Hell Dorado, is it like confrontation2?

[Tuska]

As i were huge fan of c2 and after reading the rules, and seeing old Conf-forum members, is enyone tryed it?
how was it?
can some one how played bouht, do somekind of rewieve how its is comparing to c2.
Im relly exsided about Hell Dorado, and have hige hopes on it.

[Fenris]

You are not the first to ask for a summary of the game, there is the link you'll find some highlights on the game system :

http://arch01.forum.helldorado.fr/index.php?topic=493.0

[lapiaz]

the similarity  is that they are both  skirmish , metal miniatures and solid rules ...

the rest is coplet different and to be honest  much better than C2 ...

[mathieu]

and solid rules ...

Solid rules, C2? Dude, did you ever play the game?

EDIT: reading myself again I realize I might have come out harsh. No offense, lapiaz . In my opinion C2 was a poorly written game (hence the FAQ many, many times longer than the rules) which was getting worse every month as new, not-so-well tested releases and their spells/special rules would come out. C3 is much better in that respect because they straightened out everything that needed it, but it is (or actually was) going the same route since new releases keep coming with their own set of rules that the core rules obviously can't have been designed to accommodate.

[Lemminkäinen]

Hell Dorado is IMHO better. C2's deepest tactical depth was about the finetuning the placement of the bases in order to block charges and force your enemy into bad frays. This was more of an accident of the rules, I think, but it was sort of the pinnacle of the tactics possible and a player who was good in that really ruled the day. Hell Dorado supports these sorts of tactics in a much, much more elegant way and does so right from the start. Also, the command point system is brilliant and a really neat resource management problem, which creates a whole new tactical field. Even the activation sequence is IMHO better with HD than it was with C2, lending the game to, once again, greater tactical depth.

All in all, as a wargame of skill, HD really beats C2 hands down.

[von]

I would also ad, IMO, that the minis are much easier to paint and manipulate in HD than in C2, without loosing details and quality.

this is game material AND painter's delight, which is great.

my 2 cents.

[Tuska]

You are not the first to ask for a summary of the game, there is the link you'll find some highlights on the game system :

http://arch01.forum.helldorado.fr/index.php?topic=493.0

Thanks!
That is/was some good info as well what ohters sad in this thread.

[lapiaz]

non taken ... and yes I did play C2  use to love the old incarnation mode and all the shadows characters  and experience  cards ...   never have a real serious issue  with balance as  I always play for fun  and  use a lots of house rules if we  din't like  a special rule we changed to represent  our views ... 

and solid rules ...

Solid rules, C2? Dude, did you ever play the game?

EDIT: reading myself again I realize I might have come out harsh. No offense, lapiaz . In my opinion C2 was a poorly written game (hence the FAQ many, many times longer than the rules) which was getting worse every month as new, not-so-well tested releases and their spells/special rules would come out. C3 is much better in that respect because they straightened out everything that needed it, but it is (or actually was) going the same route since new releases keep coming with their own set of rules that the core rules obviously can't have been designed to accommodate.