. So in that type of market, you could strike out with a design with some different topics. But that topic really wasn't so different at all at that time. It was a game about tank warfare on the eastern front, and at that point in time, that is exactly what the west and NATO (anyone remember NATO? ) were preparing to have to fight. That's why the A-10 Warthog was built, that's why the Apache helicopter was built. That was the threat at that time, that the soviets would launch a massive tank attack from the east. So a wargame depicting the Germans fighting that exact same kind of battle fit the times. Along comes a game in which you could fight the Soviet tank hordes (as the Germans) and, Bingo! You've got yourself a hit! It's really not that suprising for the times though.

So it's no wonder that PanzerLeader took off in that environment. It's a little different today. The cold war is over and the board wargaming market has nearly gone extinct.

And we're not bashing CoH either, we're simply discussing the 2-3 good wargames that are on the market right now, and looking at how they have each decided to present themselves in today's market. I mean, come on, what else have we got to do while we're waiting for the next preview of FotB to come out!?

CoH decided to start it's game system in the east, and stay there. It's a great game system, and by the way, a game system that IMHO borrowed (read: copied) a lot of good ideas from ToI.

-The biggest one has to be the cards. ToI came out and had a card deck system that supported the basic game, and introduced a lot of various different elements into the game through the cards. CoH decided to do the same.

-ToI used and action based turn system for the units in the game, with 3 units per side moving. CoH did the same, only they decided to go with one unit per side. They did decide to come up with some of their own ideas at this point though. They scrapped the Op Fire and basically made every unit on Op Fire. They also introduced facing. In games with a few units, facing is neat. In games with a large amount of units, facing is time consuming and can really bog down a game in terms of length of game time. Time can be a big factor too, I know it is for me.

-ToI used "command points" to determine initiative and to activate cards. CoH followed suit, expanding the use of its "command action points".

M44 has by now hit all the bases (theaters), and scored a run (success) as a big hit as a light wargame in the process. ToI started with the west, and has ever so slowly moved to include North Africa and now the Eastern Front, while at the same time releasing the Normandy expansion to maintain a focus on the Western Front. ToI copied the use of map overlays and plastic pieces from M44.

Then there is a game that hasn't come up too much in discusion here, that I think ToI "borrowed" from a lot. Axis and Allies Miniatures. If you look at the unit characteristics charts, and compare them to the unit stat cards from AAM, they use the same concepts. The trouble with AAM is that they have too many different special abilities, and just too many different units that all work in different ways. What did they call that, complexity creep? That and power creep...not too good. ToI kept it too the basics.

One of the neat things about AAM was the building of your own "armies" (read: compose your own forces). ToI borrowed this idea in its having players put together their squad bases, or customizing squads.

ToI also used the smaller scale that AAM used in it's maps. Small map sections with large hexes. ToI wisely decided to go with double sided mounted maps, as opposed to the paper ones AAM used.

So basically, it went like this.

First it all starts with BattleCry, which got no love from Hasbro. R.B. took his system to Days of Wonder, and we got Memoir 44'.

Then comes Axis and Allies Miniatures.

Tide of Iron borrows on some of the concepts and ideas from both of these games, adds its own improvements, and we have Tide of Iron.

Conflict of Heros borrows on what Tide of Iron did, adds its improvements or different ideas, and we got CoH.

It's funny, but in looking at this, if you follow M44 at all, the folks there are adding into that game system some of the more detailed elements we get with ToI and CoH. They've added different dimensions to the maps or battle areas (Overlord maps & Breakthrough maps) to add more flavor to the base games, and for those who want a bit longer game. They've also added things like aircraft and individual vehicle types lately as well. Now they are coming out with their first battle specific expansion, The Ardennes Offensive. BTW, their Campaign book is awsome.

I don't know, but I would have to guess that right now, M44 is the best selling board wargaming on the market. Squad Leader may still be the best seller over all, but I would have to think M44 out sells everything right now. M44 is the only game that my FLAGS stocks on a 24 hour replentishment basis. They'll restock M44 gear in 24hours, that's how well it sells.

Two other great game systems out there: Panzer Grenadier & Lock N' Load. I had a great deal of the early releases of PG, and it is a great system. In fact, I think AAM borrowed from PG its use of seperate infantry attack values and armor attack values, which we even see in ToI today. Unfortunately, PG came along at a time in my life when family and work were demanding all of my time...But PG has covered so many theaters and battles, there's a boatload available now for that system.

Lock N' Load was the game I was hoping to find at Origins when I ran into Uwe Eickert, I think that was Origins 08'. I couldn't find anything Lock N' Load there, and decided to go back and check out the Conflict of Heros booth. Lock N' Load has a good amount of expansions, but I've never had the chance to actually hold one of its products in my hands. I can only get it via mail order. But it looks like a super game system.

OK, this is a long post, has the next preview for FotB come out while I was jabbering away here?

Meta Baston said:

If I can find the time to take some pictures, and if I can remember my photobucket password, I will post a few pictures of Soviet vehicles for ToI.

OK, until I get the time to take vehicle pictures, here are a Russian officer and a Russian elite infantry figure.

And here is a Russian infantry squad.

History is made folks, check for yourself.

This is the first 100+ post thread here on the FFG boards for ToI!!!

Nice pics Klausfritch!

BJaffe01 said:

They could've called CoH "Roses in the backyard" or "Refridgerators for sale" as far as I'm concerned. It's the quality of the game that matters to me and IMHO CoH is an excellent game system. It seems more realistic than TOI, memoir or AAM to me (actually I don't think anyone will argue with that...) while at the same time not being overly more complex than either TOI or AAM. That's an amazing feat AFAIC.

Also, the rule change from having to use command points or fatiguing your unit to being able to use action points as the non-phaisng player is a huge improvement, IMHO. I don't have any issues with rule changes that greatly improve the game. If it had been an enormous oversight and in desperate NEED of change, I would say the game wasn't properly playtested. In this case, however, I'd say the original system, worked fine, but the revision just made it a whole lot better!

As for the updated counters: they will be included in the upcoming expansion "price of honour" (Polish campaign). Could you use the original counters from "Awakening th bear" with "PoH"? Probably (although obviously I haven't tried). It's just so much easier to have separate blue and red firepower values on each counter. An improvement I''d say and nothing to complain about. I would like a consistent style, but again the soldier units look better in "Storms of steel" than they do in "AtB" and the revised AtB counters will be in "PoH".

Is TOI without issues of its own? Of course not! The AT gun rules leave a lot to be desired according to a large part of the fanbase and certainly give the appearance of poor playtesting (they were indeed somewhat revised. See the errata). The biggest complaint about TOI? The unbalanced scenarios! This certainly reeks heavily of poor -or in some case I'd be tempted to say- NO playtesting. (First scenario from the TOI basegame; need I say more?) Also, the confusion associated with the words "turn"and "round"could have been made clearer from the start. How about the Stug and panzer IV being identical statwise? Perhaps not a major issue, but since so far the number of vehicles in TOI is rather limited it's a crying shame they made this decision rather than e.g. adding one defense to the stug and prohibiting it from making fire and move/move and fire attacks. I could go on for a while. Does this mean I dislike TOI. Does it mean I've turned away from the game? Of course not! I just think it's unfair to pretend that Coh has many issues and TOI (or other games) do not. (memoir 44 perhaps being an exception). To be quite honest, personally I'd say CoH has fewer issues than nearly all other wargames I own (another very positive exception being Eastfront II).

Step right up, folks—place yer bets!

What're the chances we'll end the week on a positive note with a FotB update?

(I can't believe we've only gotten one update in nearly six months… we are fast approaching ludicrous speed.)

KlausFritsch said:

Cool!

Interesting set up. I think you mentionned it before but where do the figs come from? What is their scale?

Thanks!

AnglePark said:

No preview, you know what that means...

kaufschtick said:

Meta Baston said:

The minis are Flames of War figures. They are 15 mm high.

Kingtiger said:

I mean, I realize a title is a title too. But I've got family that fought in WWII in both theaters. I've got family that fought in Korea and Vietnam, and I'm not about to call Nazis or Communists "Heros"; but hey, that's just me.

Kingtiger said:

I mean, if you want to defend CoH, lets be real about it. It goes much deeper than your suggestion that the game designers were just tweeking the way the non phasing player moves. The plain fact is that they were (and still are, for all I know) trying to figure out what they wanted to do with the core game rules.

I have no less than three printed rule books for Conflict of Heros: AtB. Three... and there were more than that after I got tired of printing new rule books.

First, someone said, "Hey, the close combat rules need to be changed". So Uwe and the CoH team changed the rules, and it was official...for about two weeks.

Then Uwe and the CoH team changed them back.

Then Uwe and the CoH team decided to change how the group move rules use CAPs.

Then they changed the group move rules altogether.

Then they decided to change how the non phasing player reacts to what the phasing player is doing.

Then they decided to change how the combat values are presented to the players on the counters.

Right after the close combat rule flip flopping, there was a four part "rule update" that was made.

Uwe and the CoH team used to use the excuse all the time, that they were trying to "make the game better". And if they came across a good idea that "made the game better", they were going to make that change. Fair enough, but... they kept on finding more and more ways to "make the game better". I mean that too, I literally got tired of having to check to see what the latest and greatest ideas were, and what the latest version of the rules were going to be.

My postion finally became this: Call me after you're done "making the game better". Because I get a little ticked off when I buy a game for $80.00 USD, and then the folks who sold it to me keep "discovering" ways "to make it better"; and then try to sell me their "better" version of the same thing I thought I bought to start with. That's just bad business, I don't care how good the game it is.

Kingtiger said:

I've never owned a game with as many issues as Conflict of Heros had or maybe still has. The only other game I ever owned with as many issues as CoH would be the original Squad Leader, which after GI: Anvil of Victory, they decided to just scrap the whole thing and start over as Advanced Squad Leader .

Could be we'll see an Advanced CoH in the near future?

Kingtiger said:

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but it seems to me that you're confusing a games "reality" level and "complexity" level with "rule changes".

Just because a game is more realistic without being more complex is no excuse for as many "rule changes" as CoH has had.

Kingtiger said:

I believe I've read that you can, but with some degree of difficulty that detracts from the enjoyment of the game as there has been a fair amount of changes made to the counters.

Kingtiger said:

Again, you're confusing whether you personally like a rule (AT gun rule), and are making the case that because you don't like the rule or think it's not "realistic enough", it must not have been playtested well. That's absurd. The AT gun rules, while they are fun to "poke fun at" as far how they work, well...they work just fine. The errata clarified how they work, it didn't scrap how they work and rewrite the rules for them.

Kingtiger said:

Unbalanced scenarios are a legitimate complaint, but to quote Don Greenwood from the Designer Series Volume One Scenario Book...

" Panzerblitz was Avalon Hill's best seller, but it was far from their best game. Most of the scenarios were poorly balanced, and it rarely provided a tense contest. [skip ahead a few lines] However, it continued to sell, because gamers wanted to build bigger and bigger battles and therefore bought multiple copies to get more boards and counters."

Then a quote from ToI's main designer, John Goodenough (I love that last name )...

"One of the overarching design principles for Tide of Iron was to create a "toolbox" game that provided the tools (game rules) and materials for players to build their own scenarios and varients. In this regard, all of the rules and components were designed to be modular so the players can take the game in any direction they want."

Again, scenarios are scenarios, and not rules. CoH's issue was and is changing rules. Of course, if you want to talk scenarios, I've read that the changing rules that CoH has made may possibly have put some of it's previous scenarios out of balance, as the scenarios were initially created with one set of rules; and when the rules changed, some of those previous scenarios were affected adversely by those very rule changes, in terms of balance. That's just what I've read though.

Kingtiger said:

Big difference between clarification and rule change.

Kingtiger said:

Don't get me started on unit stats! Some of the AT stats from AtB were off the hook. There were some artillery pieces, if I remember this right, that had such high anti infantry values, that even when you halved them to shoot at tanks the values were still greater than its AT value at full strength! So you could just shoot it at tanks using its "halved" infantry value and ignore it's intended AT value! The Russain Ppsh units come to mind as well, having greater effect at range than rifled units. There were nough issues there to warrant a whole new set of counters, among other issues.

But none of that ever really bothered me though. If they wanted to issue corrections to some of the values, fine. When you have so many corrections that you decide to just make new counters...then you have problems. And if you feel that new counters are warranted, then what about the folks that bought your original game counters? Is it a good idea to ask them to buy an item they already paid for once?

Kingtiger said:

I too think it's unfair to portray CoH as a game without issues, it's rife with them. Is it a good game, sure it is, but it is most definately a "buyer beware" game, at least as far as AtB is concerned. Start with Storms of Steel, and you're in good shape I'd say.

That would be the equivilent to saying ToI is a good game, just don't buy the base game, start with Days of the Fox and you'll be fine. But that's not the case, and that's the problem with CoH.

kaufschtick said:

You make some valid points, but I don't entirely agree.The most recent and hopefully final ruleset for CoH will be included with Price of Honour. It's also available for free online e.g. via a link on BGG.

Although indeed some stats have changed in CoH, they haven't been changed for the jagdpanzer or stug in TOI. In both cases such a change seems necessary or at the very least desirable. CoH has been the only game to comply.

The rules for AT guns have changed in TOI, unlike what you're claiming. E.g. an AT gun placed in the same hex (??!) as ane entrenchement gains +1 cover and the unit firing it CAN be placed in an entrenchment, to mention just two changes that come to mind.

You can't start by buying Days of the fox, as you won't have a German army, no rulebook, no fatigued counters etc. etc.

AAM constantly requires you to buy items you already own over and over again too (reprints of V1 and even V2 vehicles and also infantry). To play breakthrough and/or memoir 44 overlord scenarios you also need multiple expansions. In TOI you're encouraged to buy additional map packs you already own.What I'm trying to say is it seems to be very common to require players to pay for sth again even when they already own it.

Don't get me wrong: I love all the games I mentioned, but none is entirely perfect!

kaufschtick said:

It's beginning to sound like you have a personal beef with the COH designer. Maybe its time to relax and let it go, man.

Bazookajoe said:

All I'm doing is critiquing the game, I'm sorry if it bothers you. I'm not make anything up about CoH, it's what it is.

I read all the time about how ToI's map expansion made little sense; why did they made additional German armor units with identical stats; how odd the AT rules are; what a pain it is to have the pegs not fit the bases; how the scenarios are unbalanced, and so on. All perfectly fair, and valid critiques.

I've rarely read anything but fan fare though, when it comes to CoH. A good dose of reality regarding that game isn't going to hurt anybody. With that being said, I'll continue on with my opinions on that game. If you feel this is a personal rant, I would suggest just skipping to the next post.

Conflict of Heros has it's first game, Awakening the Bear. It's second game is Storms of Steel right now. It has a Polish expansion due out soon. I often read posts from people who want to get on board with the Conflict of Heros system, and want to know which of the first two games to get first.

Here's the deal. If you get Awakening the Bear, and you are planning on getting Storms of Steel and all the future releases for Conflict of Heros, this is what you need to do when you get home with Awakening the Bear. Open the box, and take the rules and unit counters for the German and Soviet forces, and throw them in the garbage. Save the maps and the cards, and the game info counters. Then go online and print out the current rules to the game. Next, order the Polish expansion to get the replacement German and Soviet counters. Then you will be set to go forward with Storms of Steel and all the later expansions. Be prepared to print new rules for the game from time to time, it's just the way it is.

People crack on ToI's map expansion pack as being nothing new for the game, and an unwise expansion.

The whole Awakening the Bear is nothing more than a map pack as it stands now with CoH. The maps, cards and some of the game counters are all that have carried forward from AtB due to all the rule changes with the game system.

It's what it is.

I've hung on to AtB for like two and a half years now, to see if the game ever settled on a set of core rules. The additional scenario support online has been pretty lacking, if not nonexistant according to a good friend of mine who has both of the boxed games. One of the reasons the scenario support online is so weak for the game, is all the rule changes. Its kinda hard to work on scenarios when the rules are in a continued state of change.

That's where poor playtesting comes into the picture, IMO. You can have poorly balanced scenarios, you can have odd AT rules, but you need to have rules that are a constant, common thread that binds the game system together.

So people who are buying into the system, are left to ask, which one is it? Which one is the rules that we're going use? AtB? SoS?

I've read many a post by Uwe, and he seems like a little kid who's having a blast at what he's doing, and he keeps "making the game better", all the time. And that's great, but there are people, like me for instance, who are looking to buy into a game "system". Something I can play with my buddies that have a common set of rules, like ToI, so we can spend our precious game time playing a fun game, and not learning new rules all the time. Time is precious these days, and that is a main driving force for me.

With CoH, instead of a good solid game system, what I found to be true was that I had to relearn the same game all too often. I could play the same game with one of my sons, and it'd have different rules every time we played it! So, you know, we just stopped following it. Instead of just sitting down and jumping into a game we were both familiar with as far as the rules go, and having fun; we kept having to stop and muddle through the rules all over again. Then we'd sit around afterward and discuss how the game was different from the last way we played.

We can bust out ToI, M44, BattleCry or Wings of War, and we spend all our time having fun playing the game, not relearning it.

I don't have a beef with Uwe, he seems like a great person. I wish him all the best with CoH.

In this thread, and game section here on the FFG forums, we're kinda in a "hurry up and wait mode" with FotB. So I'm OK with discussing the game (CoH) in detail here while we wait. It's a system that's taken some of the basic mechanics found in ToI gameplay and added some really neat improvements, if you will, to it. It has a lot of potential as a game system, it's just lacking in consistency up to now.

As far as FotB, I am really interested to see how the ToI designers tackle the Eastern Front. They've done a really good job with DotF and Normandy in not adding a ton of extra rules, and have avoided bogging down the basic system with more and more rules. ToI has a really good "pick and choose" feel to it overall, IMO. With the expansions I mean.

Hey, maybe I should look and see if the next preview was posted while I was typing away, in yet another long, long post!

Kingtiger said:

You're right about that. I mean, it's most definately different tastes for different folks, that's for sure.

If Price of Honor finally sees the whole CoH system settle into a stable set of rules that can remain consistent, then it will be nothing but good for that game.

I think M44 does the best job of allowing a customer to "pick and choose" the parts of what they offer for that game. You can still purchase the base game for that system and leave it at that, and have a blast. You can use Axis and Allies style chips placed under the various figures as an option to buying multiple sets of figures if you want.

But I mean, if you're thing is the Eastern Front, you can grab the Russian figures, the winter/desert board, and call it quits!

They do a super job of allowing easy access to parts of their expansions without forcing the players to have to buy it all. And that's probably a big reason that game does so well.

I think ToI would do well to adopt that style of marketing and packaging of its ToI expansions.

i've got to tell you, right now with M44 releasing the Breakthrough, mounted mapboards, in standard countryside, beachfront, winter and desert; and now releasing a battle specific expansion...that game is on fire!

I'd love to see ToI approach even just a tiny bit of what M44 has to offer!

ToI...I'll tell you another thing I love about the ToI design. The 3/4 player options with each scenario. Very nice for the times when you have a third or fourth person "show up". You can actually switch over to a 3/4 player game midgame. I've never done it, but I dig that about this game.

In my younger days, my friends and I would "hang out" at someones place, and it wasn't uncommon to have various people show up after work, or just come by to see what was going on and hang out (read: drink a few beers ).

We actually started playing Victory in the Pacific originally because we were looking for a three player game! (That's not a three player game by any means ) It's just a matter of time before my son and I are playing, and one of his friends wants to join in though, and I am so geeked to be ready for that one! Also, it's just a matter of time before my close drinking buddies and I wind up with three of us looking for a good game other than Axis & Allies.

And Axis and Allies has always been "that" game that you could play with odd numbers of players, and add and subtract them during a game.

It's a very cool feature with ToI.

But whenever I get to gabbing about ToI, I always come back to one particular game feature that I like the most; that I think is very realistic; and that I've never found in any other wargame that I've played. The Direct Fire vs Suppresive Fire option. Not even the super realistic CoH got that one right. IMHO, it's the single best tactical wargame design feature of any tactical wargame on the market. A super, super design element to add to a game, that is very realistic. From a game point of view, it makes a great decision point for the players. From a realistic point of view, it's the biggest design aspect that gives this game some bragging rights when comparing to games like ASL, Panzer Grenadier and the like.

****, all this wargame B.S.'ing I'm doing here; is doing nothing but making me want to get a copy of FotB in my hands!

Meta Baston said:

Here it is:

Meta Baston said:

I hope it fits this time.

KlausFritsch said:

Cool! Nice!

Thanks!

(Strange though, it looks like it's rolling over a West Germany hill... )

Well done

BJaffe01

Nice tank!

Is that FoW?

I just saw a thread on here from someone who said they saw a complete set of ToI for sale on E-Bay, and there is a comment included that says the ole' rumor about ToI being close to being discontinued is alive again.

I posed the question about ToI being "discontinued or not' in a thread last year on here and on BGG, and I still see threads on BGG from people referring to that, who were quit upset about it. I'm still puzzled about that, as I was clearly asking if that were the case, not trying to spread the word it was. Anyway...

Let me be the first to say that I have nothing to do at all with this rumor or the other thread on here!

As far as I'm concerned, after having at least seen FotB announced, and the one preview, I feel pretty comfortable that we'll at least get to the Russian Front. I'd love to see a Pacific expansion for the game too.

Having said that; what was it? Two years ago when Normandy came out? If FotB comes out in say, the Jan-March 2011 time frame, what would we be looking at as far as a possible release date for a Pacific expansion? Based on the time between Normandy & FotB, we're looking at spring summer 2013?

I hope the game goes on like M44, but I will say that a two year gap between expansions says a lot about the state of the game in and of itself. I don't want to speculate on "discontinued" rumors, but the game is already on life support.

I'll be a happy camper just to see FotB.