Los desarrolladores son los del Crown of Glory y Forge of Freedom pero no me acaba de convencer lo que veo. Tiene buenos gráficos o aparenta tenerlos, que si las fichas y tal pero bueno, ya veremos.
Tenemos los Squad Battles de HPS pero aquí son pocos los que los juegan y mira que gráficamente no están nada mal. No veo más diferencia respecto a esos que el apartado gráfico.
Saludos
Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
Moderador: Moderadores Wargames
-
Haplo_Patryn
- Moderador
- Mensajes: 19297
- Registrado: 13 May 2003, 13:08
- STEAM: Jugador
- Ubicación: En mi casa
- Contactar:
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
No sé si es el juego de PC (creo que si) o el de tablero pero en Academy Games se puede hacer el preorder (si el de PC ¿a qué espera Matrix Games). Eso sí son 70 $ del ala (te ahorras 10$). 
Estos estan fumaos 
https://academy-games.com/pre-order-awa ... nd-edition
Estos estan fumaos https://academy-games.com/pre-order-awa ... nd-edition
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
Buf! Menos mal. Aunque si eso vale el de tablero... 
-
Granfali
- Crack - Oberst
- Mensajes: 3096
- Registrado: 02 Feb 2004, 18:38
- STEAM: No Jugador
- Ubicación: Orippo
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
39.99$ por descarga directa. Diez más si quieres la copia física.
A mí lo que más me preocupa es el multiplayer. He puesto un mensaje en el foro de matrix y Gil R. me ha contestado que "más adelante" se hablará del tema. Miedo me da...
No conozco el juego de tablero ¿tiene mucha interacción? Me explico, en el turno de el jugador A ¿el jugador B interviene constantemente? Solo así puedo llegar a entender que el juego no traiga PBEM, o al menos PBEM en servidor, como el Battlefield Academy.
En fin, veremos a ver qué pasa.
Aquí os dejo una comparativa con el Combat Comander.
I know that this topic has been addressed a few different threads, and in a couple different ways. After completing sessions of each, however, I thought that I would do a subjective comparison, to help those that are still on the fence about which to buy. In short, I was hoping that after playing both, I would have a favorite, and spend my time and attention with only one. Further plays may still differentiate, but in short, I cannot yet say which is my WWII tactical game of choice. The games share a lot: indirect fire of mortars and off-board artillery, smoke, group actions and firing, threaded actions, cover, elevation, LOS, etc all work very similarly. Both tell a great story when the shootin is done. However, here are some critical differences as I see them:
1) UNIT BALANCE. In CoH, my German LMGs seemed quite overpowered, and my rifle squads couldnt do anything, all determined by range (5) and FP (2). And Im not talking about bad die-rolls -- I am talking about the complete inability to hit another unit in range and in cover (you simply have to roll a 12 on 2d6 on a unit in cover +2 when most have a defense of 12 to begin with (or a 10 if you want to waste 2 CAPs to adjust your die roll)). Meanwhile, my LMGs could tear everything apart from quite a distance (what they're supposed to do, but WOW). I never felt that way with CC. If this ends up being true over time, it could be a real killer for CoH. Any comments about this from CoH vets?
In this respect (and ONLY this respect), I like CC's attacker rolls/defender rolls mechanic -- although it adds more chaos and randomness to the firefight, it has the advantage of "hiding" any balance issues that may exist between units.
ADVANTAGE CC
2) FACING, ARC OF FIRE, and FLANKING. To me, this is a CRITICAL issue blatantly missing from CC. CC rules do not allot for lots of common WWII tactics when it leaves facing out of the rules, including the classic "assault on a fixed position" seen in Band of Brothers.
Playing CoH was rife with facing concerns, and covering fellow units' flanks, while trying to take advantage of the opportunity to turn the flank of your opponent. In CC, I didnt care if someone was behind me or not. Doesn't matter, and thats no good. Simply a critical element of tactical concern completely missing from CC. CoH rewards many classic tactics, CC much less so.
STRONG ADVANTAGE CoH
3) REACTION. OPPORTUNITY ACTION. CoH's CAP mechanic is ingenious. As mentioned elsewhere, managing one's CAPs is perhaps the most critical aspect of the game. CAPs limit your opportunity actions without hamstringing you by the need to draw/keep the right cards at the right time. ANY unit may act in response as long as you have CAPs left. Between this and #2, I believe that CoH is the tactically superior game.
ADVANTAGE CoH
4) SUPERIOR COMPONENTS. I am more ambivalent about this than I thought I would be -- CoH has much nicer maps, but fewer of them because they are mounted and one-sided. Good? Bad? The chits, however, are spectacular!!
ADVANTAGE Neutral, and purely in the eyes of the beholder. CC gives you more, and CoH gives you better. I'd honestly prefer more (paper) maps, but I really like the die-cut counters. I think that in two years, more maps and more counters will make the quality superiority shine.
5) HIT EFFECTS. The chit-pull-for-hit-effect is a great mechanic in CoH, and would seem to me to be accurate. Will the hit instantly neutralize the squad, pin it, make it cower, merely shaken, or make it berserk?! Either way, two hits kill it. To me this is another ingenious CoH mechanic.
ADVANTAGE CoH
6) CHAOS. CC simply has more chaos/luck. Although card draws exist in both, the ability to act in a meaningful fashion at all is determined by cards in CC, where cards in CoH only serve to give you MORE possible actions than what is available to you already with each individual unit (APs) and extra actions/die modifiers/reactions (CAPs). Attacker rolls AND defender rolls??!! Obviously, more luck and chaos than in CoH, where the defender has a fixed value that the attacker has to match or exceed with the only roll that happens with combat resolution.
Secret objectives? To me, this kinda sucks. In CC, you could have played the superior game, killed more units than your opponent, and secured your objective, but your opponent's secret objective happens to be worth 5 points to your 1. And you find out at the end of the game -- oops, youve lost.
Snipers, jams, and random actions. Fun chaotic elements to CC that I enjoy. I think the sniper mechanic is poor, but I like jams and events.
ADVANTAGE CoH. Again, though, if you like "barely managing battlefield chaos," CC is your game. If you want to learn tactics and have the tactically superior player generally win, CoH is it.
7) SCENARIO LENGTH. I love CC's mechanic for the end game. Is the scenario going to be over next turn? Dunno. You cannot GAME the end in CC (putting units in precarious situations JUST because you know that its the last turn). In CoH, its over turn X. So put that MG in the open when your opponent has no CAPs left -- its not going to matter. Totally unrealistic
ADVANTAGE CC
VEHICLES. Enough said. Whether you care about them or not, its nice to have the option.
ADVANTAGE CoH
9) VERISIMILITUDE IN ACTION THREADING In CC, you can see a single squad or group act multiple times before another squad does anything. That entrenched MG with LOS to an enemy can use all of your fire cards while a unit in the woods does nothing but pick his teeth (or maybe "combat jack"). You have cards with orders, and from turn to turn, you can order the same unit multiple times while ignoring others. In CoH, each unit spends APs until exhausted, then you pass priority to your opponent who then does the same with one of his, and back to you -- but that aforementioned unit is now "used," so youre on to another unit. This is better representative of realism to me, as all of these units should be acting in "real time." Yes, I know that in CoH you can pass in succession, such that a couple of your units may not act before turn resolution, and I realize that in CC you probably should be using your hand's actions on different units to maximize efficiency and firepower. But it often doesnt play out that way.
Also, the my unit/his unit/my unit/his unit oscillation adds a lot to the tactical play of CoH, especially when interspersed with the possibility of CAP expenditure or the other "free" opportunity action by "using" one of your unused units. To me, it feels much more "real time."
ADVANTAGE CoH
10) DICE. Better than card flips to me. I just like rolling the dice instead of flipping the cards to determine my "roll." Purely subjective.
ADVANTAGE Neutral
11) LEADERSHIP CC has the edge here. Real leaders with a range of effect, instead of the CAP system, making leadership generic across all teams and squads. Once again, however, I really like the CAP system, but it doesnt account for individual leadership ability . . . you know, the more I write, the more I once again favor CAPs. The leaders in CC arent THAT different anyway. CAP expenditure generically represents moments of leadership shine in any given unit.
ADVANTAGE Neutral
When I review what Ive written, you would assume that I am strongly in favor of CoH. Perhaps right now I give it the edge, and primarily for the CAP system and the facing/flanking rules. But I have thoroughly enjoyed the play of both. I STILL hope to only own one system some day (oh yeah -- Tide of Iron is on the trade pile if anyone wants it), but its a little too close to call right now. I hope this was helpful, and I invite any critiques or arguments. My experience with both is still limited, and Im sure I have a lot to learn through more play.
Edit: Because this one had to go to 11, for various typos, and to add BOLD and underline for readability.
Hilo completo aquí
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/365833/ ... t-by-point
A mí lo que más me preocupa es el multiplayer. He puesto un mensaje en el foro de matrix y Gil R. me ha contestado que "más adelante" se hablará del tema. Miedo me da...
No conozco el juego de tablero ¿tiene mucha interacción? Me explico, en el turno de el jugador A ¿el jugador B interviene constantemente? Solo así puedo llegar a entender que el juego no traiga PBEM, o al menos PBEM en servidor, como el Battlefield Academy.
En fin, veremos a ver qué pasa.
Aquí os dejo una comparativa con el Combat Comander.
I know that this topic has been addressed a few different threads, and in a couple different ways. After completing sessions of each, however, I thought that I would do a subjective comparison, to help those that are still on the fence about which to buy. In short, I was hoping that after playing both, I would have a favorite, and spend my time and attention with only one. Further plays may still differentiate, but in short, I cannot yet say which is my WWII tactical game of choice. The games share a lot: indirect fire of mortars and off-board artillery, smoke, group actions and firing, threaded actions, cover, elevation, LOS, etc all work very similarly. Both tell a great story when the shootin is done. However, here are some critical differences as I see them:
1) UNIT BALANCE. In CoH, my German LMGs seemed quite overpowered, and my rifle squads couldnt do anything, all determined by range (5) and FP (2). And Im not talking about bad die-rolls -- I am talking about the complete inability to hit another unit in range and in cover (you simply have to roll a 12 on 2d6 on a unit in cover +2 when most have a defense of 12 to begin with (or a 10 if you want to waste 2 CAPs to adjust your die roll)). Meanwhile, my LMGs could tear everything apart from quite a distance (what they're supposed to do, but WOW). I never felt that way with CC. If this ends up being true over time, it could be a real killer for CoH. Any comments about this from CoH vets?
In this respect (and ONLY this respect), I like CC's attacker rolls/defender rolls mechanic -- although it adds more chaos and randomness to the firefight, it has the advantage of "hiding" any balance issues that may exist between units.
ADVANTAGE CC
2) FACING, ARC OF FIRE, and FLANKING. To me, this is a CRITICAL issue blatantly missing from CC. CC rules do not allot for lots of common WWII tactics when it leaves facing out of the rules, including the classic "assault on a fixed position" seen in Band of Brothers.
Playing CoH was rife with facing concerns, and covering fellow units' flanks, while trying to take advantage of the opportunity to turn the flank of your opponent. In CC, I didnt care if someone was behind me or not. Doesn't matter, and thats no good. Simply a critical element of tactical concern completely missing from CC. CoH rewards many classic tactics, CC much less so.
STRONG ADVANTAGE CoH
3) REACTION. OPPORTUNITY ACTION. CoH's CAP mechanic is ingenious. As mentioned elsewhere, managing one's CAPs is perhaps the most critical aspect of the game. CAPs limit your opportunity actions without hamstringing you by the need to draw/keep the right cards at the right time. ANY unit may act in response as long as you have CAPs left. Between this and #2, I believe that CoH is the tactically superior game.
ADVANTAGE CoH
4) SUPERIOR COMPONENTS. I am more ambivalent about this than I thought I would be -- CoH has much nicer maps, but fewer of them because they are mounted and one-sided. Good? Bad? The chits, however, are spectacular!!
ADVANTAGE Neutral, and purely in the eyes of the beholder. CC gives you more, and CoH gives you better. I'd honestly prefer more (paper) maps, but I really like the die-cut counters. I think that in two years, more maps and more counters will make the quality superiority shine.
5) HIT EFFECTS. The chit-pull-for-hit-effect is a great mechanic in CoH, and would seem to me to be accurate. Will the hit instantly neutralize the squad, pin it, make it cower, merely shaken, or make it berserk?! Either way, two hits kill it. To me this is another ingenious CoH mechanic.
ADVANTAGE CoH
6) CHAOS. CC simply has more chaos/luck. Although card draws exist in both, the ability to act in a meaningful fashion at all is determined by cards in CC, where cards in CoH only serve to give you MORE possible actions than what is available to you already with each individual unit (APs) and extra actions/die modifiers/reactions (CAPs). Attacker rolls AND defender rolls??!! Obviously, more luck and chaos than in CoH, where the defender has a fixed value that the attacker has to match or exceed with the only roll that happens with combat resolution.
Secret objectives? To me, this kinda sucks. In CC, you could have played the superior game, killed more units than your opponent, and secured your objective, but your opponent's secret objective happens to be worth 5 points to your 1. And you find out at the end of the game -- oops, youve lost.
Snipers, jams, and random actions. Fun chaotic elements to CC that I enjoy. I think the sniper mechanic is poor, but I like jams and events.
ADVANTAGE CoH. Again, though, if you like "barely managing battlefield chaos," CC is your game. If you want to learn tactics and have the tactically superior player generally win, CoH is it.
7) SCENARIO LENGTH. I love CC's mechanic for the end game. Is the scenario going to be over next turn? Dunno. You cannot GAME the end in CC (putting units in precarious situations JUST because you know that its the last turn). In CoH, its over turn X. So put that MG in the open when your opponent has no CAPs left -- its not going to matter. Totally unrealistic
ADVANTAGE CC
VEHICLES. Enough said. Whether you care about them or not, its nice to have the option.ADVANTAGE CoH
9) VERISIMILITUDE IN ACTION THREADING In CC, you can see a single squad or group act multiple times before another squad does anything. That entrenched MG with LOS to an enemy can use all of your fire cards while a unit in the woods does nothing but pick his teeth (or maybe "combat jack"). You have cards with orders, and from turn to turn, you can order the same unit multiple times while ignoring others. In CoH, each unit spends APs until exhausted, then you pass priority to your opponent who then does the same with one of his, and back to you -- but that aforementioned unit is now "used," so youre on to another unit. This is better representative of realism to me, as all of these units should be acting in "real time." Yes, I know that in CoH you can pass in succession, such that a couple of your units may not act before turn resolution, and I realize that in CC you probably should be using your hand's actions on different units to maximize efficiency and firepower. But it often doesnt play out that way.
Also, the my unit/his unit/my unit/his unit oscillation adds a lot to the tactical play of CoH, especially when interspersed with the possibility of CAP expenditure or the other "free" opportunity action by "using" one of your unused units. To me, it feels much more "real time."
ADVANTAGE CoH
10) DICE. Better than card flips to me. I just like rolling the dice instead of flipping the cards to determine my "roll." Purely subjective.
ADVANTAGE Neutral
11) LEADERSHIP CC has the edge here. Real leaders with a range of effect, instead of the CAP system, making leadership generic across all teams and squads. Once again, however, I really like the CAP system, but it doesnt account for individual leadership ability . . . you know, the more I write, the more I once again favor CAPs. The leaders in CC arent THAT different anyway. CAP expenditure generically represents moments of leadership shine in any given unit.
ADVANTAGE Neutral
When I review what Ive written, you would assume that I am strongly in favor of CoH. Perhaps right now I give it the edge, and primarily for the CAP system and the facing/flanking rules. But I have thoroughly enjoyed the play of both. I STILL hope to only own one system some day (oh yeah -- Tide of Iron is on the trade pile if anyone wants it), but its a little too close to call right now. I hope this was helpful, and I invite any critiques or arguments. My experience with both is still limited, and Im sure I have a lot to learn through more play.
Edit: Because this one had to go to 11, for various typos, and to add BOLD and underline for readability.
Hilo completo aquí
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/365833/ ... t-by-point
Algunas personas nunca aprenden nada, porque todo lo comprenden demasiado pronto.
Alexander Pope.
Alexander Pope.
-
Granfali
- Crack - Oberst
- Mensajes: 3096
- Registrado: 02 Feb 2004, 18:38
- STEAM: No Jugador
- Ubicación: Orippo
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
Ya tenemos el primer AAR 
Algunas personas nunca aprenden nada, porque todo lo comprenden demasiado pronto.
Alexander Pope.
Alexander Pope.
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
En principio mañana 15-04-12 sale el juego, o al menos eso está anunciado. Veremos que tal. Después del chasco del Baptism of Fire habrá que estar atento a la crítica.
http://www.slitherine.com/games/coh_pc
http://www.slitherine.com/games/coh_pc
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
Os comento que en esta comunidad se empieza a jugar bastante este juego por Vassal.
Incluso un forero se ha currado una mejora del modulo con traduccion incluida.
Imagino que se pasara el a decirlo
Incluso un forero se ha currado una mejora del modulo con traduccion incluida.
Imagino que se pasara el a decirlo
"Los enemigos de España son tres: la Religión, los Moros y el Inglés"
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
Ojala sea el comienzo de una moda. Ir haciendo conversiones de los juegos de tablero. Se han saltado la fecha de salida... 
Con lo que me apetece ahora ver rodar dados por la pantalla del ordenador.
Con lo que me apetece ahora ver rodar dados por la pantalla del ordenador.-
Granfali
- Crack - Oberst
- Mensajes: 3096
- Registrado: 02 Feb 2004, 18:38
- STEAM: No Jugador
- Ubicación: Orippo
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
Ya hay fecha oficial de salida: 8 de mayo
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3090969
Nuevo AAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3088607
En cuanto lo pongan disponible me lo compro!!!
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3090969
Nuevo AAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3088607
En cuanto lo pongan disponible me lo compro!!!
Algunas personas nunca aprenden nada, porque todo lo comprenden demasiado pronto.
Alexander Pope.
Alexander Pope.
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
Yo mas.
Le tenia ganas a este.
Le tenia ganas a este.
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
Y yo, será la penúltima adquisición en mi vida hasta la siguiente penúltima.
Ya está alguien generando liga-torneos-campañas. Blas la lleva
Ya está alguien generando liga-torneos-campañas. Blas la lleva
-
Granfali
- Crack - Oberst
- Mensajes: 3096
- Registrado: 02 Feb 2004, 18:38
- STEAM: No Jugador
- Ubicación: Orippo
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
Si no he leído mal, el editor es completo. Será importante el tipo de AAR que se dé al final de las batallas. Si ambos conceptos son buenos podría ser un juego excelente para montar operaciones o campañas multijugador.Constan escribió:Ya está alguien generando liga-torneos-campañas. Blas la lleva
Algunas personas nunca aprenden nada, porque todo lo comprenden demasiado pronto.
Alexander Pope.
Alexander Pope.
-
rafaciudadela
- Regular - Unterfeldwebel
- Mensajes: 470
- Registrado: 28 Dic 2005, 14:27
Re: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
El AAR es muy bueno y muy didactico, te permite saber como funciona el juego. Lástima que no tenga PBM, sino yo también me lo compraba.