COH1 VS COH2 - Feedback Wanted

#1
1 year ago
Kyle_REKyle_RE Posts: 483 admin

Hey everyone,

Would love to get your feedback on something. We all know COH1 was and is a great game. It doesn't get to be called the highest rated WWII RTS of all time for nothing. And although COH2 may have never lived up to the same level of greatness, it still has some pretty awesome elements and is a ton of fun to play.

That being said, we want to get your opinion on:

  • What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
  • What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
  • What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
  • What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
  • If you could, what you would cut from COH2
  • What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
  • Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

We'd also love to hear what your favorite way to play either game is. Do you play mainly team games, competitive 1v1, competitively or casually, comp stomps, modded games, etc.?

As always, please keep the conversation civil, on topic and the feedback of high quality so we can actually use your feedback in the future.

Thanks!

«134

Comments

  • #3
    1 year ago

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    Didn't play a whole lot of CoH 1, but I did really enjoy the German story missions in Tales of Valor. I wish the next CoH game has a campaign from the German perspective, or at least more Theater of War type missions that are kind of like the Tiger Ace one.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    I like how CoH 2 took the commander/doctrine idea and expanded on it with different "commanders" for the various factions. I like collecting those, and am quite proud of the fact I have all of them.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    The balance was one aspect of it. I'm more of a comp stomp player instead of online, and I thought it was nicely balanced for compstomp games. I also like the fact that CoH 1 had some more unique units like the Bergetiger, Jagdpanther, regular Hetzer, Hummel, etc. Reward units as well. Once you complete are certain number of tasks, you could use a reward unit and could swap it out with stock units. The Jagdtiger for Jagdpanther type switch, or the Hotckiss.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you
    feel they may be

    I loved the intel bulletin system. I think after the re-work it got with supply points and an in-game store you could use to purchase intel bulletins made gameplay fresh all the time. _The idea of having an in-game currency you could obtain even by playing compstomp was absolutely fantastic for people who don't like to play online, because they could still purchase items like camouflages, commanders and intel bulletins from the ingame store. _
    Theatre of War missions was excellent too. Even though I haven't finished all of them after 1300 hours of gametime, I really like that idea. Where you could fight in some of the most important battles of WWII with factions and commanders in game was great. Commanders were also a nice addition and change from CoH 1. Lots of different play styles you can use with your commander roster really makes the game enjoyable for me. Truesight was also cool. It added a level of realism to a game that is otherwise arcade style.
    Basically, I love everything about Company of Heroes 2. If you at Relic decided to do another WWII themed CoH game, please follow CoH 2's formula. I'd buy it in an instant, and play it for a very very very long time.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    Don't really have too much to say here. I thought CoH 2 was fantastic overall.

    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    Everything, and I mean everything. The intel bulletin system, vehicle skins, the diverse roster of commanders for each faction, truesight and vaulting, the cover system,_ in game currency you could gather even when playing compstomp, the ingame store._ Don't change a thing about CoH 2 in game currency system and in game store. I can't emphasize enough how important that is. It lets players who don't like to play online still feel like they can have everything in the game, even if it is a little grindy.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    I think untapped potential lies in a German campaign, and more commanders. I know commanders can affect in game balance, but the fact you can use unique abilities and units is great. The sky is the limit with that!

    My favourite way to play is compstomp. Its how I get the most enjoyment out of any RTS game. It lets me pretend to be a General or Commander actually leading my troops into battle. I don't have to worry about trying to out think a human player, so I can just have fun. If I want to play competitive multiplayer, I'd play War Thunder, Paladins, or Overwatch.

    Overall, if Relic ever does another WWII era Company of Heroes game, take a lot from CoH 2. I think CoH 2 nailed the formula, especially once the supply points system was introduced. CoH 2 got me through a lot of rough stuff in the Army, so it holds a special place in my heart as the best game I have ever played. Keep up the great work, and I look forward to a CoH 3!

  • #4
    1 year ago
    Omid_HesamOmid_Hesam Islamic Republic of IRANPosts: 141
    edited July 2017

    I just want to see the flakvierling and flak 88 AT/AA from coh1 in coh2 and have the m18 hellcat and staghound armored cars in coh2 and I want german & british campaign from coh1 and some cool operations like panzerkrieg and stone Wall

  • #5
    1 year ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434
    edited July 2017

    1. What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on

    I haven't had enough time with COH1 (only 100 hours or so). But from memory a more distinctive fully fledged sequel. Felt more like a (good) continuation of a great formula, rather than another revolution.

    2. What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver

    Slightly bigger scale imo. For slightly more realistic fighting ranges. An engine on par with COH1 in terms of optimization was not met. COH2 looks great, but runs badly and has frequent bugs among many types of computer. Increase scalability.

    3. What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)

    There's not too much of a distinction here for me. I see the game almost as a platform.

    4. What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you
    feel they may be

    I wouldn't say 'love' but one thing I do not want to see taken away in any future title is RNG . You need to simulate variable accuracy. So I support it. I liked the campaign. Do not do a DOW3 and have the campaign just be a glorified tutorial. Truesight, vaulting are good additions (more of this kinda stuff). Commanders in theory, though execution was a bit off - I like the variety; It simulates 'rarer' units while having them 'locked' behind appropriate commanders. The high graphic fidelity, attention to detail in visual and audio. I liked the weather effects.

    5. If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    Can't really think of anything gameplay wise. Most are balance related. This comes back to how COH is a continuation of a fundemental game.

    6. What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    I can't think of anything not to carry over. The pretty good balance between historical authenticity and fun/gameplay. Carry over the RTS. Do not implement any MOBA elements. COH has its niche.

    7. Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

    Bigger scale/ranges. More units/types of units per faction to create more variety (overlapping is fine - I want there to be a real difference between tank guns sizes, rifles, etc). Axis campaign, yes. Maybe an innovative mode that goes well with ww2 warfare; Some type of 'frontline' system maybe. Increase the competitive scene (all player modes, more features in multiplayer (stats, voice comms etc) Stay in WW2. More player controlled gameplay (ala grenade throw) so better tank control/aiming; which leads onto having more tank hit points (side armour, turret armour etc). More variety to resources/supply lines/map control(?) - feeds into the slightly bigger scale I'm after (maybe <25% or so). Improved AI with the addition of AI personalities like Turtle, Rusher, Attacking, Defensive etc. Maybe more noticable terrain differences/cover. Having buildings and terrain be relative to unit sizes; the houses are too small compared to a soldier.

  • #6
    1 year ago

    Dear Relic.
    I hope you have ever tried playing the Spearhead MOD. That is what the hame should be like in my opinion.
    BUT... your major flaw with this game. AND IT IS HUGE. You must realize how important this is for the community.
    You did not give us modeling tools. Lets us make a mod where Kink Kong comes in if we want to. Let us make our own models and animations. We will still buy COH3 and you know it. But come on Relic this is fundamental.
    Otherwise you made such a great game, you just need to put the cherry on top. Seriously.

  • #7
    1 year ago
    vasa171960vasa171960 Posts: 92
    edited July 2017

    Hello, i am very known in coh2 community like top player 1v1 and 2v2 and english teacher.
    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    I loved both games, coh1 is like Adam, coh2 are like Kain, Dow3 is like Avel. I dont play a lot of multi in coh1, so can talk really about only this, single player missions are more better in coh1, more atmosphere, more interesting, more heroic. Coh2 campaign compared to coh1 look like bad "Klukva", no german campaign. But theother of war looks interesting too in coh2.
    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    Coh2 docs idea, but not many like its are in game now, where are so many usefull docs.
    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    First of all it was revolition RTS for me with such good single content, with good graphics, design. I was teen when begin play the game and its was a lot of impressions, all this sounds of war, destroing. Like king tiger write, unique units was good too.
    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    Campaing was not good compared to coh1, but theother or war are good, its cool that you can play it alone or with friends. I am dunno why you relic stop them. Trusight is very good, its give game new breathe, its change it. Snow and blizzard i like this in game, in generally its maybe make game slower in online but it was really very atmospheric, where you units can die on retreut, where you must planning. Faction design was not bad, not good, coz its change a lot in balance, in sme patch it was good, in naother nope, but its like some like cherry, some like potato. I like coh2 doc system, but its must be more unique, coz now there are a lot docs taht have bad ability, better make more less doctrines, but good. I like in coh2 that units can jump through the fence, its give a lot tactics in game. Also coh2 have good graphics, that look even nowadays very good. Relic make this game store i think it was need more early in game, its look very nice, coz you can buy camo, bulli, docs and another stuff. I like RNG, RNG make this game unique, i hear and read a lot how people whine about it, but i like its make game more chaotic, more interesting.
    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    Game have to many bad docs, better rework them adn make them more unique. And bad optimizations, if its in you powr relic work with optimizations, coz its look like genocuide, i begin play this game in 3v3 and 4v4 and it was lagging for me PC but i can play, but after spring 2014 optimizations are murdered, coz even in 2v2 i have more lags then i have in 4v4.
    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    Hard to say, maybe all unique things that are or was in game from 2013, shop maybe, maybe custom docs if you make it.
    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    German campaign, unqiue units, ability, true sight, blizzard. Maybe game need different balance, coz waht work in 1v1 dont work in 4v4. IF 1v1 or 2v2 are more competive and ESL, but 4v4 and 3v3are more casual and fun to play, there are almost many ifnatry, tanks battles, its interesting to watch in hight level, but this game mods need more love too in all stage, from balance to map designe. Its okey that you relic make DLC, but make its with mind. More attention to balance nad another things, like show history if you relic take care more, its will be more better games, more peoples, more money. Also whanna add about music, coh1 musci are epic and good.
    And about deteils, in soviet union no was stone monument for grave and stone churchs like we see in maps.
    And ofc optimization, wish that every game must have such good optimization like coh2.

  • #8
    1 year ago
    Janne252Janne252 Posts: 118

    1. What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    - Polished user interface. The implementation of the floating chat box is in my opinion an example of something that wasn't planned very well, almost as if it was added later. I would have preferred COH1's tabbed user interface as it was easy to jump between them. With COH2 you're pretty locked to one screen at a time.
    - As a modder I have to compare the modding capabilities between the titles. COH2's more restrictive and controlling approach felt a bit too strict in some cases. More about that at the bottom.
    2. What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    - COH2 Did deliver (COH1 did not):
    - TrueSight
    - cover-based camouflage
    - COH2 Did not deliver (COH1 did) (heavily related to modding / technical details):
    - Ability to give a title for a hosted lobby match
    - Ability to close slots in a custom game
    - Possibility of having more than 4 players in a team (e.g. 2 vs 6. if I remember correctly, it lead to a crash at the end of a COH1 match but at least it worked.. somewhat.)
    - List of atmospheres to choose from per map
    - Ability to force fixed starting positions
    - Not possible to clear scenario music with _ambientaudio.scar file (play music through SCAR instead)
    - COH1's music was more memorable and generally "better" (both campaign and multiplayer)
    3. What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    - Multiple campaings
    - No official modding support but the game being moddable lead to a thriving modding community that is still alive.
    4. What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    - TrueSight, cover-based camouflage, number of factions
    - Skin competitions, curated workshop items
    - Greatly improved interaction between the community and the developers
    5. If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    - Strict limitations of allowed file types in mod packs (.nis as an example)
    6. What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    - TrueSight, modding hub (with improvements such as NOT DOWLOADING ALL WORKSHOP ITEMS ON GAME LAUNCH)
    - Numerous issues related to Workshop items and downloading them, as a modder it is frustrating to deal with almost non-stop complaints of workshop items not downloading properly
    7. Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    - COH2 (nitpick whine list):
    - Performance issues
    - Dividing different kinds of mods into their own separate packs lead to some cases where:
    - for some reason UI Icons stored in an asset pack were not available in SCAR
    - SCAR was not permitted in Tuning or Asset packs, even though SCAR collisions between scenario and wincondition packs were just as likely
    - No support for NIS files in scenario/asset packs!
    - No support for total conversion mods (custom sound files, models)

  • #9
    1 year ago
    ZupadupadudeZupadupad… Posts: 333
    edited July 2017

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    Don't have too much to comment on here but I did like the grittier visual style of CoH1 a bit more than CoH2. I also liked how much more moddable CoH1 was.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    I think side armour would've been interesting.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    CoH1's campaign's were very enjoyable. The factions had units with a bunch of upgrades which added choices to the game, though it shouldn't be overdone like it was with the PE. I think the balance between the original 2 factions and the design worked the best in the game. A little sidenote but I also really enjoyed making skins for infantry and vehicles in CoH so it would be nice to have that back.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    I like vaulting a lot, TrueSight, reversing for vehicles, camouflage based on cover, commanders, the nice vehicle and infantry animations, the high fidelity of the visuals in general. The little improvements like the ability to only target vehicles for tanks and so forth are neat.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    I might cut bulletins in their current form.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    Vaulting, TrueSight, reversing for vehicles, camouflage based on cover, the nice vehicle and infantry animations, the high fidelity of the visuals in general. I think commanders should be carried over too, but I think there should have been more consistency regarding the design of the commanders. Consistency seems to be a general problem with CoH2. One faction has more bulletins and/or commanders than the other, for example. Or that some of the commander portraits are in a completely different visual style compared to the other commanders. Or that the art style of the graphics department seemed to change with each new faction that was added.
    Bulletins could also be carried over, but personally I'd do them a bit differently. I think there should've been more 'build a squad faster' or 'build mines faster' or 'build fortifications faster' sort of bulletins. Those have a more observable impact while not horribly unbalancing the game.
    I also think that the Theatre of War idea was nice, it was quite sad that it was just kind of abandoned and the effort to make units fit the time period of a certain battle was pretty minimal. I think there was potential in that. A bit more effort should've gone towards them, imo.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    Don't think I really have anything to comment on here!

  • #10
    1 year ago
    AcinonyxAcinonyx Posts: 543
    edited July 2017
    • What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on

    Overall feeling/atmosphere.

    Company of Heroes 1 created a fittingly gritty atmosphere, simply by using the right colourscheme for textures, units and the right design for the UI.

    Company of Hereos 2 in comparison looks too colourful, even though its setting would have greatly benefitted from the same grittiness. The UI design is, in my opinion, too playful, it has too many different looking elements and is overall "overdesigned" with stylized metal constructions mixed with paper backgrounds and (again) just lots and lots of colours.

    That even becomes apparent by simply comparing vCoH and CoH 2 unit portraits.
    the toxic green fields of vaux farmlands, an ammo belt as a loading bar, blueish Panzer"grau" skins...a complete list would be a long one.

    And the "special" ahistorical skins (Make War not Love blood skins, Warhammer 40k skins etc)? Genuinely awful. Company of Heroes lives by its atmosphere. Please dont add anything, that completely ruins that.

    • What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver

    Company of Heroes 2 improved upon Company of Heroes 1's gameplay in various ways:

    Units being able to jump over fences etc, units that dont magically spawn next to basebuildings anymore (until you changed that back for no reason at all. .org reasons dont count, never did, never will), TrueSight, capturing sectors by standing inside the small capture zones, I was fine with most, if not all the small core changes and additions.

    The effectiveness of blobbing infantry units was also greatly reduced in Company of Heroes 2, until Western Front Armies was released, after which it unfortunately became a "viable" tactic in lower skilled matches again.

    • **What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)

    **
    Doctrines, they were great.
    I already mentioned the overall feeling and atmosphere.

    Compared to Company of Heroes 2 it also excelled at modding possibilities. Look at the incredible mods the community created for vCoH. Company of Heroes 2 modding is an absolute nightmare: Clunky, restricted, weird.

    • What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be

    Unfortunately, there isnt much. I mentioned the small but significant improvements, that I like above (truesight, capture mechanic).

    Most of the things, that couldve become an improvment over vCoH were either removed, toned down or kind of discontinued:
    Coldtech and mud for example.
    Commanders had great potential for new content, but overall delievered too little new things (ratio between reused vs new abilities/units).
    Theatre of War DLC packs had great potential as well, but again: Didnt deliever enough new things and were then discontinued.

    In terms of campaign, balance and faction design vCoH and CoH 2 are on the same level, in my opinion.

    • If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    Now this might come across as presumptuos. I obviously lack information about what is going on behind the scenes, all I can see is the result. And that is what I am judging:

    I'd cut a chunk of Relic's decision making. Why?:

    If I wanted to describe Relic's products in one sentence, then Id say "Theyre all over the place.".
    To me it seems like Relic is trying to do too many things, has too many (certainly interesting and good) ideas and concepts, but rarely fully develops them.

    • You introduce commanders, but then dont commit (enough) to them as a way to bring new content to the game.
    • You do the same with Theatre of War.

    • Youre going to hate that I bring it up, but this is maybe the prime example: You come up with Company of Heroes Online (which I didnt like) and then scrap it alltogether.

    There are many more examples of this.

    To me, this is what Relic looks like: You have so many ideas, but rarely focus on making the best out of them.
    You are most likely making the best out of them with regards to your available ressources, but apparently that isnt enough (or to relativize: The result of that is not enough for parts of your fanbase). And instead of reallocating ressources and improving the existing features in the future you come up with something completely new.

    This becomes apparent in smaller features as well:

    You come up with coldtech, it has some flaws, then you add mud which is a mere lazy copy of deep snow, and then you kind of forget about both of them. Weather conditions could have and should have been a major improvment over vCoH. But they werent.

    And this is just a common theme across all areas of Company of Heroes 2. Lack of commitment.

    Please, design a faction and then stick to it. Create an ability, a unit, a feature and then stick to it. You removed abilities from the game in balance patches. You redesigned factions in balance patches. You semi-removed features (coldtech) from multiplayer. Unit roles were completely changed (Kübelwagen), fundamental gameplay decisions changed (units spawning at base buildings).

    All of this can be done to some extent. Developers should listen to the community and realize that if something clearly isnt working, then drastic changes have to get implemented. But in CoH2 this was done in an excessive amount. The history of the OKW alone is insane and demonstrates what I mean with the phrase "all over the place".

    Now, this is not meant to imply a lack of enthusiasm or dedication in your team. In no way. I just think that, pretty much like all developers, you cant do all the things you want to do. What I'd cut from Company of Heroes 2 are therefore all the smaller features you werent able to develop as much as you really wanted to, in favor of other smaller features, which would thereby get more development time.

    Yes, im oversimplfiying things and have zero insight in your development process. But maybe there is some truth behind my impression. Maybe not. Im just stating what it looks like from an outsiders perspective.

    • What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

    Well overall it still is a solid foundation.

    Things I really dont want to miss in the future (apart from the core gameplay):

    -Asymmetrical factions. I like your factions. They make the multiplayer fun. Maybe tone it down a little with the dissimilarity of the factions in the future, but in the end I love that theyre so different from each other.

    I also liked the Ardennes Assault strategic meta-map a lot. Maybe mix that with a neat story.

    • Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

    Tank armor! Give us proper tank armor and not just front and rear armor!

    You can also remove base building from the game with zero remorse. Either that or greatly expand on it. In its current state it doesent really add much to the game.

    Also: I think that your community loves authenticity. Make things less "gamey". The game doesent have to become super realistic, but a step into the realism direction, while keeping the arcadeish, fluid and dynamic gameplay would be greatly appreciated by your fans I think.

    We'd also love to hear what your favorite way to play either game is. Do you play mainly team games, competitive 1v1, competitively or casually, comp stomps, modded games, etc.?

    My favorite are 2v2 competitive mp games, but I really play everything else as well: Singleplayer, mods, comp stomps.

  • #11
    1 year ago
    Naya_TyanNaya_Tyan Russia Posts: 123

    Hello developers, Relic.
    I liked your question and I will answer honestly.

    1) What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on.
    Answer:
    Like the "Company of Heroes" is that the graphics on higher levels than in the second part of the game. The graphics on the explosions, Balancing, etc.
    2) What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    Answer:
    I think you need to change the Units of the USSR. Infantry and vehicles. While in the First part everything is there. Not so in the Second part of the game.
    For example:

    • T-60 (It is necessary to replace M3A1 with T-60)
    • BT-7 (It is necessary to replace T-70 with BT-7 and give an improvement on BT-7a)
    • Add Unit Commissar or Commanding Squad.
    • To give the opportunity to build a "Machine-Gun Nest"
    • To give the opportunity to improve the technique for example: T-34-76, T-34-85 improvement to the flamethrower ATO-41. And rename OT-34-76 and T-34-85
    • Change the headquarters of the USSR physicians to the Sanitary Vehicle ZiS-5. (More convenient than standing on the base and treated.)
      3) What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
      Answer:
      Change Balance, Change Units, and Captain Capabilities.
      Why it is necessary to change the commanding ability? Because, the essence of the name of the commanders, does not match the capabilities.
      For example:
      Tactics breakthrough NKVD troops. There must be a Commissar or a Command Team.
      Tactics of the Hunt for Tanks. There should be a "anti-tank ambushes" for AT.
      4) What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
      Answer:
      To be honest. The best faction is the Wehrmacht and the USSR.
      From 2013-2014 the game was good and balanced.
      5)_ If you could, what you would cut from COH2_
      Answer:
      I can't answer this question
      6) What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
      Answer:
      I can't answer this question
      7) Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
      Answer:
      In the second parts aren't present potential. The reason I have already specified in a question and listed them.
      because the Second part, is not a game and Nemtsevil (Too Imba at OKV and Earlier access to Luksa and Pantser 4)
      On it it isn't possible to play in the second part.

    And in perm of the Part of a game. It is possible to play quietly.
    Here for example. since June 1 there was a game through "Steam" the game Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
    and I asked the game Company of Heroes 2. Because there is no logician and there is no justice but only Nemtsevilov.

    Thanks for attention.
    I on деюсь that Company of Heroes 2 in the future will be better as in Company of Heroes: Eastern Front.
    Because It is necessary to change the equipment and units in the game CoH2.

  • #12
    1 year ago
    James HaleJames Hale Posts: 1,814 mod

    I agree with pretty much everything nachocheese, Zupadupadude and Acinonyx have said, so there's very little I need to add. What I would say, however, is that unless you're going to have a full suite of modding tools either at or just after launch, don't bother with CoH3 at all. In that respect particularly, I'm really not interested in going through such a farce all over again, and I find it very disappointing that, as a result, very few RelicNews players ever played CoH2, and that forum has since closed

    From what I can see, DoW3 is a game that has been made on a shoestring budget, and with some exceedingly poor design decisions; no cover, no surrender button, no camera scrolling, low quality sound and kill animations, and of course no modding tools. It also only had three factions. I've seen the reviews and heard the anecdotes, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to hear that CoH3 is now likely being considered.

    A fundamental change of design philosophy is required; I echo the points made by others regarding attempting new things and then simply abandoning them... what happened to a German or British SP campaign? What happened to ToW? What happened to the redesign of the Soviets and Ostheer that Quinn was so keen on several years ago?

    Last week I returned to CoH2 to see what it would be like after two years -- I still cannot mod or design my own commanders, which severely limits any modder's potential. Disappointing, but I suppose not that surprising.

    For CoH3, my formula is rather simple: get a design that works and stick with it, and don't add new factions and fronts. CoH1 and CoH2 were great base games, but poorly-designed, 'quirky' expansion factions and additional half-baked served only to detract from the experience. The Panzer Elite were a terrible faction, reward units were a gimmick, the OkW had two major re-designs during the Alpha process (and endless balance tweaks since then, including major unit redesigns), and the British are massively over-designed with far too much stuff by default. At the point of release, the US Forces are really the only fun, balanced faction that Relic have released in a CoH expansion.

    It's not all bad; Relic are fantastic at designing new concepts, and CoH2 has some wonderful visuals and unit sounds, but as Acinonyx has said, everything now feels 'all over the place' and lacks both coherence and focus. If CoH3 ever happens, it should stick to two factions and simply add new content to them via a doctrine system. Let's not have anymore mixed fronts/factions nonsense.

    Ceterum autem censeo Braden Chan esse delendam.

  • #13
    1 year ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 119
       Most of all I like to play CoH2, but I wish it was slightly changed in the balance of power, parties, possibilities. I love playing 4v4 and the number of commanders who have the Soviet Union, is well and good, but they are almost all the same. 
    

    - I want to see in the game a new commander, who already offered on the forum. Or the other , but which will have the ambulance for the USSR, anti-aircraft gun and Increased rations , # to improve the performance of infantry units.
    - I understand that OKW is elite, there is a king tiger without a commander, firing the building, STG 44 without a commander and standard troops (Ollie from the Soviet Union, whose machines only the commander and only some troops (upgrade), units with automatic weapons are present only in the form of penal battalions (which will make things worse, I'm sure))
    Do not engage in cards, special painting, tournaments, you just have to go and change the aspect ratio. And do not say that the USSR the best. Where Not One Step Back Tactics? Where Soviet anti-aircraft guns? WHERE'S THE COMMISSIONER?
    I understand that still I will say that USSR is the best, and that his (for example) engineers destroy sappers 1vs1 OKW and that the machines (without improvement) (Sarcasm)
    And I still think that CoH2 needs a change of troops, the introduction of new units and of course, new commanders (Soviet commanders, at least 1, 1 is small).

       I hope that my words will be read and you will realize that for the Soviet Union to play a very difficult. Are You not interested in my opinion, a desire, remarks..?
    
  • #14
    1 year ago
    capiquacapiqua Posts: 270
    edited July 2017

    OLD MECHANICS
    -CoH1 BritTruck. The best mechanics for my liked. Was to be able to move the British truck and plant it wherever I wanted. The truck with speed updates, etc. Nowadays obviously FHQ limited to 50/60 meters of the HQ-T0
    -COH1/COH2 Upgrades in techs. The most fun features are those that have updates in Techs or T0 (for instance: molotov, ATnade, boostspeed in truck). COH1 Sappers: Expert Engineers, PIAT, Disposal and Detection. Coh2 Sov:medic,molotov, ATnade. Brit:Mils,Piat,Booster, US: Grenade,Bazoo. Without upgrades are a linear faction and boring, just building units as (COH2: OKW/WEHR).
    -COH1 British officer. Infantry section is a slow and clumsy unit, but when it is chained to the officer it is a better unit. At present something similar should be implemented, but not so many penalties.
    -COH1 Commanders in two or three branches. Of this you can get much game. I like that a faction has everything basics (mines, flame, etc). And not appeal to commanders.
    -CoH1 Operations. coh1 had challenges of 4players vs cpu. There are no more game modes in coh2. A coop mode would be fine. Maybe can include it in ToW. Coh1 Operations is our Land Stand (DoWII).

    OLD MECHANICS IN GENERAL
    -COH1 Art-cartoons style incorporated into the game. With coh2 everything is more real, adult. Has missed the cartoon essence in UI.
    (In the image you can see 1 Art-cartoons in each doctrine. If it were real it would be something very coh2 style, but as it is Art-cartoons it looks more like coh1.
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kJJTvA6t0Rc/U_lc3ZMispI/AAAAAAAAEB8/LD7sciTH20k/s1600/wherdoctrine.jpg
    -COhONLINE Main menu. It was very cool because they were with few tabs. Instead of the 6 or 9 tabs of coh1/coh2 with boring words (options, campaing, tutorials, etc). I wanted to push the tabs even if I knew what was behind. Very nice and cool, Art-cartoons style in tabs.
    http://www.gamer.ru/system/attached_images/images/000/225/591/original/5.jpg
    -COHonline Customize avatar. Model your own image of avatar (image of you profile).
    http://cdn.mmohuts.com/wp-content/gallery/company-of-heroes/company-of-heroes-online-character-creation.jpg
    -COHonline Customize building units in techs. Consisted of putting bulletins to the techs.
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RiEJbKB_6ik/maxresdefault.jpg

    NOWADAYS MECHANICS HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY EXPLOITED
    -COH2 automatch. Random; faccion axis, random allies.
    -COHonline when you found a game in automatch there was a sound that indicated that the match was beginning. This would be heard even if you had the window minimized. In coh2 if you have minimized you can't hear anything.
    -COH2 Deep snow, it has been half-way. Its implementation was wrong, it should have been implemented:
    · Deep snow, blizzards, ect. In the campaign. OKAY.
    · Soft snow, gentle breeze on MP. Half-way.
    This previous (MP) requires removal deep snow of all maps and a change of climate to a more soft. This can be done through the WP.

    SINGLES SUGGESTIONS
    -COH2 background. Another SOV video without snow in the main menu.
    -Filter in graphical options: Visual style as Old photo effect brown for coh3/ww1
    http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/4ec793e964fa49068e36492628a89fe7/surgeon-at-a-field-hospital-during-ww1-ddp71f.jpg
    ·
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/19/1405797378823_wps_2_HIS_MAJESTY_S_PIGEON_SERV.jpg
    -Automatic vault on fences.
    -Confirmation of commanders in game yes/no. Now you can accidentally press.
    -Name of the map in somewhere of the tacticalmap.
    -Cards about Tips of best players.
    -Hall of Fame.
    -Display two weapons under shield.
    -Voice-lines inside the tank, must have distortion.
    -Perhaps daily/weekly challenges such as persistent games that offer supplies (Obviously raise prices for in-store supplies because of this)
    -Add more bulletins (balanced, not as coh2)

    NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS FOR WB
    -Bug. All houses give 360 degree sight. Although they do not have any windows on one side.
    -Add House editor, Change/open/add/remove: door, window, floors, 1 or 2 rof, etc
    -Editor grass: no have preview.
    -Add Buildings; More variants.
    -AddHedgerow; More variants and can be destroyed.
    -AddPlants; More variants and can be destroyed.
    -Add Scrubs; More variants and can be destroyed.
    -Add Trees; More variants and can be destroyed.

    SAME LEVEL LEVEL OF GREATNESS And although COH2 may have never lived up to the same level of greatness.

    I understand the conservation of what there is and any changes will affect the classification.

    But given the current state of play with 4.5K players. An epic shape is needed at the Steam's basement. EFA Mod with 5 factions and review maps is the good way.

    It would be a EPIC return.

  • #15
    1 year ago
    eliw00deliw00d Posts: 1,086
    edited July 2017

    Please, PLEASE, improve the attention to detail on the art assets for CoH3. Both CoH1 and CoH2 had a wide range of issues related to scale of the models and other inaccuracies. There is a lot of information out there that you can use to get things right this time. Look at War Thunder and even Steel Division 44: Normandy. The CoH games are World War II games just as much as they are RTS games and people will react favorably when things are portrayed correctly.

    Dawn of War started from tabletop roots, why not use tabletop games to influence CoH3? Flames of War is one of many tabletop games that you could use for ideas in terms of setting, units, etc. Steel Division 44: Normandy is pretty damn close to feeling like a Flames of War video game, but I feel like CoH3 could do better in a lot of ways.

    Historical unit sizes. The game is called Company of Heroes, yet it doesn't quite feel like any TO&Es or KSTNs have been taken into consideration. Grenadier squads were 9-men in 1944 with one LMG, two SMGs, and the rest rifles. Increasing the size of the maps and using historically accurate squad sizes and such would definitely make the game feel more like you're commanding a Company or even Kampfgruppe. I'll bring up Steel Division 44 again because they nailed it in terms of squad sizes and it is much appreciated there.

    More hitboxes than just front and rear. Look at games like War Thunder where every part of the armor has been detailed and weak spots can make all the difference. Even Men of War: Assault Squad 2 has pretty detailed hitboxes. A big part of making a World War II game is making it feel like the tanks are real. I never really got that sense from CoH1 or CoH2, it was way too gamey for me. Being able to target specific areas of a tank or having something as simple as side armor will go a long way to making tank combat more interesting. At the very least, divide the hitbox into 4 sides: front, left, right, rear.

    All that being said, greater attention to mods is key for the longevity of CoH3. We need to be able to add custom models, animations, textures for every part of the game including infantry, vehicles, guns, etc. Although CoH2 had many things locked away by the mod tools, there were a few things introduced that we absolutely need in CoH3, such as the UI controls in SCAR (maybe even improve on them so we can do more). I also think designing the attributes from the ground up in such a way that we can do even more with mods, such as adding additional GameEvents (or alternatively on_X_actions in the attributes) and functions so that we can do more interesting things. For example: an event or function for acquiring targets by hardpoint (rather than all targets). Also, being able to edit or even create property bag groups in SCAR would be pretty neat, as well as being able to get all properties/values of them. There's a lot more that could be done for mods and if there are actually plans to involve the community on how to shape support for them, I would be happy to be a part of that again.

    Anyways, there's a lot more I could say but I think for now I'll just leave it at that.

  • #16
    1 year ago
    RageCakeRageCake Posts: 1

    Hi, My most played mode is 4v4, but I have played 2v2s and 1v1s a lot.

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    Coh 1 had a great campaign, with excellently crafted cutscenes where it mattered, Coh2 had a good story and cutscenes but not on par with the original campaigns of Coh1, I also hope future Coh's will follow Coh1 in having multiple campaigns with different factions for each. Or following the Ardennes Assault formula which was really good also.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    I thought the skins for COH2 along with the bulletins and more expansive commander design was nice. But the commanders ended up not be that well fleshed out which led to balance issues with commanders in which some are dominated while others are essentially useless. Bulletins are nice, they just need more useful ones and removal of the clutter or less used bulletins. I'd also love if along with vehicle skins there could be infantry skins, that would be sick.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    Coh1 excelled in commander design/balance, the campaign, and optimization.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    I loved the sound and voices for COH2, especially USF for me, I thought the unit chatter was much more realistic and significantly better than the coh1. True Sight is great, not having to be on top of the point to cap is great, vault is great, skins bulletins are great ideas but need better implementations, same goes with commanders

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    Some of the asymmetrical balancing with the game is causing balance issues, as such, I think while all factions should feel unique it should not get in the way of creating balanced gameplay. Get rid of the bloated map pool with maps nobody wants to play, I would rather have a smaller map pool of competitive excellent maps then a bloated map pool with half of them being automatic veto maps.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    Bulletins, Skins, True sight, vaulting, point capture, Ardennes Assault style campaigns. Commander design (If properly implemented)

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

    Make customizable commander designs (With proper implementation this could be great), more realistic squad sizes and possibly even better sound (Although it is pretty good now), Better variety in infantry units or units in general.

  • #17
    1 year ago
    AlucardAlucard Posts: 32
    edited July 2017

    @Janne252 said:
    2. What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    - COH2 Did deliver (COH1 did not):
    - TrueSight
    - cover-based camouflage
    - COH2 Did not deliver (COH1 did) (heavily related to modding / technical details):
    - Ability to give a title for a hosted lobby match
    - Ability to close slots in a custom game
    - Possibility of having more than 4 players in a team (e.g. 2 vs 6. if I remember correctly, it lead to a crash at the end of a COH1 match but at

    I agree with u with the cover camo, but other guy say something about 9 guys in a squad and i think there is a thin line between realism and arcade that it would be difficult to define 9 guys would be too much for a squad, also the idea of more variants of buildings would be nice

  • #18
    1 year ago
    SuspectedSuspected Posts: 4

    ** What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on**
    The core armies were better balanced, and the commander abilities weren't so OP that they wrecked teamgames. (late changes such as limits to Pershings, Tigers, etc helped with this).

    **What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver**
    

    Pathing can still be bad at times, especially with non-turret TD's.
    Some of the anti-historical things are annoying. It's not that big of a deal but any WWII RTS where the Germans excel in winter but the Soviets suck is a little strange. The same goes for US getting pummeled by the Luftwaffe. Look at Steel Division 1944 for a much better example of how to implement air power.

    **What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)**
    

    Overall balance seemed better. I think it also helps to have the same number of tiers in all factions, and no oddball things such as reduced OKW fuel and munitions, which creates a rabbit hole that you never get out of.

    ** What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be**
    Ardennes Assault was pretty well done. I'd buy another like that for COH3. It's customizeable enough that it can be replayed a few times.
    The time scale for COH2 is better than any competing RTS. Games get going fast and only last a long time if players are roughly equal.

    ** If you could, what you would cut from COH2**
    Snipers are definitely too powerful. I don't know if I'd cut them but if they're going to be left in then squad sizes should be larger.
    The call-in system is kinda BS. It provides too many get-out-of-jail-free cards. Commanders should allow the doctrinal units to be built at the appropriate structure.
    Wonder-weapons such as Elefant and JT make balance a nightmare. They're almost useless in 1v1 but wreck 3v3 and above. If included, they should have much higher pop cap.
    I would also cut the flags at control points. They're kind of dumb and don't really add anything to the game.

    ** What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2**
    Resources (manpower, munitions, fuel) are well done, please don't change the system as a whole.
    I'd keep COH as more of an arcade type game than a simulation (like Men of War or Steel Division). It plays faster and if you ever have hopes of it becoming an e-sport then you'll want to keep it more arcade-like.

    **Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?**
    

    I think it would be more interesting if the factions were more unique, similar to how Warcraft III was done. I realize that it might make balance a little more difficult but it would make it more interesting. Germans could get really good AT guns, fewer tanks but better ones. Allies could get cheap medium tanks, air power, etc.

  • #19
    1 year ago
    KithKith Posts: 144

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    Cleanly designed commanders with unique abilities. COH2 has way too many commanders, and way too many shared abilities.
    The Panzer Elite and the Panzer Grenadiers and how you could dump upgrades onto them to make them serve a wide variety of purposes.
    Unique Veterancy systems. The various Veterancy systems of the factions (US gaining overall effectiveness through combat, Whermacht gaining overall effectiveness through upgrades, UK gaining overall effectiveness through leadership, and PE gaining specific effectiveness through combat) really added to the experience of playing those specific factions and helped to diversify them. If COH3 happens, unique veterancy is going to be the first thing I look for.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    COH2 broke the Sniper Warfare deadlock that COH1 had, and that was good. The attempt to make all weapons teams unique was also good.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    COH1 excelled in faction design, commander design, and its campaign. Its balance was... questionable, at times, but overall I felt that it was the "cleaner" of the two. Also, being able to build defenses without resorting to a commander was pretty nice.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    Truesight is cool and good.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    War Spoils and any kind of upgrades tied to leveling. If I've already paid God knows how much money to play the game in the first place, I had better not have to deal with the bullshit of unlocking content for competitive play. This is an RTS, not an RPG. Unlockable cosmetics like in Dawn of War II I can live with - I'm fine with earning the opportunity to paint my tanks in fruity colors or put stupid hats on my infantry, because that doesn't impact the gameplay experience. But if I have to unlock the ability to access gameplay content that I already paid for, don't expect me to buy the next game.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    Intelligence Bulletins, but in a more impactful form. Spending three bulletins for a barely noticable effect on a single unit is kinda crap - I'd be a lot happier with a system that only allowed you to take one, but that one did some really cool stuff. Maybe equip a specific unit differently, or allow you to call in a unit variant that performs differently from normal. Company of Heroes: Online had a similar system that was really cool, and I miss it.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    Warcraft III and Starcraft II had a huge, huge custom game scene that helped keep the game alive through community creativity. I'd love it if COH wound up with the same sort of thing.

  • #20
    1 year ago
    TorniksTorniks Posts: 368
    edited July 2017

    I made two posts here but they disappeared after I made a couple of edits to them. Submitting again below:

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on

    Unit voice acting was much more humorous and featured references to WW II themes and subjects. In CoH2 the lines are much more abstract - you often would not be able to tell if it is a WW II-specific game or just RTS about war. Also, OKW and USF voice acting in combat sounds overly hysterical - players are stressed enough during battles not to load their ears with additional constant screaming from units.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver

    (1) TrueSight was a great addition that improved tactical gameplay and sense of realism

    (2) Restriction on using offmap artillery on enemy base sector was a welcome change

    (2) Harder clampdown on blobbing would be good to see. Blobbing can be overcome by smart play, but that is not the point. The point is, new players see some blobbers win and think blobbing is the way to go - that hurts the game by creating a bad reputation for it

    (3) Eradicating RNG factor as much as possible would be beneficial for a less frustrating experience in matches as well as more eSports potential

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)

    Commander abilities were more unique and only available for a specific commander. This gave commanders their 'face' and made them memorable.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be

    (1) TrueSight

    (2) Focus on encouraging mobile play as opposed to sim-city turtling in CoH1 Brits style

    (3) Camofulage nerf (units can only be camoed in cover, delay on re-entering camouflage after engaging, etc)

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    (1) Fuel caches and other resource manipulation systems, to enable more careful, consequential play with vehicles and avoid skill-less tank swarms. I have written about this problem more extensively on this forum

    (2) Frequency of artillery strikes and number of artillery assets. The amount of artillery options (both off-map but especially on-map) and their current frequency means players who display superior skills of unit preservation and vetting can be punished by low-skill artillery counters that wipe their infantry too easily

    (3) Intel Bulletins - majority of them have no discernible effect on gameplay and the idea of granting units special performance could be implemented much better, if needed at all

    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

    (1) TrueSight

    (2) Option to only see historical skins on vehicles

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

    Less focus on micro and APM and more on tactical decision-making by planning your steps ahead.

  • #21
    1 year ago
    Rommel654Rommel654 Fort Eustis, VAPosts: 926 mod

    The long responses certainly are heartening for the passion folks have for this game.

    •What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on

    __I thought COH1 had a great UI. Smooth play, no lag. No bug splats like COH2. Good optimization. Very unique abilities for units.

    •What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver

    _This is a bit more involved. One of the things that makes COH unique is the illusion of realism and the balance of playability. You want to feel that your decisions matter and that superior tactics could even win out over superior micro.

    Also COH1 broke because of trolls that map hacked. Although COH2 does not have that problem, there is the appearance of non supervision on trolls.
    _
    •What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)

    SAA, plus the maps. The maps seemed to enhance play and not be an obstacle to it.

    •What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be

    True sight, vaulting, snow and snow mechanics. If it didn't break most computers because of either poor optimization or inability to downscale sufficiently, the winter mechanics were great, just unusable.

    •If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    I would take the anonymity out. Folks tend to be more civil when not hiding behind an avatar. Have more tools to punish blobbers. Blobbing greatly detracts from the illusion of realism and makes it a game to be mastered, not tactical prowess.

    •What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    Just about everything, but with some improvements. The pop cap does not feel right. Improve the winter mechanics so they are usable even for 4v4. Communicate more.

    •Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

    Add the additional layer of ammunition consumption. Perhaps unit fatigue. Folks want to personalize more than just skins and faceplates. Not necessarily hero units, but something you can take with you to personalize your play style. Add the ability to rejoin a game.

  • #22
    1 year ago
    ruzenruzen Posts: 5
    edited July 2017

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    -I love about responsive units. COH2 did delays on orders, more animations, slower response times made the kiting nearly impossible, unlike COH1.
    -The story. Let's face it, Company of Heroes name is about Band of Brothers last sentence "I was not a hero but I served in CoH" CoH2 story was nothing like that. The theme is not there.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    -Strategic map was better in COH1.
    -Commander balance was better in COH1.
    -Comeback mechanics were more fare in COH1.
    -Faction diversity was better in COH1.
    -Unit control was better in COH1.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    The campaign, Responsive units, commander design.
    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    TrueSight, profile progression.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    Unit bulletins. Delayed unit responses.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    -Player progression

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    They both felt short because they both required very demanding PC specs. Can't reach a wide audience.

  • #23
    1 year ago
    SpajN34SpajN34 Posts: 7

    1. What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on

    Squad formations just simply worked better, units rarely clumped up so you never lost a full health squad to explosive damage (such as tank shot, mortar round etc) making engagements feel less random. Sounds from small arms fire and explosions just sounded better and explosions just looked more visually impressive. Animations and physics looked a lot better, when infantry was blown up even by a Tank shot their bodies reacted according to true physics and often the models were gibbed which rarely happens in COH2, only to demolition charges i believe.

    I also loved that you could spend fuel on other things than simply tanks, it was possible to invest your fuel in upgrades and late game elite infantry so the end game wasn't always about who has more tanks. Doctrines changed the way you could play your faction in a much more significant way, for example if you picked the Defensive doctrine as wehrmacht you could base your entire strategy around those abilities. I never felt any commander changed the way a faction plays in coh2.

    Another thing i loved about COH1 that COH2 never really delievered is to capture zones took more effort and the rewards were greater for having good mapcontrol. Controlling 75% of the map in COH1 meant you had a huge advantage in terms of resources and you could invest early fuel in Light Vehicles to gain more mapcontrol to gain more fuel in the late game. Such interesting strategies were gamble high risk high reward since if you didn't secure the extra fuel you were behind. In COH2 it feels the game tries to make the game feel more even despite if you control less territory since all points give fuel and munitions also popcap is not affected by territory in COH2. All in All the more punishing effects of not controlling territory made the game feel more interesting and you could base new strategies around that fact making the game feel more diverse, deep and just as i said more interesting.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver

    I didn't like how powerful snipers were in COH1, also many elite infantry had abilities that negated suppression making it very easy to just blob up and use your abilities when you got into trouble to get a free pass. What totally destroyed COH1 for me was the introduction of the British faction who turned the gamerules upside down making all that makes COH great vanish (such as ridiculously powerful infantry, movable HQ so map control was pointless, powerful emplacements that took great patience to fight against but nearly no effort for the british player)

    3. What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)

    Campaign was better, doctrines even being fewer felt more impactful and more interesting. Unit voiceovers were superb and the game looked stunning and still run great even on lesser machines.

    4. What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you
    feel they may be

    I feel truesight is good but i wonder how much framerate this feature takes away? If I could have COH2 run as good as COH1 without truesight i would probably trade it. I like the veterancy system in coh2 where preserving units making them better which COH1 weren't true for some armies. I like the unit icons at the top of the screen, thats a huge improvement.

    6. What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    World War 2 Setting

    7. Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

    I feel Relic design their RTS more and more to be all about micro and almost zero strategy. I feel this make Relic games not really interesting long term because after a while it starts to feel the same old same old when you know how nearly every game will work out, what units will appear and at what time. There isnt much innovation to be done, COH1 had a bit but both DOW2 and COH2 feels its all about engagements and you can't plan or stategize long term in how you invest your resources once you understand the meta. More researchable upgrades would make the game much deeper and interesting long term.

    Also the game feels sluggish to control compared to other RTS, i think this is a huge turn off to RTS players from other games trying out COH, its the nr 1 complaint from my friends when i have them try out COH.

  • #24
    1 year ago
    SpajN34SpajN34 Posts: 7

    TO CLARIFY

    6. What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    World War 2 Setting in europe, i don't want a pacific teather!!

  • #25
    1 year ago
    DaCobblerDaCobbler Posts: 49
    edited July 2017

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on

    -Personality, Style, Identity: This is somewhat of an umbrella term so forgive me if this bullet point is long. I felt CoH1 felt like it had a bit more style and personality. It's kinda hard to spot it at first but you can see the stylistic choices made in the first game.

    For one, I felt like the Doctrines/Commanders in CoH1 had more of an identity compared to CoH2 where many generals overlapped OR the abilities dont seem to match the commanders' name or traits. Like for example, why does the US Infantry Commander in CoH2 have a Priest? Shouldn't he have Rangers or maybe something like the Bulldozer which is a close infantry support vehicle? Or the Scavenge Commander for OKW, why does he have Flakpanzers and Jaeger infantry? How does that relate to Scavenging? CoH1 the commanders each felt unique and fitting in their own ways. I think CoH1 having a Focus Tree also gave me a sense of choice that I liked (and Europe at War expanded that much further, which I liked)

    Faction design while I think Relic did a great job with CoH2, I do think the armies overlapped each other a tad too much. I mean, there's lots of places I can point to but one of the prime examples is OKW who seem to have everything from cheap-powerful infantry, potent support weapons, powerful artillery, powerful tanks, great offensive and good defensive capabilities, and really no weakness or lacking area other than quote unquote 'Expensive'. Hell, they gave OKW the Fortifications doctrine so they can build Bunkers, Pak 43s, and Howitzers (which is a complete copy paste from OstHeer).

    Contrast that to Panzer Elite who were extremely unique. Small but powerful infantry squads and heavily mechanized. An army designed around halftracks and armor w/ powerful tho limited (in size) infantry support really felt different from the rest in CoH1 and CoH2.

    There's other things like how the Brits had an officer you attach to, to boost infantry capabilities including movement which was interesting. I like the idea of veterancy being treated different per army though I dont want the exact same copy from CoH1 (like Wehrmacht being able to buy Veterancy seemed... unfair. Meanwhile the US army only got Vets from kills, not even damages). I liked how there were different models in squads like how there was a radio man model armed with a M1 Carbine in an Rifleman squad whereas in CoH2 every squad (except for officers) used identical looking models. And so on.

    Oh, and the fact that were was a V1 bomb strike for the Terror Doctrine not only was cool but it fit his doctrine and silly in an endearing way.

    I hope CoH3 does try to make the factions more unique from each other.

    -Campaign: I think the CoH2 campaign is really flawed. CoH1's campaign, upon revisiting it actually doesn't hold up as well but it's decent and still better than CoH2. And Ardennes Assault was one of my favorite RTS campaigns honestly. Both CoH1 and AA share something CoH2 didn't. They were focused and small scaled. I felt like CoH2 was too much of a set piece battle hopping adventure. You're at Barbarossa, then you're at Moscow, then you're at Stalingrad, then Leningrad, then Poland, then Berlin, all in 1 mission per location. You don't feel as attached to the war. Meanwhile, in CoH1, you and the other companies gradually all push and link up and defeat the German army in France. Each company contributes and aids the other in this progressive meaningful manner. Ardennes Assault takes that even further in the Battle of the Bulge. You actual get to control each company, choose where and when to attack, and it just amounted to one of the best player driven focused campaigns I played. While I praise AA a lot here, the focused setting of COH1 does apply to CoH2 which felt far more disconnected. I think it would have been better if CoH2 focused on one particular front like Stalingrad, with multiple battles in the city and the outskirts and just feeling more connected to the battlefield.

    -Music: I love Cris Velasco's works from Mass Effect to CoH2 but I also would like to see a return to CoH1's more personality driven music. Again, I really love Velasco's music but I quite would like to see a return to CoH1's pieces that felt more bombastic and unique to each faction.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver

    -Veterancy: While I admire CoH1 for trying to make veterancy different from one faction to another, I think the execution was a bit flawed. As I said, the fact that Wehrmacht could get veterancy by buying it while the Americans had to score a kill (damage is not considered to level up), seemed irksome. I do think CoH2's universal XP system is better though I would like to see something unique if they ever make CoH3. Like maybe experience not only can be gained but lost through squad member loss or crew injuries/deaths. Allied units might be able to Vet faster but that's because the max Vet is quite lower than Axis units which take longer to Vet but since they're stronger, they're less likely to lose experience per squad member/crewmember loss and their Vet 3 is much more powerful than Allied Vet 3. But yeah, I say the CoH2 vet system of doing damage AND kills is superior, though I would like to see it developed and expanded on in the future to give a bit more asymmetry

    -UI: I honestly can't go back to CoH1 all because of the UI. CoH2's always-on-display unit cards on the top right is a god send and it makes the CoH2 so much more enjoyable to play since you dont have to worry where each unit is or where they're getting attacked when playing CoH1.

    -Squad Spacing and Movement: I feel a bit torn on this but overall I do think CoH2's more strict squad spacing and movement is better for online play and control. I've seen blobbing in CoH1 and it's far more effective since they're all spread out which means they're less likely to get wiped, and it means flanking/overpowering the MGs is much easier. While I do miss how individual soldiers in CoH1 would split from the squad to find their own cover and stuff, I'll take the more responsive and tight squads in CoH2 over CoH1 mostly for online and balancing reasons.

    -Audio Department: The evolution of the sound in CoH2 from CoH1 was leaps and bounds superior. Crisp, punchy, and deadly sounding, I found CoH2's audio work to be far superior to CoH1's audio which a lot of the sounds felt flatter and unremarkable (take for example the Mortar impact sounds. In CoH1 it feels like a small thud. In CoH2 it felt like a loud deadly slam).

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)

    Personality, style, identity where each faction felt unique, the doctrines were unique, and things like the V1 bomb strike was silly but it added to that asymmetrical theme and design (Historians and media loves bringing up Wunderwaffes and so they have become iconic when many of us think of the German military).

    Campaign was focused and the setting and company + characters you got attached to.

    Music by Jeremy Soul, Ian Livingstone and the others gave a lot of mood and uniqueness to each faction.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be

    Responsiveness, Control, and the UI helped with reading and the usage of units.

    Universal Veterancy through damage and kills though again I'd like to see a bit more assymetry developed from this.

    TrueSight caaan be irksome and frustrating but usually it's incredibly useful and I hope it stays around as it adds so much tactical options.

    Audio fantastic on all fronts. The only 'issue' I have is that I wish there were variations with the certain weapons. Like how the MG42 squad uses the same sound effect as the MG42 LMG upgrade for Grenadiers and Panzer MG upgrades. It can be confusing initially to know whether it's an MG42 support gun suppressing my units or if it's just a non-suppressing MG42 upgrade for infantry and tanks. Even the Vickers for the Brits has variations in the sound. The Vickers MG squad has a slower sounding rate of fire while the Vickers weapon upgrade for Engineers has a distincter sound.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    I would implement Caps on certain units. I know a lot will say: "MAH FREEDOM!" but this Overspecializing (aka Cheese) in team games especially is quite annoying. People getting nothing but mortars/powerful artillery, sniper spam, etc can lead to very frustrating games. Yes you could say: "Oh, but you can counter", well how do you kill those Sniper blobs when your mortars keep getting counter mortar'd or maybe the snipers are defended by MGs and infantry and AT guns? Either put a unit cap on certain units or maybe increase the price per new squad/unit like in Rise of Nations.

    Wall Penetrating Units are really infuriating on some team maps. It puts the Allies at a huge disadvantage when the only way to make progress is to either do a suicidal charge or a flanking attack (which is also somewhat suicidal). And some maps are reaally impossible to flank around. And even if you manage to get to the Pak 43 or the Elfant or Jagdtiger, it's likely it's defended by multiple other tanks and/or infantry.

    Forward Retreat Points I feel are a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Card. Losing a bit too much infantry? Well just retreat and heal back up and get back into the action in about 40 seconds. Whereas others without FRPs are forced to retreat all the way back to base and take about 2 or 3 minutes to get back into action. I get that it adds some uniqueness to factions but I think it rewards these factions too much. Retreating should be a thoughtful last resort decision and it should be a significant setback. With FRPs, it's just a short temporary minor setback with little to no negative points.

    Britain as a Defensive Designed Faction. Im not sure if CoH3 will be set in WWII but if it does and it includes the Brits, I reeeaaally hope Relic stops designing the Brits as this Fortifications-heavy faction when historically the Brits were usually on the offensive. I think they could have expanded the whole 'Cautiousness' of the Brits from CoH1. Slow on the offensive but it has the weight and strength of a steamroller (which honestly is a perfect metaphor). I would get rid of the emplacements too and just have mobile though weaker versions like the Bofors or something like a Mortar Universal Carrier.

    Too Easy to Call in Abilities. I really like how the Brits can call artillery support with flares thrown from infantry. I want to see more abilities require that to call in support. Maybe like Airborne infantry requiring flares to call in the P47 Airstrikes. Having an artillery officer or forward observer unit too would be interesting. Maybe Command Tanks could also provide range for ability call ins (I know there's a CoH2 mod where a Sherman command tank can call in airstrikes around him).

    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

    Everything I mentioned as a Positive in CoH2? Intel Bulletins I would have them perform like in Dawn of War 3 actually. Giving units unique abilities with each intel bulletin sounds like it could add some interesting options. Oh, please oh please oh PLEASE continue the Ardennes Assault campaign structure and direction. A bigger budget Ardennes Assault style campaign focused on a Battle or Front with player driven choices without excessive scripted missions and cutscenes would be all fine and more by me. Oh, I would want to improve the Vaulting System by having a 'Fast Move' option. It doesnt have to be a button. It could just be a double R Click. In Men of War, doubling R Clicking made units sprint. In CoH3 (?) units should be able to vault over fences and walls if you double R click on a location past the obstacle. Too often i'm struggling to R Click on the fence/wall to jump over in CoH2 since it's the target area is so tiny depending on the camera angle.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

    -Cosmetics: With games like Day of Infamy, Rising Storm 2, and the upcoming COD WW2, devs are offering skins to players to add and customize their units. Yes the tank skins are nice in CoH2 (though I would prefer if they were assigned to units that vetted up) but I wanna see extra attachments like gear, sandbags, camo netting, etc

    I also want to see infantry look more and more rag tagged as they vet up, going from their clean uniforms to something looking like they acquired additional clothing (scarves, camo helmets, etc) as they vet up. Relic could make some serious $$$ with cosmetics to put on units. Oh, historical division insignias could also be cool to attach to unit's arm patches and stuff.

    -Air Combat. I really think Relic could learn from Steel Division and War Game. Obviously the map is too small to control planes like in those games but I think calling in planes to bomb, strafe, recon, or intercept enemy planes with a finite amount of available planes and a simple UI could be implemented in a future CoH.

    Side Armor: The lack of side armor gives Axis tanks the advantage. Too often Allied players will risk their tanks by trying to flank the enemy annnnd the round just bounces off since the shot was considered a Frontal Hit. It's infuriating to risk (and lose) units thinking u have the jump on them but the lack of side armor, which was a major weakness to many Panzers (and allied tanks), results in non penetration.

    More Vehicle Damages Such as driver injured, gunner blinded, commander knocked out, loaded killed, temporary tank engine malfunction, turret jammed, etc. Yes, it could be RNG but I dunno, I quite like the idea that tanks have a living breathing crew and the tank has several components to it which needs to be working at all times. All of which can be interrupted, killed, or damaged by a lucky hit and/or a shot at a certain direction (i.e. obviously a rear shot is more likely to cause Engine damage). No catastrophic RNG one hit kills tho like in War Thunder or Steel Division where a round luckily hits the ammo.

    Improved Veterancy System I mentioned that I would like to see the current system have this Gain and Loss system where casualties and damaged tanks would lose experience. Allied units have a smaller threshold to reach but lose it faster due to Allied units being squishier while German units take longer to become Veterans since the veterancy rewards them more but they're sturdier so they're less likelier to lose squad members, tank crew members, and veterancy at the rate the Allies do.

  • #26
    1 year ago
    SpajN34SpajN34 Posts: 7

    TO CLARIFY

    7. Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

    I didn't mean i don't like micro, micro is a fun way to dominate your opponent but just because there is a high micro requirement from the player shouldn't mean you need to cut out interesting resource investment decisions from the player making the game stragetic shallow. I didn't bother buying DOW3 because micro looked non existent in that game.

  • #27
    1 year ago
    InukiInuki Posts: 1

    Company of Heroes 1 was a big game for me. So much so I casted the game and it really started my career. I now produce work for HiRez Studios promoting two of their games. I produce, edit, and voice SMITE Top 5 Plays and produce the Paladins Top 5 Play shows among working on a few other things here and there.

    ( SMITE Top 5 Plays )
    ( Paladins Top 5 Plays )

    And I really wouldn't have been here if it wasn't for Company of Heroes (and a little of Men of War too). So a big thank you for that!

    Now, I was super excited to hear Company of Heroes 2 was being released. I was prepared. I was ready. I was starting my work for SMITE but I was damn sure going to be making content for my favourite game's next release. But I didn't. I couldn't motivate myself to make content for Company of Heroes 2 ( Yes, release was different but my own personal reasons why still apply to CoH 2 today ).

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on

    In Company of Heroes 1, In 1v1 and 2v2, It was action all the way. There was little down time among high level play. More often than not there was a squad firing at another squad. Each time that happened those fights had the potential to evolve into a larger fight. A bigger push. A smart flank.

    This simply did not happen in CoH 2 and whilst it happens more than it use to than release. It still doesn't happen more than what CoH 1 was. There are a few factors involved here;

    1) Higher Lethality in CoH 2 ( You can't move your infantry around if they die quicker ) - Units take more damage, smaller squad sizes which leads into faster squad wipes. Less squads on the battlefield. Less action. Very simple!

    2) Map Design. I felt like a lot of the maps that were introducd in CoH 2 didn't really have much heavy cover to play behind as opposed to CoH 1. But this is a very minor observation.

    3) More vehicle focus - Done in a wrong way

    So I started Casting CoH 2. I did all my productions but I never released a cast because I felt the games, between high level CoH 1 players, were 2 guys throwing infantry at each other and before it could really develop into anything a squad would have to retreat. A player was punished far harder than in CoH 1. The result was a lot of nothing happening more than something happening compared to CoH 1. As a caster....I was bored. Fights were predictable. "This guy has X unit, which means Y unit will lose". It didn't come down to advanced tactics.

    Regarding vehicles. It was stated that CoH 2 wanted to have more vehicular focus but what was actually meant was "We don't want a light vehicle stage.". In CoH 1 I think you had the super early 8 minute Greyhound or Puma. It was around 8-15 minutes you'd have this light vehicle stage which would then progress into your medium and heavies and then much later the super heavies.

    By having this escalation we lost an area of depth. We still have light vehicles but they just pop out much sooner and it is still messy because of the other reasons like higher lethality.

    Vehicles appear much more in mass in CoH 2 and I don't feel like the game engine is really suited for it. Tanks clip through each other frequently and it ruins the aesthetic of the game when it does happen. CoH 1 and 2 operate the same but the situation got worse simply by endorsing more tanks on the battlefield.


    Some extra pointers. CoH 1 had fantastic explosion visual effects. Compare Grenades. CoH 2 grenades look like mini earthquakes that lift up dirt 'equally spread' as opposed to an explosion with a central point.

    You removed Medic Stations with reinforcing squads. Medic Stations were smart (although a frequent hot topic regarding balance) because they kept the action going whilst also adding the cinematic feel of the game. Watching Medics go grab guys and being rewarded with disposable squads encouraged players to keep that action going.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver

    Company of Heroes 1 was being improved on through Company of Heroes Online. And 'ideas' from Company of Heroes Online were implimented in CoH 2. Most notibly the bulletins system. CoHO added progression and customization and it was absolutely fantastic. The main complaint for CoHO was the balance of heroes. CoHO was still in its early stages though so no definitive 'commander builds' came about but there was a lot of options. CoH 2 similarly has a lot of 'options' but not a lot of 'customization' which is where the fun really is at.

    The problem with CoH 2 Bulletins is they may as well not be there. It's too little choice that have too little affect to be worth the thought and consideration, yet it's too important to simply ignore some free buffs for your units. Or to translate this into practical terms; ( Important to note I am ignoring Static Commanders here. This is specific to bulletins )

    In CoHO you made choices before the battle that would influence your decisions in the battle. If you were an infantry commander you would decide between what buffs to give your riflemen, or MG, or Mortars. You might even buff your Sherman to help your infantry pushes. You had 5 slots ( from what I recall? ) so there was enough wiggle room for either super power boosting one individual unit or spreading the love around various units. You also customized your commander so it wasn't static. Your now comboing between your bulletin cards and commander abilities. A little extra smart consideration with commander abilities is some times you did not want to rank up the ability all the way because by downgrading the ability you could call it earlier ( Example, Airdrop supplies could be ranked up to give a very small amount of fuel at 1 CP. This helps get out a light vehicle sooner or if you are playing 2v2/3v3 you could deliver this to your Armor guy and make use of his boosted up vehicles. He might boost his light vehicles or his heavy vehicles. See how we have a lot of decision making and playing and creativity going on here? )

    This just isn't the case in Company of Heroes 2. Pick some commanders you like. As you level up you unlock abilities. Even Company of Heroes 1 had 2 trees to go down to so you could 'kinda' level it up. CoH 2 stepped backwards here. And the bulletins are basically unit boosts that don't change how you actually play.

    I'd also like to add that what is amazing with Company of Heroes Online system is it was so infantile. The possibilities to develop upon what it had were incredible. Something CoH 2 never really developed upon.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)

    British Faction and Panzer Elite Faction. I actually forget these factions exist and speaking with fellow CoH 1 lovers that played CoHO and had complaints about CoHO. We all agree that the one amazing thing about CoHO was no British and no Panzer Elite. However, we were looking forward to seeing how you would adapt both factions for CoHO as they would undoubtedly have changes which might have made them interesting, fair and balanced.

    So what were the problems with British and Panzer Elite?

    Panzer Elite encouraged mindlessness. Let's take the biggest culrprit of Scorched Earth's Booby Traps. This ability cost nothing to do. You could queue it up so one squad would booby trap all your points and if an enemy commander didn't pull a squad that had triggered a booby trap off within 1 second he could potentially (and a high potential) lose that whole squad.

    What's more is that if you were in a fight with lots of sounds going off. You could completely miss that sound. Free squad wipes. The Panzer Elite player only has to do one action whilst the other Allied commander has to react extremely fast. It simply was too easy.

    Panzer Elite Blobs. This isn't a balance issue but rather what the gameplay design encouraged and it simply wasn't fun. PE players mostly had one mindset and that was to blob up and make use of Zeal. Thankfully CoH 1 had good countermeasures to blobs but then when you throw PE a toy like the armored car which kills infantry really fast. That early MG or sniper which were critical to dealing with PE infantry could quickly become a one way or the other game.

    In traditional US vs Wehr gameplay each commander is reacting to each other. Where as when going against PE or British you have an idea of what they are going to do and what you are going to have to do to counter it before getting past the loading screen.

    As for the Brits. Simcity encouragement. Though that was mostly an issue for lower level games. In higher tier games. British Infantry were terrifying. They were the case of the opposite of high lethality. These guys would barely die. However, the british infantry's hardiness was less of the issue as opposed to what you could do with them and what they teamed up with. This Infantry section was also a builder. This in my opinion was not a good move because it meant having a unit which just 'did it all'.

    Now as much as I like the medic stations. Giving it to the British infantry section with how much they could do was a no brainer. I mean, you had to build a casualty clearing station anyway to heal so it was once again a 'thoughtless none decision making process'. What I'm saying here is, where are the player decisions? "Shall I get an engineer so I can build defenses or a riflemen section so I can hold ground. Shall I get a casualty clearing station to get new squads from casualties or perhaps a medic truck or medic tent to heal wounded soldiers?". - Something like that.

    Upgrades for the Infantry Section. Rifle Grenades were quite an explosive pain. But essentially, besides the recon upgrades, the Bren and Rifle Grenades resulted in a hard to kill squad but gathered up so many bonuses. They can build. They got buffs from Lieutenant/captains. Everything just rolled into supporting this one unit and the same could be said for Panzer Elite.

    Now, the British were kinda more interesting in that they had this very unique veterancy system revolved around Lieutenant's and Captains. But it was just so entirely overshrouded by simcitying and raw power. Raw power brings me to the bane of British play. British Commando Unit. They chewed up enemy infantry like no other. It was gross.

    The other annoying part about British is locking down points with command vehicles. It truly was silly for reasons I hopefully don't have to explain.

    Anyway, to try and keep this short. Games against the British usually ended with the Brit player brutally blobbed up with their opponent drained of resources. Or the Brit player would catastrophically lose all their units after an artillery strike on their base as they retreated to that location.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be

    There is one main thing I love about Company of Heroes 2. You have so many different units so there, in theory, there should be less repitition. However, because of the low survivability of units, we don't really get to see those differences. I understand that creating definition when you have so many units is challenging but you actually have done well to do that. Examples;

    • Sherman Bulldozer that can dig up the ground and create make shift cover. Genius!
    • Search Light Half Track. This was a unit designed to assist with intel gathering that made sense! Love it ( although I don't believe it should see through buildings which it sometimes did last time I checked ).

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    Probably the flame halftracks. It sounds odd and I really wouldn't want it cut from the game less so diminished from it's appearance. Similarly those early Russian Flamethrower packed halftracks which I think got changed or removed? Watching the early game consist of more flame trading and vehicles just driving into enemy squads as opposed to bullet trading from cover to cover combat. I mean...It just looked silly. CoH 1 looked cinematically competitive. CoH 2 looked comically game like in this regard. Let's try to encourage play that looks like it would come from a film or movie.

    Resource Points given every kind of resource. It reduced tactical decisions. This was a problem at release because the Germans just like...."Got Tanks For Free!". You couldn't focus target their fuel points because so long as they had points on the map they got fuel. There's always that argument of Axis vs Allies early game/late game. But the problem here is one of fairness. Going back to the Panzer Elite Booby Traps. Is it fair that one player simply presses a button that will kill a squad should the other player not react within 1 second? Is it fair that if the Axis simply hold on to a couple of points that they then produce a tank which doesn't require much thought to make effective? Everythings got to come back to player input versus player output. Skill versus Reward and Punishment.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    You had Spectator Mode / Observers. So critically important for casting games.

    Reinforcing from Half Tracks / Forward Bases. You removed the whole medic station stuff and my concern is this would be next. Medic Stations increased conflict up time and so do reinforcing from forward positions. This makes it a battle of attrition. My concern is you would remove this forward reinforcements considering that CoH 2 removed those casualty collecting medics churning out extra squads.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

    Man I have a whole load of thoughts here. There is an incredible amount of potential especially for the current climate of RTS gaming ( Starcraft 2 is no longer performing so well and there is a HUGE void of decent RTS games that could be filled. There are so many elements that an RTS could impliment that have been implimented and proven succesful from other genres yet the RTS scene hasn't been able to jump on. RTS games seem risky business now). But I've had a bad experience when it comes to sharing ideas openly. If you genuinely feel that I may be able to assist in what could potentially be a new RTS game for Relic then I'd be more than happy to get in touch on a more personal and professional level. I'm doing pretty well for myself at the moment but it would be great to see Relic produce the next big RTS title that I could enjoy! My life for games!

    So just some quick thoughts that I feel comfortable with expressing before I head out to breakfast!

    CoH 1 and CoH 2 and Dawn of War 2 and Dawn of War 3 all have one thing in problem. These games were not ready at release balance wise. There are other circumstances though.

    CoH 1 - Whilst not balanced on release. It was released at a time where computers couldn't handle this well. It was a hidden gem and multiplayer was never intended to be as big as it became. CoH 1 grew and became succesful but it never became 'big and in your face'. We could speculate that making a WW2 themed game will struggle to be Starcraft 2 level stuff because of the appeal of fantasy factions over historical ones. Again, there is more I could say on this but let's move on!

    Dawn of War 2 - The most Rock Paper Scissors RTS game you could get. But that wasn't the only issue with Dawn of War 2. It had a really low map pool, AI backcapping issues (There are a lot of folk that want to play co-op against AI you know because of versus anxiety. Yes...I consider those people too!) and some big balance issues like Players were punished for retreating by taking increased melee damage and explosive damage. Dead Squads = Less Action = More Snowball Game.

    CoH 2 - Alright so maybe the winter thing wasn't really suitable for trying to promote competitive play. The balance on release was a big issue. The lethality was just so damn high. Sturmpioneers which could charge over to a conscript squad behind heavy cover and decimate them in less than 3 seconds was just insane. Silly things like halftracks with double flamethrowers dominating games. 4v4 maps wern't very exciting and 4v4, from what I have experienced, is basically the mode that the majority of folks play!

    CoHO - Now I can't be certain about what happened to CoHO but my speculation is that this was around the time THQ was struggling and CoHO was an unfortunate victim of the time. The only major issue with CoHO that is justified is the Hero Squad balance. We can't really argue about all the commando balance problems because it wasn't running that long to really see if those issues were long standing or not.


    So this is a very rushed write down. Certainly not all of my thoughts I wish I could express and there are probably a bunch of spelling mistakes, grammar issues and potentially a little incomplete line of thought somewhere in there (sorry!). But for whatever it is worth I hope it helps! Company of Heroes 1 and Dawn of War 2 are games that have had a huge impact on my life and I know Relic is a skilled development team. I wish them all the best and if I can help improve their next RTS, at least from a casters point of view, I would do whatever I could! Right...time for a nice breakfast out =)

    https://twitter.com/inukii

  • #28
    1 year ago
    HardyStyledHardyStyl… MoscowPosts: 24
    edited July 2017
    • What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    • Doctrines with ability tree, where you can manually invest points in what you want at the moment, or hold for later.
    • Large amount of upgrades and abilities for default units even without doctrine selected.
    • Dark pattern of colors, so it feels more like war.
    • All sides for armor (front, rear, side) and no auto homing for bazooka, panzerschreck and piat.
    • Every faction was real unique (british forces veterancy from CPT. or LT etc.).
    • Lack of modding for CoH2 (Just look on the CoH: Eastern Front).
    • What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    • TrueSight system is a very good improvement for tactical gameplay, same as vaulting over some obstacles.
    • Unit control in CoH1 was a way better so micro was a lot easier, but armor micto is better in CoH2 because of reverse key.
    • Unit pathfinding got worse in CoH2.
    • Capturing points mechanics is better in CoH2, but still not perfect.
    • Tactical map was better in CoH1.
    • UI was improved in CoH2 (unit icons on top right) and new hotkey pattern.
    • What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    • Balance was a way better in CoH1 maybe because of less RNG factor.
    • Huge amount of upgrades even without doctrine choosen.
    • Storyline in CoH1 is piece of art.
    • Faction design.
    • What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    • TrueSight mechanics.
    • Vaulting.
    • Faceplates, camo, decals, victory strikes, but it should be more improved.
    • Level progression with commaders for levels was fun, but it became useless after adding item drops and item drops became useless after supply update.
    • If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    • Autohoming for all bazookas.
    • Blobbing or at least addind penalties like debuff for big amount of units standing nearby.
    • Idiots, this game needs to add penalties for bad reputation players (who is dropping games, destroy teammates base, harass players) with reports, same as reconect feature so players will not get penalty on dropping game because of game problems such as bugsplat.
    • What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    • It's best features, watch above.
    • Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    • CoH series is a very interesting game to watch even if you are not a player in this game. This game needs a lot more investement in tournaments production, so everyone could see what game that is, even if they see CoH in a first time. And not only 1v1 mode, 2v2+ is even more exciting for viewers, so it could not only pro 1v1 players, but whole teams. Expand the world of Company of Heroes.
  • #29
    1 year ago
    CroarmyZGCroarmyZG Posts: 16

    In CoH 1 i loved Modding to be precise full conversion mods like blitzkrieg, eastern front, modern combat ect. which CoH 2 really doesn't have. And berge tiger. CoH 1 had diffrent resource managment like fuel points act diffrent then in this one and territory depending popcap.

    On CoH 1 probably capturing points from CoH 2, skins and decals (historical)

    CoH 1 had good campaigns expecialy tales of valor mini campaigns

    CoH 2 has capping area which i really like, true sight, skins and decals

    All non historical skins like those anime skins and halloween skins for 12yo

    Carry over form CoH2 capping area, true sight, skins and decals

    I feel like both games had short in desert maps it would be nice addition. On CoH 2 i dont like there isnt any third axis faction which would be unique

  • #30
    1 year ago

    I used to play a lot of 3v3 and 4v4 in COH2 and recently started playing 1v1 and 2v2 competitively. Before that i played COH1 against the cpu with always the same strat ;)

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    

    The sound track.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    

    TrueSight

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    

    Sounds and atmosphere.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    

    The big variation of commanders, TrueSight, overal design and atmosphere of little things.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    

    Bugsplats, i would remove a lot of maps, the optimilisation system and camp buildings like bofors and mortar pits because they only give balance problems.

    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    

    The great spirit!! We have an amazing community and great developers that really started to listen to us! I would also carry forward the atmosphere of the game.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    

    Maps, maps can be way better. Also optimilisation and balance most likely. Apart from that keep doing your job : )

    I made a bigger post but somehow i manage to delete it, hope this still gives some propper feedback

  • #31
    1 year ago
    AceOfTitaniumAceOfTita… Posts: 195
    edited July 2017

    I only play 1v1's and 2v2's competitively and very rarely a modded game for fun with friends. Now about my opinion.

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    -Although CoH2 had some decent tracks vCoH's entire soundtrack is just memorable and it screams Coh franchise!
    -Again, CoH2's campaign was decent but vCoH's was pretty damn good. I think the campaign along with the soundtrack, the menu's art style/set up and a few other things are the reasons why it is said that vCoH is the "highest rated WWII RTS".

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    -Multiplayer. Even with all the broken units and lame metas that come with each patch CoH2's multiplayer is superior to vCoH's. CoH2's multiplayer has so much potential and is pretty close to being perfect, it just needs more work.
    -Map balance, maybe fixed locations by standard would give a easier time to map makers to balance their maps.
    -The few doctrines were easier to balance but it made the game very monotonous but on the other hand although CoH2's commander system brought a lot of diversity it also contributed to the game's unbalancing problems. A mix of fewer commanders but 100% unique and reliable would be the best choice.
    -vCoH lacks those small mechanics that make a HUGE difference like vaulting, mud, deep snow, truesight, reversing vehicles, cammo only working while in cover and so on.
    -I feel that both games lack in the competitive aspect, after all this is an rts game and it is very competitive by nature so any support to the competitive aspect of the game would be welcome with open arms.
    -The more customization the game has the better. Being able to set settings to your liking is a big plus as much as is customizing your unit's cammo and faceplates.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    -vCoH excelled in:
    it's main menu, loading screen and wallpaper art styles
    it's soundtracks
    the very distinct factions (from veterancy to teching, every faction felt really unique)
    unit and ability variety
    it's various campaigns (missions, style and the fact that almost each faction had a campaign)
    it's audio cues for when a game starts or someone types something

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    -CoH2 excelled in:
    it's very competitive multiplayer
    it's UI and replay interface
    it's variety of skins and faceplates available (although more quality and quantity would be greatly appreciated)
    some aspects of it's main menu
    all the small mechanics that really change the gameplay (vaulting, truesight and so on)
    the way units used to come to the battlefield. I loved how units came from outside of the map but because of balance reasons that feature was removed. Maybe limiting only one entry point per player/team would bring back this small but beautiful feature.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    -Intel bulletins, really despise them. Being able to manipulate unit's stats just doesnt add anything good to the game.
    -The factions "early vs mid vs late game advantage" mindset
    -"Call in" mechanic. I think that every player should be able to make a comeback at any stage of the game but it shouldnt be a easy thing to do such as abusing call in's, it should be something that you make with great effort, sweat and skill. Basically one should earn his comeback as much as earn the victory.
    -The extreme RNG. Removing RNG completely from the game shouldnt even be considered but the extreme/game winning RNG that frustrates and enrages players should go. One example would be the main gun crit to vehicles, this kind of crit would be best implemented in abilities not by RNG.
    -Items in the store that cant be bought with supply. What is the purpose of supply if one cant use it?
    -Theatre of war, altough this is a neat idea it is poorly executed and was even abandoned. I would rather have campaigns for all factions than theatre of war.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    -Pretty much everything that I wouldn't cut from the game but better thought out and executed.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    -Giving modders more freedom and better tools to make mods.
    -Faction/units balancing. This applies especially to CoH2.
    -Competitive scene. Although CoH2 is very competitive it still has a lot to improve. Where there's esports there's money.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.