Hey @Philip_RE. This actually gives some good idea of how you have all of this planned out, thank you!

Philip_RE wrote:

Company Commanders 

Speaking of Company Commanders, each company will have a face, a personality, and a voice representing it

Could you go in more detail on this specifically? So far we've only seen 4 companies in the demo, that's representative of the final game, or we get to see more of them down the road? What are your plans on making sure each and every of them is a unique experience narratively? Any examples? And what of German companies? Are they just a generic "enemy" or do they get some narrative love as well?

Philip_RE wrote:
Unit Speech has always been especially important for bringing life and personality to the RTS level of COH and that continues to be a priority.

"Stop playing with yerself! Ground's a-take!" British Unit Speech in CoH 2 was very unique in terms of how colourful it was compared to otherwise rather bland and boring that of other factions. Do you plan to make sure everyone's equally awesome this time round?

Harris wrote:

Hey @Philip_RE. This actually gives some good idea of how you have all of this planned out, thank you!

Philip_RE wrote:

Company Commanders 

Speaking of Company Commanders, each company will have a face, a personality, and a voice representing it

Could you go in more detail on this specifically? So far we've only seen 4 companies in the demo, that's representative of the final game, or we get to see more of them down the road? What are your plans on making sure each and every of them is a unique experience narratively? Any examples? And what of German companies? Are they just a generic "enemy" or do they get some narrative love as well?

The numbers and types of companies is something the campaign team are assessing as development progresses. It's too early to say exactly what the makeup will be at this point.

One example of how we're going to bring narrative to our companies is through our Soldier Stories. Some companies will have an ongoing narrative that is told through letters and unit speech. It's not something we're going to do for every company because it would quickly become confusing (and annoying) but we're planning to include a variety of content that can be seen across multiple play-throughs. The first campaign you play might feature the story of a rambunctious artillery company eager to see action while the next might include a veteran armoured company with a host of grueling battles behind them.

We definitely have plans to make the enemy companies more than just generic foes but how we do that will depend a lot on how the campaign map gameplay develops. We always start with gameplay and then find ways to integrate the narrative into the game from there. One idea that we're considering is having companies that meet each other on the battlefield multiple times develop rivalries that would be reflected in their speech. It's early days yet and it's a feature that may not make it to the final game but it's a good example of the sort of thing we're experimenting with.

Philip_RE wrote:
Unit Speech has always been especially important for bringing life and personality to the RTS level of COH and that continues to be a priority.

"Stop playing with yerself! Ground's a-take!" British Unit Speech in CoH 2 was very unique in terms of how colourful it was compared to otherwise rather bland and boring that of other factions. Do you plan to make sure everyone's equally awesome this time round?

We're definitely aiming to get that same level of personality across the board and I think you can hear some of that in the German unit speech in the pre-alpha.

Very well. 

It would be great if you could please bring back Kai Wulff as a voice actor please.

As previously aforementioned, he did VA work for the studio in the original Company of Heroes and Opposing Fronts as Grenadier, Panzergrenadier, & Panzer Elite Announcer.

Cwar49ers wrote:

Hi Philip_RE,

This is great thanks for sharing as I think storytelling can actually really make a game go from good to great with compelling memorable stories all in different formats you described. I have questions for each section so in purpose of staying organized I listed them below.

Campaign Narrative -  "Our story scenes on the campaign map will be told via “Talking Heads,” 3-D, animated and lip-synched busts of each of the main story characters." - So I guess a decision has been made on how to deliver the narrative. (see 3D Caricature Design Feedback) Is it too problematic to share with us what the other suggestions/ideas were there no alternative options?

The goal of the talking heads is to bring a bit more movement to the dialogue. The alternative would be the static portraits we've used elsewhere in the pre-alpha. We don't have any plans to change direction for the portraits at this point but we have seen the feedback and any other comments are always welcome.

Missions - "They will have a kind of "meanwhile on the front" feeling." This may not be that big of deal as I see the value of open sandbox campaign choose your own path but it also could detract from the RTS matches feeling progressive or significant in relation to the plot, meaning the connection between missions and the narrative lose some of the impact with the conflict and resolution of every battle if it's generic in timing of the primary storyline. This is a bit confusing but I guess in short I'm saying it makes it harder to tell a memorable story if missions are disconnected. The only alternative I could suggest is perhaps tiers or segments of the story do need to be completed in order to progress but then that brings its own challenges. I'm thinking of Rommel vs. Patton (perhaps you played it or saw the game during your time at EA), those storylines are going to be specific in the campaign as far as timing (see Kasserine/El Guettar) so it'll be interesting how it's balanced to take in consideration historical accuracy of when certain events occured. My sincere hope is in the launch of Pre-Alpha the voice over said the player chose to attack on two fronts using Indian Artillery at Taranto....see photos below, is the greater Strategic map going to be like this 2D style, while the pre-alpha actual campaign map was the 3D map zoomed into the specific geographic location we're playing at that given time? Let me know if you can speak to whether we will get a test run or slice with this essential piece of the game?

You're right, the open nature of the campaign map and the freedom players have in approaching missions (or skipping them completely) is definitely a challenge. One of the things we're experimenting with is having key moments of the narrative play out slightly differently depending on how and when they're triggered. We're not going to be building a giant, Bioware style, branching narrative but the goal is to have the narrative reflect what's happening on the campaign map while still being a compelling story.

Regarding the higher level strategic map - we're looking at various options at the moment. Whether it appears in a later test release will depend on the focus of each playtest so I can't confirm either way at this point. 

Sitreps - My feedback in the link "Design feedback" above sums up my point of view on these, I did notice in Ardenne's Assault they were actually just 2D maps just with markers and photos thrown on top and scribblings drawn in red to highlight locations, so I guess your still screen shots could work as long as it's just not the photo with a paragraph to read like in the pre-alpha. I'd like to see more artwork and compelling briefings, evoking the feeling like we're actually there in the briefing room, not reading a newspaper clipping listening to a voice over. I think you probably know the delivery and artwork is almost just as important as the actual plot, at times at least. Coh had simplistic briefings too see screenshots below, it just seemed more interactive like it's the actual map tied into the story line utilizing the tactical map we could use in game, so it gave us more of a relatable perspective to the battle we're about to face with objectives clearly labeled opposed to the big picture maps above. 

That's great feedback, thanks.

Company Commanders - This is still too wide open to tell how this will play out but hopefully there are some combination of commanders that alter the narrative meaning if you piss off one it gets along with two others and so forth so multiple playthroughs there large number of possible combinations opposed to just sub-commander likes me or dislikes me, it can have more depth as most relationships aren't static.

Sub-commander relationships are going to be a key part of the campaign narrative, including the kind of variation you're talking about. The relationship between the player and the sub-commanders and between the sub-commanders themselves will affect the narrative and the types of events you see on the campaign map.

Soldier Stories - This should not be understated, I think any good story even if it's a side story, making it personal and the player care for the soldier is key in making the emotional connection to the narrative. These are real people with stories and lives, making it more meaningful. X-com perfected the build your own squads and with permadeath you lose your buddy you went to college with, that should impact the narrative so like in previous Coh series where there were counter attacks right after you beat the RTS map, the defensive level that happened next gave you the surviving veteran squads to work with which was nice. Example: label my squad infantry Wolverines or Spearhead or even preset realistic ones that u can label an vet up more rpg for campaign mode. Losing personalized squads may up the ante.

I'm glad to hear you see the value in this. We're looking for ways to increase the connection to your squads and companies and X-Com is something that comes up a lot. The CoH3 campaign is quite different to X-Com but we'd love to create that same kind of connection to the units you command.

Campaign Events - This is interesting I don't really have a question but curious to see how it's implemented. I always enjoyed the primary and secondary objectives, I'm always looking to replay the level until I get the secondary objectives so in a campaign mode version of the game now where I cannot just click restart(like xcom ironman mode), this may have me restarting the campaign over quite a few times. (Cue blushing emoji)

The best example of these events is in the pre-alpha is the "downed pilot with intel" objective. These events will vary from play through to play through and it may not be possible to get them all. You'll have to make decisions on which events to deal with and live with the consequences.

Cwar49ers wrote:

Coh 3 is going to be the best RTS ever made.

Thanks for all your comments and feedback, @Cwar49ers, we really appreciate it. It's great to hear that you like what you've seen so far.

Wirbelwind wrote:

It would be great if you could please bring back Kai Wulff as a voice actor please.

As previously aforementioned, he did VA work for the studio in the original Company of Heroes and Opposing Fronts as Grenadier, Panzergrenadier, & Panzer Elite Announcer.

I will pass that on to the audio team. Thanks.

PlugDoctor wrote:

My point is, its kinda becoming old with the all "heroic and badass US commander" and "Noble british commander". Its unbelivable at best. Not every US commander has to cosplay Patton.

I really like how CoH2 presented most of the commanders in the Ardeness assault. It felt like they were actually people giving honest feedback, not liking the war in a first place. It was just plain interesting to listen to what commanders have to say after the missions and even replay them just to hear what they have to say.  Would have included some examples but there are non on youtube.

In CoH3 on the other hand both US and UK "talking heads" feels like they are generic stereotypes. With US commander being ballzy cowboy who want to bombard everything and UK commander dont giving a damn about anything, unless its has some benifits. They are not belivable and not only that, they are not likable.

That's very useful feedback, thanks, @PlugDoctor. 

In the campaign will there be events where the Germans capture points on the campaign map? Making the player having to choose an action? The past two games in my opinion didn't really feel dynamic. It was click this tile and play this mission. I think it would be interesting to see either the ai make choices of offensives on areas of the map that you have to react to or missions that you can lose and instead of trying again, the map dynamics adjust to the loss of a strategic point giving you choices. 

Too often games end in a victory or mission success when in reality this was not always the outcome. The only adaptation that I have seen are the survive for x amount of time before reinforcements or objective is met. 

PlugDoc that is good narrative feedback, Philip will like that input I'm sure. I think the point that stands out to me you mentioned the Ardeness Assault the characters had a bio(back story) nothing elaborate but a general paragraph read with a bio to give them some personality, then in game their characters voiced their comments with that historical background always in the accent or their verbiage and reactions to the battles. It made them real human people not just characters playing a prototypical macho heartless commando or bitter sullen vet stereotypes even though some of them could still be classified as cliche, there were italian kids from the bronx in the war. I think that human element does make them more relatable or at least seem more human, but it also makes you care about them more too even if you disagree with some of their comments/ideas at least you have some substance behind their decisions. That's why I liked your original post about the existing stereotype talking heads feeling shallow and sort of predictable, they lacked nuance and realistic personalities not to say there weren't Patton gruff cowboy talking generals in that era but give them some backstory or details about who they are(in AA it was just in the select screen written paragraphs it wasn't a ton of content) but it built the character foundation. I still never paid for the Rangers in AA and know I missed out on the best unit in that expansion. The pay to play I will not budge on those money grabs no matter how alluring the feature may be.

Dmoney - This is a great point and probably not so much storyline driven as AI and development driven. I commented on this in campaign mode in one of my previous posts about wanting the AI to feel alive, not a scripted simulated response to an action. For it to have randomized goals or agendas besides just changing the starting points or locations of events each run through. I think to give the replay value a chance to stand the test of time there needs to be a constant randomization of the campaign not just by players choices/actions but by both AI agendas and timing of events. I think your point is to feel like it's not just beat this RTS map win or lose but have a timed RTS exchange and maybe there is no clear winner/loser but you gained one extra central building like a church turned hospital and now all of a sudden on campaign map you have a way to heal your men. Or better yet, in a campaign battle instead of just running into a random Company by scripted chance and duking it out over and over until you beat the game. Make it moreso a chess match where if you win the RTS match then maybe the germans counter with reinforcements in the nearby city making the next match very difficult routing you into attacking a lessor defended city (AI ambush anyone?) or at least as you said not having the human player starting over knowing that if you lose one scripted battle, yes you take a step back but you CAN recover from losses as can the AI, and not in a scripted predictable way either like overwhelmed RTS map where you're supposed to lose this one match by surviving a timer. Make it so losing isn't necessarily game breaking like it was in AA, but in coh 3 campaign map the AI flanks or cuts off your support lines or retreats even, they can push their own campaign fronts and they can adapt differently depending upon your decisions so no two playthroughs really are the same even if you follow the same exact steps because the AI may choose a different agenda/goal/response etc. This sort of AI opponent will in fact actually improve the narrative/storylines because it's less programmed and more unpredictable which equals more fun. I think the one consensus everyone agrees is the RTS AI has a good foundation but can be improved upon, well I'm hoping they also focus on the campaign AI to not just respond to your actions but make moves themselves unprompted and not just for randomized sake but for strategic advantages.

- Art of War

I'm kind of leery about the One Outro Movie and it being tied so firmly to the Historical Event. Because I dunno about the rest of you, but I distinctly remember marching from Naples straight through the Winter Line in less than a month. Three times (one for each Plan) Which would very thoroughly change the nature of the Italian Campaign (given how it takes a slogging match lasting most of a year to smashing open the gates of Italy). And I do know that Unity of Command II at least allowed a (very limited) alt historical path for such a quick breach of Monte Cassino and the WL in one of their ones.

On the whole I am liking what I hear and what I see, but I do agree there needs to be more interplay between the battles, events, and the campaign. And perhaps we can actually dig deep into the Soft Underbelly like Churchill Promised or push the Ljubljana Gap?

PlugDoctor wrote:

And its was really interesting that so many themes for such a small campaign have been touched. Because "bad guy is shooting at you" is not the only problem soldiers have to face at war.

In fact its kinda funny that both AA campaign and the PE campaign have simularities in story narrative. Story, not the action movie or just RTS, thats why they are, again imo, the best two campaigns. Not to mention that judging from my own observation, people really like this aproach. Simply because its rarely used and its unusuall. Since, as I was saying, most of the time its either an "action movie" or "here is your squads, kill bad guys".

Hope it makes some sence and helps.

@PlugDoctor We're pinning down our core campaign narrative at the moment so this kind of feedback is really useful and exactly why we're doing CoHDevelopment. Thank you.

Dmoney wrote:

In the campaign will there be events where the Germans capture points on the campaign map? Making the player having to choose an action? The past two games in my opinion didn't really feel dynamic. It was click this tile and play this mission. I think it would be interesting to see either the ai make choices of offensives on areas of the map that you have to react to or missions that you can lose and instead of trying again, the map dynamics adjust to the loss of a strategic point giving you choices. 

Yes, the German forces will counterattack on the campaign map and their behaviour will affect the options you have.

Are we gonna get in-game cinematics? I don't mind the minor engagements, but with major engagements like for example Battle of Monte Cassino. I love the classic CoH in game cinematics and the intro and outro narrator cut scene.