I believe there is a fundamental design problem in that the turn-based strategy (TBS) layer is driving the real-time-tactical (RTT) layer rather than the other way around.

While not bad per se. It doesn't feel right for a Company of Heroes game and its "strong RTS foundations."

If you want to play the dynamic campaign, the TBS has become a prerequisite to finding a RTT battle. Further, the results of the TBS unlock what kind of RTT game I'm able to play, making it even more critical. Didn't capture an airport? No air strikes for you.

That's what I mean when I say the TBS layer is "driving" the classic RTT layer. I submit that it should be the other way around.

Let's dig a little deeper. What is the purpose of the strategic layer? Why even bother? There are some very good reasons:

• DYNAMIC - A procedural reactive campaign that allows re-playability not possible with linear scripted narratives.
• PROGRESSION - Give a sense of accomplishment towards a goal rather than just an individual skirmish.
• CONSEQUENCES - Make the outcome of a battle matter in a larger context.

The most obvious way to do this is with a strategic meta-layer like we see now. It does accomplish those goals as can be seen in games like Total War, Steel Division 2, etc. But, it changes the fundamental nature of the (single player) game from being a pure RTS to a hybrid. Chocolate and peanut butter may taste great together but I'm not sure I want peanut butter in my CoH.

How might we accomplish the same worthy goals but keep RTT as the primary experience?

We need to START with the RTT and have the strategy layer act more as a scoreboard in that the map shows the RESULTS of your RTT actions.

Let's explore an example:

On the campaign map (which I'd prefer to see as a simple 2D map with classic WW2 styling but I digress...) we see Italy divided into regions like many other war games. Each region is given a name which corresponds to the map we'll fight on when engaging in the area.

Then, we are presented with 3 (dynamically generated) scenarios similar to the missions available now. For example:

1. Defend a bridge in region X for so our armor column can advance.
2. Capture an airfield in region Y and secure intel.
3. Advance our front to region Z and liberate partisans.

We are able to preview the tactical map of each region and stated objectives. Then, WE choose the engagement that suits our preferred play style. Notably, the AI will play out the other options that we DON'T choose.

Perhaps we can even optionally choose which abilities NOT to take and donate them instead to the AI in order to bolster their chance of success in the other concurrent missions. This might be a way to add self imposed difficulty and a means to influence the AI outcomes. Just some examples of how we should get all the choice and the AI should react to us.

Once the battle is over, we're shown the results on the strategic map. There can be varying levels of success (high casualties, missed secondary objectives, large VP advantage, etc.) as well as the outcomes of the AI fought battles and so on. The dynamic campaign will calculate the gains/losses and show us an updated situation map and the next set of engagement options. We are part of the struggle, not the entirety of it. Not a division of heroes, but a Company of Heroes ;-)

Once again, this is just an example. There are MANY design possibilities here on how the mechanics could work which are beyond the scope of what I want to present here. My main point is simply to show of how the tactical real-time game might be made front and center again with the strategic layer playing a supporting role. All the while preserving the key points of a dynamic campaign that offers a sense of progression and meaningful consequences.

This does mean turning the single player game on it's head which may be more than the devs are able or willing to do at this point. But, FWIW, that's my 2¢. When I sit down for a game of CoH, I want a RTT experience. As much as I like TBS, I have other options for that. I want the ultimate real-time tactical CoH - not a hybrid.

If you made it this far, thanks for the ear! Would love to hear others thoughts on the matter too. Cheers :-)

Something like an upgraded version of the Ardennes Campaign. I agree. 

PsyCOH3 wrote:

Something like an upgraded version of the Ardennes Campaign. I agree. 

I actually haven't tried Ardennes Assault yet. I only just picked it up when it went free recently. I'll have to check that out soon!

Polly wrote:

Well put @JLX , I see what you're getting at. Based on some of their replies and recent interviews with Relic, it looks like they are indeed trying something new here though. <snip>

Well, that's the thing. It's not new. It's a well established concept borrowed from the likes of Total War.

I believe Relic should be LEADING and moving the RTS genre forward. Not FOLLOWING other established studios by adopting their formulas (TBS/RTS hybrids in this case).

There is nothing wrong in drawing inspiration from others. Art is derivative by nature. But, it needs to be more than that. Be inspired by others but don't lose your own vision.

RTS is the foundation on which Relic is built and they are damn good at it! I want to see them take this opportunity to raise the bar even more. Use their flagship title to once again push the envelope and show us what is possible with the real-time genre that we haven't even thought of yet. It's what they did with the first Company of Heroes and what I want to see them do again.

DoW3 is now their cautionary tale. They borrowed concepts from successful MOBAs but at the same time also seemed to forget the ingredients of their own secret sauce: Cover, unit preservation, positioning over numbers, etc... CoH is a masterpiece because it genuinely innovated and elevated the gameplay beyond the RTS conventions of the day. In so doing, they set themselves apart and achieved something really special that has lasted the test of time.

They've said they have learned from the DoW3 debacle and are paying a lot of attention to their own formula, leaning heavily on the series predecessors. This is very comforting. Do not break what you have worked so hard to build.

But it's important they don't go overboard in the other direction either. I get it: Once bitten, twice shy. But I really hope they don't shy away from their RTS roots. Adding this TBS strategy layer feels... "safe". There is nothing new or innovative about it. It also arguably moves them AWAY from their core instead of enhancing it. I want them to lead, not follow.

Now on to your next point ;-)

Polly wrote:

<snip>They want to broaden the appeal and reach a wider set of players, specifically "more strategic players", and the campaign looks to be very much like a hybrid of 'TBS/RTS'. It does strike me as a somewhat odd decision, but I can see where they're coming from. With that in mind, your proposed changes would not achieve that goal, and they'd have to scrap re-design most of the campaign, which seems unlikely to me.<snip>

Their goal of reaching a broader audience of "more strategic players" is a good one. However, I don't think that what I proposed in my original post is at odds with this. Yes, it would require scrapping the existing strategy layer and, as I acknowledged, fear they are too committed at this point. However, if it was me, I'd step on the brakes even with the existing investment.

There are more ways to reach these types of players than adding a TBS layer. A perfect example is their excellent TACTICAL PAUSE feature! That directly accommodates the slower/strategic player while keeping the focus on the RTT experience. Bravo! Deep mud/snow, TrueSight, vaulting and even campfires (which didn't quite play out well) are all excellent innovations that stay focused on the RTT core.

Just to be clear, I'm all for a strategic layer. I actually worked with my group on several occasions to create one of my own. CoH is begging for it and I'm really glad they're doing it. I would just prefer if it were as a supporting cast member rather than stealing the lead.

Polly wrote:

<snip>Quite a bit of this has been discussed in numerous threads already by the way, and I recommend you hop into one of those discussions.
Odds are that most people don't want to copy-paste their lengthy replies and opinions to get another parallel discussion going on the same subject :)

https://community.companyofheroes.com/coh-franchise/company-of-heroes-3/forums/1-general-discussion/threads/1015-the-turn-based-campaign-vs-rts-missions

Tnx for the link. So many posts it's hard to find time catch them all. I'll give your thread a read too and get caught up. Cheers.

JLX wrote:
I believe Relic should be LEADING and moving the RTS genre forward. Not FOLLOWING other established studios by adopting their formulas (TBS/RTS hybrids in this case).

They fail to realize following in others' footsteps will only yeild a lowcost cosplayer of a TW/Civ game. Not only won't it broaden the playerbase and won't lead to "instant multiplayer queues" - it will turn away the existing fans.

The recipe was simple - work on existing foundations and improve it every time. Better graphics, balance, more content, better multiplayer experience and what not. That's the only way this franchise could develop realistically. Of course, this is not something the shareholders and the marketing department would be terribly happy about, but then again -  it's not the matter of "preserving the status quo VS gaining new ground". It's rather "preserving the status quo VS losing what was achieved already".

CoH 2 already had blizzards and crushing the ice below vehicles. Fans didn't like that and it just meant the time and resources that went into these features was wasted. I can see the same happening with CoH 3's campaign. And if they attempt to make the game excel at everything at the same time, it will likely excel at nothing in particular in the end.

Harris wrote:

CoH 2 already had blizzards and crushing the ice below vehicles. Fans didn't like that and it just meant the time and resources that went into these features was wasted. I can see the same happening with CoH 3's campaign. And if they attempt to make the game excel at everything at the same time, it will likely excel at nothing in particular in the end.

I know what you mean about ColdTech in the multiplayer arena. I also turn it off. But, I don't think it was a waste of time/resources at all!

That is exactly the type of thing that I'm glad they are trying to innovate on - their RTS core. It probably would have benefited from more play-testing but I believe the ideas were solid. Some things look great on paper and it's not until the rubber meets the road that you find out it's not quite what you hoped/expected.

It's like the Breach mechanic they're working on now. I think it's a great idea! Will it work as is in multiplayer? Dunno. Seems a little OP at first blush but that doesn't make it a bad idea. Just means they may need to iterate and tweak. I've already seen some very good suggestions about it on this forum. Once again, that's GOOD. That's Relic doing what Relic should be doing IMHO. Move the real-time experience onwards and upwards. Keep what's great and figure out how to make it even better. Not everything will be a home run at first.

That said, I agree with your point about the turn-based campaign. It does feel like Total War Lite being shoehorned around their existing amazing RTT core and the net result very well could end up being a "Jack of all trades and master of none." 

For the strategic player they're trying to reach, offering them a lite TBS is probably not compelling enough to pull them away from their favorite TBS anyway. Also, it doesn't really transition them into the RTT experience, other than they'll need to complete some missions in order to progress. Perhaps enhancing Tactical Pause even more, with options for persistent arrows or something, would further entices them to engage at the tactical level which is arguably the core game that you want them to migrate to.

18 months may sound like a long time to wait. But, for development of a major title it's a blink of an eye. Once again, I fear that they are too committed to their current TBS/RTS hybrid plan to realistically consider other options and they may spend much of their energy on the interaction between the two. This, as you pointed out, would sap time/resources that (IMHO) would be better spent on other things.

I'd be VERY curious to know just how much they are willing to reconsider based on user feedback. It's great they are engaging with us but there is only so much they can realistically do with the time available. I'm guessing they may not be able to comment too much about that but I'd really love to know :-)

It sounds like you're asking for something like Dawn of War: Dark Crusade (or Dawn of War 2) but with CoH. I'd be about it.