I borrowed the thread title idea from another thread comparing TOI to M44.

Anyway, I've been wanting to post a thread like this for a while. TOI and CoH (Conflict of Heros) are the two best WWII tactical ground combat games IMO. Both are light and easy on the rules, both have super high quality game components and both are a whole lot of fun. But which one is better? Generally, I'll usually find one game on a subject matter that I like and stick with it, and pass on all others. TOI and CoH are so very similar in nature, much like comparisons drawn between TOI and M44. Myself, I ditched M44 in favor of TOI. But with TOI and CoH, I find myself wanting to keep both.

For me, it was a case of the old school way of wargaming versus the ways of the new. Namely, cardboard counters vs plastic miniature pieces. In fact, up until CoH, I never thought I would ever buy another wargame with cardboard counters. Then along comes CoH. Fantastic wargame, cardboard counters. So now I have these two great games, and I'm thinking, and I see a lot of threads with people thinkling the same thing, do I keep them both? If not, then I've got to decide which one is better. Of course, when there is something new, it has it's period of time when the novelty of it, and it's newness carry a lot of weight. And that certainly was the case for me with CoH.

The components were every bit as top notch as were those of TOI. The game system was an easy to learn one like TOI. Sturdy, hard mounted map boards that could be fit together in a number of ways, just like TOI. Same subject matter, just on the Russian Front though. An interactive game mechanic, just like TOI. With so many similarities, one of them had to be the better game. Would I keep them both seeing as they were so alike? Well, I decided early on that I really liked CoH, and it got the lion's share of table time there for a spell. But after the honeymoon was over, I really started taking a hard look at the two games. I decided that I was going to keep them both, as the plastic pieces of TOI trumped the cardboard counters, although the CoH counters are the best cardboard counters I've ever played a wargame with.

There was a period where I felt like CoH was the better game, and I was keeping TOI as a novelty. Then here comes Normandy and the Designers Series Scenario book . Now the newness shoe is on the other foot with TOI! So I'm back to pondering which of these two games I really like better. Which one do I think is the better game.

So I start doing a little Pros and Cons thinking there.

Game flow: They both have an interacting game sysytem. CoH was my initial feeling as being the better of the two. It was more free flowing, and open to just about anything happening. Good action / reaction design. But the group movement and infinate possibilities in that game is so open ended, that I soon found myself wondering if I'd made the fullest use of my moves, could I have been even more productive in my turn had I changed the sequence of my move? Then I found that both I and my opponents were critiquing each others moves to the point of getting the most out of the actions was becoming the main focus. The feeling of "I probably missed something there" became prevalent, and often times we did miss a better move sequence. TOI handles larger unit count games much better in the end, IMHO. And I've come to appreciate the game system in the smaller battles as well. There is just enough structure in the game system (TOI) to allow the players the freedom of choice, while concentrating and keeping the focus on the game situation and on game decisions. CoH's system, for me, presents the player with endless possibilities in the system itself, and so pushing the system many times outweighed the game situation and gameplay. TOI is my choice for game flow. CoH, while fun, can get a little out of control a little too often. Too many "I didn't know you could do that"s in the games.

Cards: Both are super top grade here. TOI and CoH make use of cards to augment game play for events such as off board artillery. Both work well for the games respectively, and the cards are both of a similar high quality. In game terms , TOI just has the shear quanity advantage over CoH. That and the cards in CoH play out as an extension of the Command Action Points, and after a while start to loose their feeling of uniqueness and feel more like just bonus Command Action Points. So I like the shear number of variables in TOIs cards and the uinque feel they lend to the game, and the system.

Map boards: Again, both games have top notch, hard mounted map boards with superb artwork. A closer look here for me and I have to give the advantage to TOI again. Double sided game boards, and I have to go with the larger 2 inch hexes. CoHs 1.25 inch hexes mean you get a bigger battlefield out of the same table top space, but TOIs smaller sections allow for greater uniqueness in map setups, and battlefield shapes. The overlays just seal the deal here with their ability to alter and taylor the maps.

Destructable buildings goes to TOI and the Normandy expansion.

Linked Campaign Scenarios goes to TOI.

Number of scenarios is now in favor of TOI.

Variety and uniqueness of vehicles is slightly in favor of CoH.

One of my favorite game design features about TOI that I really liked: suppressive fire. The decision to lay down suppressive fire or direct fire (concetrated fire in TOI terms), as far as I'm aware has never been an option in any tactical level wargame(at least that I've ever played). This one simple feature really lends TOI to a high degree of realism in the feel of the games, IMO.

Unit facing goes to CoH in much the same way the suppressive fire goes to TOI.

Close combat rules goes to CoH for ease of play and being simpler and more streamlined, almost seamless in CoH.

Damage effects I like CoH in the regard that I like the hidden effect rule, but I like the larger step lossed and ability to combine units back into larger ones of TOI.

Multi player goes to TOI and those crazy differently colored squad bases.

Game time length is even, both games having large and smaller scenarios.

Lastly here, and I'll stop for awhile, one of the biggest things in my mind, is game support. CoH is the only game of it's newly formed company. Right now, given the current economic conditions, and the in general low profit margin of the wargaming hobby as a whole, I want a game that is going to be supported by expansions into as many theaters and areas of WWII as possible and something that has at it's core focus WWII. A game is at its fullest when all of its pieces are taken into account. TOI is moving ahead in the exact directiion I would hope with two expansions and the Designers Series Scenario book, which is out of this world. Things like that are actually a little piece of the wargaming heritage, history and tradition as I've witnessed in my lifetime. I'd be suprised to see something like that come out for CoH, or for that matter, from anywhere else at all. CoH has June 09 as its target for releasing its second installment, we'll see what FFG and TOI add on by then.

So here I've wrestled quite a bit with two games that I at first thought there wasn't enough room in town for the two of them. My old grognard status and bias, which first found me giving the nod to a good "old school styled cardboard counter" game design, with TOI sliding into 2nd place as a novelty game with plastic pieces, has again been given a moment to pause and reconsider the matter.

And I must say I find TOI as the better of the two as a whole...finally.

It just seems to me like FFG is hearing the issues I read on these boards and responding to them. Not enough scenarios? How about a 20 scenario, 96 page piece of wargaming history scenario book? Didn't think better artwork and game boards were possible, think again. How about added game features like destructable buildings. Linked Camapaign scenarios. Better detail in the plastic pieces? You got it.

I said this when TOI first came out. If the game could survive and manage to get a couple expansions out, it was going to be the new Squad Leader , and a monster smash as a wargame. I don't see much out there in wargame land to challange that now, and if they get a Russian Front expansion out, this game will be IT as far as wargames go. Pacific to follow, then start adding all the bells and whistles like campaign scenarios and this thing will go nuclear!