COH1 VS COH2 - Feedback Wanted

24

Comments

  • #32
    1 year ago
    VegnaVegna Posts: 956
    1. CoH1 felt more ground breaking for me, only other game I'd played like it was the Blitzkrieg series. CoH2 didn't feel such a huge jump forward. (I id play DoW1 as well but feel they are rather different theme wise)
    2. Weather, wider range would be nice. Rain storms would be a good addition. None offensive campaign story would of been good as well.
    3. I did enjoy the campaign, was less political and hostile to the controlled nation.
    4. I really enjoyed ToW packs, loved the extra missions and the co-op missions were great. Disapointed you stopped making them so quickly.
    5. All the commanders I paid money for and then got given for free.
    6. ToW co-op missions.
    7. Leaving single player so quickly, lack of German campaign (ToW did improve that) and lack of early war content.
  • #33
    1 year ago

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    COH1 for me has always been a platform for modding and mapping, and I have created over 70 maps for each product. I have grown thoroughly used to both Worldbuilders and have enjoyed them both equally, but what remains plain as day is that COH1 survives after 10 years because of the modding tools that allow the community to add more content. COH2, even with mapping tools, will eventually wither without modding tools of the same caliber.

    Furthermore, while many of the bugs were fixed in COH2's WorldBuilder moving forward, many other issues emerged, and have never been fixed. Being unable to save new atmospheres, add fenceposts to the end of fences or turn on street lights might sound like a small problem, but the sting has always been that it is easily fixable, and never was cared about.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    Skinpacks! Such a simple notion, but allowing the community to design amazing realistic skins was a stroke of genius, and should never have been denied to the COH1 community.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    COH1 and its campaigns were exceptional (particularly those added with Opposing fronts), which is where COH2 was let down. Having only one main campaign (that arguably dragged on too long) and no Axis equivalent left the single-player content lacking. Theatre of war, clearly a means to add more story-driven content was very lack-lustre, and felt more like a skirmish with severe limitations to the units you can build (and of all the features in COH2, I have played these least; even with 800+ hours of singleplayer under my belt, more than half of the TOW content is unplayed).

    Ardenne Assault attempted to add more flavour, and although I enjoyed it the first time around, it lacked elasticity. Despite having a beautiful campaign map, it was only ever a progression ladder to the players - you moved forwards, and never backwards. The enemy would sit useless, gathering strength, waiting for you, without ever considering how to attack back. In some cases, no matter how well you played, some situations became outright impossible to win, and losing a Commander made it all the more impossible. There are no valiant last stands or defences - just attack. COH1's campaigns (and COH2's main campaign) all managed to add both attack and defence, to truly sate our taste for something heroic!

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    For me, one of the most outstanding elements of both COH games (but in particular COH2) is its sound. Roaring engines, the cries of wounded soldiers and the voice acting (British and US forces for the most part) are excellent, and something that seem to be utterly neglected in comparative titles. Furthermore the music across both titles is excellent, and adds a dramatic tension that ramps up the desire to keep fighting when you are on the backfoot. I could not be happier that COH2 continued this high quality in sound!

    Additionally, TrueSight to me was an excellent addition to the game that worked on the "maximum vision is less than maximum range" of COH1 added more realism. Its fluidity in game allows you to understand what units can and cannot see, and allows for some seriously tense surprises (especially when that tiger rolls in from nowhere). However, while not something I loathe, I would urge you to add more emphasis in the "ambush" mechanic that is already in place in the game. Ambush camouflage (which only some units can buy or use) allows them to remain hidden if they are in cover, despite how obvious they may be (I'm looking at you, sniper running on my side of a wooden fence 15 metres away). Utilising TrueSight to lead your enemy into an ambush is not only more realistic, it's logical.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    While I imagine many people would say ColdTec or Mudtec here, I actually enjoyed both additions to the game, in the right circumstances. Many maps were designed with these additions included, and considerable work has been done to remove it afterwards, and such a hindrance is not applicable with competitive play. So, while I would not remove these, I would have loved to see an option to turn on/off Blizzards, deep snow and deep mud when setting up games, without having to change the maps themselves. This way, competitive and casual players need not be at a loss when one of the games features are removed/added.

    Additionally, while I like the concept of freedom in commanders, I believe a simple solution was missed in COH2. COH1 only allowed 3 commanders to be chosen, and each had its strengths and weaknesses. Players could learn how to use them, counter them, and each commander had a response. Essentially, whoever chose their commander first was at a disadvantage. In COH2, you tend to find only 1 commander per faction becomes the meta, and the remaining commanders (of which there are many!) are unused. Sadly, a lot of wasted potential.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    Music, voice acting, mapping assets (because there are so many more than first release!) and the variety of factions. While we complain about one faction being unbalanced, at least they aren't all the same. Five varieties beats two any day.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    COH1 implemented so many new concepts (or perfected existing features from other RTS titles) that I am very glad were carried over to COH2, but there were a number of things that were imperfect in COH1 and remain imperfect in COH2. Primarily, I would talk about buildings, and their role in the game. This is something that COH1 introduced well, but it has remained the same across both games, rather than being improved (and there is plenty of room for improvement). Consider that infantry units race for buildings that dominate maps or locations, and once that door closes behind them, only grenades and flamethrowers are reliable weapons to get them out - the concept of storming a building with close range weaponry doesn't factor into it.

    Because of this, concrete or brick buildings in COH2 are fortresses and have ruined many maps (and prevented urban/industrial maps from being popular), as they are extremely difficult to destroy, and cannot easily be countered (considering that a single grenade will severely damage a wooden building, but would barely affect a brick one). This has practically eliminated plaster, brick or concrete buildings from competitive maps, unless they are already heavily damaged, are single-storey, or are covered with blindspots.

    Forcing players to abandon buildings because close combat infantry are encroaching would prevent a reliance on grenades and flame weapons.

    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.?
    I design maps (about to release the 75th) for both the Competitive and Casual audience, but mostly play skirmishes with friends. Comp stomps are common, but often with the Spearhead mod, to add more realism!

  • #34
    1 year ago
    Mirage KnightMirage Kn… Posts: 244
    edited July 2017
    • What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on

    Custom units. I miss the ability to use custom vehicle models and infantry / weapon / vehicle skins. I also miss the UI style...it was more toned done and subtle yet fit the theme of the game. I also miss the collapsible unit lists on the side of the screen. Unobtrusive and very handy. I also miss COH1's grittier atmosphere.

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

    TrueSight was the one thing that COH2 offered that made me not want to go back to COH1. The Attribute Editor offered with COH2 has been hugely helpful with regard to unit stat modding and such. Blizzard conditions and snow for COH2 were great additions, but you all left out rainstorms from COH1. I miss that.

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

    I loved the campaigns. There was more thought involved in those. Commanders were more unique.

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

    TrueSight, Coldtech and Mudtech, improved physics and sfx, vehicle crews, Point / Area capture mechanic for infantry, ability to switch ammunition types in vehicles, vault fences, change weapon facings in buildings, and cammo in cover to name a few things.

    The AI is much improved over COH1. It's far more adaptable than COH1's and has proven much more receptive to major changes in a faction's unit rosters. COH1 would typically choke on new units and routinely crash the game if you changed a faction's tech path. COH2 has yet to do that to me...and I've made some fairly extensive changes.

    Units are a bit more interesting compared to COH1's.

    • If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    This obsession with E-sports. It's one albatross around the franchise's neck that needs to be thrown overboard.

    Mirror matches - I.E. Brits vs Brits etc. - is something that should not feature in any self-respecting WW2 RTS that prides itself on details and accuracy. That absolutely needs to go. It works in Dawn of War games because of the lore and background. It doesn't work here because it simply didn't happen. Allies vs Axis only please!

    Intel bulletins need to go. They only vaguely matter in large games and there they tend to confer potentially unfair advantages.

    Armor / Penetration rules are far too forgiving and unrealistic. To WW2 history buffs, this is "fingernails on a blackboard" levels of frustration and irritation. It also introduces far too much RNG for regular players.

    • What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

    I'm going to be really honest here. For the love of God, add in larger maps. The largest maps from COH2 should be the smallest size for COH3.

    Some overlap in unit roles is fine. We WW2 RTS gamers don't mind some overlap if it means we can choose between different units. For example, so what if Hetzers and StuGs are both tank destroyers? Sometimes I'd like to have the option of playing with Hetzers instead of StuG's.

    Expand on what's turned out to be a rather robust game engine.

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

    I want to see more accurate and detailed units - right down to tank crew uniforms and correct hatch details on Panthers for example. You guys can do this, you have talented artists but they need to focus on accurate details and colors. And when in doubt, consult people in the know! Do more research! Yes your artists paid attention to details much better this time around, but there's still much that was off in terms of colors, details and scaling...although tbh scaling wasn't as much of an issue compared to COH1. Anyone remember giant Hellcats and Marders? I do - and I want to forget that ever happened.

    Regular infantry squads are too small compared to their historical counterparts and seldom have the loadouts they normally had.

    I would like to see more unit options and more focus on units that were common and less on units that barely made an impact on the war, no matter how cool they might have been. Yes Sturmtigers were kickass, but only 18 -21 were ever built. Same with the Flammpanzer 38t, yet you included them but at the same time left out the all-important and far more numerous Jagdpanzer 38t "Hetzer" on which the Flammpanzer 38t was based.

    As some others have said; on the topic of maps, they need to be conditionally flagged by what front they're supposed to be set in, so that only certain factions can play on certain maps. A map focused somewhere on the Eastern Front shouldn't allow British or American forces on it. Likewise, a map set in France or Italy shouldn't allow Soviet forces on them either. Map sizes / scale in general need an increase in scale. The smallest maps are far too confining.

    Let's see weather conditions expanded on. Coldtech and Mudtech were awesome things, but I'd love to seen rainstorms make a comeback and for blizzards to be able to slowly obliterate any tracks made in the snow.

    Can we also see an increase in the number of units available to players and an increase in army sizes? Please make a point of studying company level organization charts from WW2, such as U.S. TO&E and German KStN documents. I want to be able to pick a historically accurate, full size company with appropriate regimental and divisional / corps support and role with it. The game's called Company of Heroes...so where are the proper companies you're supposed to field?
    Use those charts to determine correct unit caps and options.

    Faction specific request: Could you PLEASE allow German infantry to fight from Sd.Kfz. 251 halftracks? Historically it was the Germans that first saw the value of and pioneered the idea of using personnel carriers as combat platforms and not just armored taxis. Standard operational doctrine and training stressed that Panzergrenadiers should fight from their vehicles as much as possible, disembarking only when heavy resistance was encountered. Yet in COH, American and Soviet infantry can fight from their M3 / M5 HT's and German infantry can't fight from their primary HT.

    On this note, and I will be quite frank, Steel Division: Normandy 1944 has COH2 beat as a WW2 RTS. It has huge maps where artillery and use of troop transports really matters. Towed anti-tank guns. Really satisfying and accurate weapon ranges. Large and fairly accurate unit rosters and a wealth of unit options. It also has a superior armor system for vehicles, with front, side, rear and top armor and highly restricted penetration chances that make sense. The only thing it lacks is the ability for engineer and pioneer units to set up obstacles (tank traps, barbed wire), lay mine fields, dig trenches, and set up sandbag walls -and I prefer COH's territory capture mechanic.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a competitive player but I am an avid and active modder (Battleground: Europe is my creation) and prefer playing casual 1v1 and 2v2 games and comp stomps. As a general rule, I tend to avoid playing vCOH2 as it's too limited and inaccurate in terms of scope and representation.

  • #35
    1 year ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    -Side tech made for really interesting decisions that are absent in 2, where you either spam call-ins or tech. Vehicles/Anti-tank, while less balanced, felt a lot better. AT blobs weren't amazing because they wouldn't pen almost all the time and one faction didn't monopolize all the good AT. Commander choices were also much more interesting.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    Coh2's QoL and many of its design changes like Snipers and Snares would be amazing in CoH1. The UI is also extremely good in CoH2. The only other thing I didn't really like about CoH1 was the brown/grey palettes on everything, which CoH2 also did much better.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    Commanders, sidetech, voice acting and writing (though CoH2 Brits are pretty good as well), campaigns were really fun and did a good job of making you feel heroic, even when playing as the Germans.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    I liked having more Commander choices, but most of them felt really bad up to (and sometimes including) the WFA. Even then, too many Commanders were left useless by the wayside for way too long. The graphic design was also much better as it was much more realistic and alive then the grey/brown of vCoh. Truesight was also a pretty awesome choice and vaulting adding some interesting decisions to the level design.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    Emplacements bogged the game down way too hard. A lategame auto-win faction like OKW (and old Brits) also doesn't really have a place in the design phase. The commanders also could have been much better streamlined like the WFA/UKF ones where they were interesting and unique rather than a bunch of random junk thrown together, as that felt more like a cheap, thoughtless cash-grab than a proper use of the Commander system. I also wouldn't lock needed tools behind paywalls like Coh2 does with flamers and lategame arty.

    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    UI and QoL is generally pretty excellent, as is the customization in your roster. Truesight should absolutely become a staple for the game and many of the interesting mechanics like vehicle crews should show up again in some form or another.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    -Modding in Coh2 is really, really bad
    -Map design is generally pretty lacking in both games and both are plagued with some pretty awful ones in their rotation.
    -Balance. For the love of God don't neglect balance again, especially for commanders. Buying a useless Commander like Recon or Overwatch was such a "fuck you" to the player when you shell out a few bucks for one and turns out it can't even really be used because of how obviously bad it is.

  • #36
    1 year ago
    iA3 - HHiA3 - HH IRANPosts: 284
    edited July 2017

    I always play automatch 4v4, i believe more players = more fun and sometimes 2v2. i never play modded games on CoH2.

    -What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    Balance and WW2 atmosphere, when i play CoH1 i can feel ww2 atmosphere but in CoH2 not, i think something in CoH2 is wrong.

    -What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    Multiplayer section in coh2 is very better than coh1 and can be better + i like commanders variety in coh2.

    -What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    1. Commanders Format
    2. UI design and Soundtracks + very good and clear sounds for weapons.
    3. Campaigns with very good story.
    4. Balance and High Quality commanders.
    5. Graphinc and ww2 atmosphere.
    6. Strategy points and Pop-cap Format, in coh1 with capturing strategy points we can increase Pop.

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

    -If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    ToW and Intel bulletins (they are totally useless) + Pre-allocated Pop-Cap.

    -What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    Truesight + Variety of commanders

    -Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    1. Balance in CoH2 - you left us and stop supporting CoH2 with trouble balance.
    2. More maps with better quality is needed.
    3. More tools and freedom for modders.

  • #37
    1 year ago

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

    The original factions. Wehrmacht v Americans was (and still is) a well thought out, well designed, and well executed game matchup.

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

    Veterancy. There's a lot of debate over CoH1 wehrmacht vet. In my opinion it was a critical component of the game's design. It is what really created the 'asymmetric warfare' that is often truncated to just 'asymmetry' and taken out of context. In CoH1 there were different goals of gameplay: Americans sought to deny Wehrmacht fuel and drain VPs. Wehrmacht sought to deny VPs and obtain fuel. Americans had the VP game, Wehrmacht had the fuel game. Killing american units gained Wehrmacht nothing (except resource advantage of course), but feeding american units veterancy was a risk. Likewise, though Americans often held the resource and map control advantage by default, they had to invest those resources carefully. The impact of BARs had a great deal to do with Wehrmacht fuel income: Will the BARs be met with grens and PAKs or with Pumas? Because afterall superior american resources didn't have to always mean faster/more vehicles or tanks.

    With CoH2's resource and veterancy system being homogenized across all factions, this dynamic disappears. Everyone is equally competing for the same style of vet, and the value of resources and VPs are normalized. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is certainly a departure from something that CoH1 did very well.

    Supply Yard, Kampfgruppe Center, BARs, demo unlock, sherman upgun, etc. Side upgrades, global upgrades, etc. These were more or less cut from CoH2, but they were crucial components to setting the pace and flow of the game. It is not so simple as just having upgrades for units, but more about providing players with meaningful investments that could make or break their strategy. A Wehrmacht player in CoH1 could easily overinvest in veterancy (in the wrong units even) and get overrun. An American player could dump fuel into fully upgrading their riflemen and be unable to handle a fast Puma. This is a very important aspect of gameplay that engages players beyond their level of micro.

    Snipers. CoH1 had a problem with the effectiveness of multiple snipers. CoH2 managed to curtail the dominance of snipers through an entirely different approach. However, I think there could've been better routes of managing the issue. Squads hit by a sniper should be immune/missable by snipers for a few seconds. (I called the applied effect 'heads down!' in a mod once.) Multiple snipers firing on one squad would have diminishing returns of results. However, multiple snipers being microed to hit different squads would still be powerful. I think this is a better route that the popular 'reverse Zeal' of the community mods. The threat of snipers is their sight and damage output.

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

    Faction and map design. The depth that the ORIGINAL factions had to compete with each other.
    The kinds of resource points that maps were composed of were also much more flexible and dynamic in CoH1 than in CoH2. I struggle to see how maps in CoH2 can ever be improved without having at least the option for low, medium, and high resource points, strategic cutoffs with no resources, etc. Having to juggle custom maps AND mod tools to recreate CoH1 style maps is a little frustrating.

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

    The abandon mechanic. It was a really great idea and it may have worked well for CoH2, but in a lot of ways it just never panned out well. However, the abandon mechanic was the perfect prescription for a component of CoH1 gameplay: jeep and bike pushing. Had the abandoned critical been relegated to units like kubelwagens (or motorbikes, kettenkrads, jeeps, etc.), those light vehicles with unprotected, unarmored drivers, wouldn't be able to push units in cover around recklessly.

    The vault mechanic. It's awesome and was a much needed mechanic. However its only caveat is that it was based entirely on executing an animation on an object, which requires a manual command. If there had been a way to have a 'vault-move' that automatically factors in vaults, or vaulting on retreat, it would've been perfect.

    Truesight is great. However, like vaulting, there are a few things that have undermined the mechanic. It works great for objects like hedgerows and tall walls that tanks can crush. However, buildings (especially collapsed ones), certain trees, groves, and other uncrushable objects didn't quite utilize the mechanic very well. One of the first things I did when mod tools were released was to remove the sight blocking tag of a wide range of objects. It made many maps much more playable without sacrificing the truesight mechanic, which still applied wonderfully to hedgerows and tall walls. (Angoville, compared to Minsk Pocket, is the perfect case study for this.)

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    It's not that there are things from CoH2 that should be cut, it's more that there are many things that should not have been cut from CoH2. The business model that carried CoH2 through THQ's ultimate demise and SEGA's acquisition is a very real wound.

    What would you "wnat" ;) to carry forward from COH2

    There are a few Quality of Life type features to CoH2 that are nice, such as being able to reinforce all selected infantry squads at once.

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

    The untapped potential is everything...

    Both games would benefit from being able to bind your own damned keys. ;)

  • #38
    1 year ago
    TorniksTorniks Posts: 368
    edited July 2017

    I thought of another thing I wanted to contribute here. Being afraid that another edit to my post on the previous page will make it disappear again, I will just add it here:

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    If this survey was launched in preparation for a future WW II-related CoH title, please, for the love of everything that is important to you, avoid another mechanic of allowing Eastern Front armies on Western Front maps, and vice-versa. There was a sizeable outcry against this mechanic when it was announced for CoH2, and we only came to accept it because it became a fact of life, not because it is reasonable. Tommy Sections on Kharkov, or Jackson Tank Destroyers on Moscow Outskirts should be a big 'no' for any self-respecting WW II RTS.

  • #39
    1 year ago

    I haven't played CoH1, and I'm a real edge-case in that CoH2 is definitely one of my favourite RTSs (even compared to Age of Empires 2), so I thought I'd offer some thoughts on why I enjoy the second game so much.

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

    What strikes me about CoH2 is its immense counterplay and tactical nuance. There are very, very few 'hard' counters in the game: AT guns will give tanks a hard time, but a tank can still flank them. MGs are there to tear apart infantry, but grenades, smoke, and flanking can turn that on its head. The game's heavy use of positioning, cover, player-activated abilities, etc. creates a lot of room for tactical maneuvers. What's important about this behaviour is that it's tough to manage, but it's not overwhelming for players will lower micro.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    Personally, I feel that the Commander doctrines actually subtract from the game. They do add this great element of sub-variety to some factions, but in doing so they place a player's strategisation heavily onto one single decision per match: "which doctrine will I use?" This isn't a very fun decision. I feel that it was designed to allow players to pick a doctrine in response to what their enemy is building ("They're spamming T-34s, guess I need an Elefant"), but this simply never happens to me, for two reasons:

    1. There's pressure for the player to pick a doctrine as soon as possible, so that they can access the early-game doctrine units and abilities asap.

    2. It's very hard to discern an enemy's army build until late-game. Just because I'm seeing a few MGs in the early skirmishes doesn't mean my opponent is going to be focusing on static defenses. Frequently, I've tried picking a doctrine in response to what I think my opponent is doing, and then I've found out that my guess was off. This is highly frustrating, because you can't go back on your decision.

    For this reason, I strongly favour a tech-tree or some other more flexible, branching, and most importanrly retractable unit-unlocking mechanic.

    Additionally, I'm of the opinion that CoH2 is overall quite well balanced (due to its brilliant counterplay, in that balance changes month-to-month) regarding its units. However, what does seem to have persistent balance issues are the Commanders. I remain adamant, for example, that Soviet Industry Tactics dominates the game.

    We'd also love to hear what your favorite way to play either game is.

    It's probably important that I mention this. I play CoH2 exclusively with a small group of friends in custom matches of 2v2-4v4. Because of this, I'm normally playing with people who have a slow micro (including myself). We have our own meta quirks in our isolated matches: we find Churchills very powerful, while none of us can really use elite infantry properly - basically the opposite of the community meta.

  • #40
    1 year ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,027 mod

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

    Voice acting, Coh1 had better voice acting delivered with more spirit and overall better voice lines. In particular the Germans were much better there, more of a nasty edge, but also a bit sillier :

    What the clip also highlights and what i truly missed.. There were lines for when the unit was in a poor condition, and that level of detail was one of the things COH2 missed in general. From not really having squad leaders, to less engaging voice acting, a lot of details were missed in CoH 2 that helped make CoH1 great. I still remember retreating a lone grenadier during an artillery barrage with him crying "I'll never see the fatherland again!"

    Another element was focus, Coh 2 rather tried to bite off more than it could chew with the campaigns and period trying to cover the entire eastern front rather than just choosing a single battle. That is rather what COH1 did so much better, it stuck to a battle or two and then went into depth with them creating something much better and much more focused.

    Also something i liked, less wunderwaffen, less units just there for the sake of being really big and more units that actually fit. No elephants, Jagdtigers, IR halftracks and so on.

    Finally, a better wehrmacht that felt like a full faction rather than the never quite finished jumble we got in CoH2

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

    Infantry uniforms, again details matter and when you have to look at infantry, proper uniforms do a great deal to make it feel more immersive and in that regard Coh2 missed out on not using model variations to that way further capture the spirit of actual infantry or for that matter having a squad leader that stood out more visually. Just like how the voice acting is important, visual elements are also good to help make it all feel more visceral. Plus it would better reflect the state of german infantry and help them appear more worn than the .. too shiny and bright grenadiers we got in CoH2.

    Also, drop the ostwinds. Only 40 or so were made, use Flak Halftracks, Gepard Flakpanzers or something else, something with a production run bigger than 40.

    Call in metas, problem in Coh1 and CoH2. Just drop them and make them unlockables in buildings.

    On top of that, received accuracy for infantry, still a tendecy towards making basic infantry bulletproof which only encourages poor tactics and not flanking.

    And finally, emplacements. They didn't work in CoH1, they don't work in CoH2. Just drop them.

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

    Campaigns were great, in part because again, much more focused. But also we got german campaigns and so weren't chained to the usual "good vs evil" perspective, nothing gets more tiresome than being force-fed morality. Also helped that the campaigns in general were pretty good.

    The Commanders also felt better integrated in some ways and i liked how the Panzer Elite units that changed depending on what doctrine you had chosen, so that was pretty good as well.

    But again, detail. An eye for detail is what helped make CoH1 stand out so much, visual and audio wise.

    Medics, recovering the wounded and all that, it felt like it made sense, just have them give you a bit of manpower back rather than putting full squads back together.

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

    That it removed a lot of the superfluous micromanagement that CoH 1 had. True sight was also a great thing, made the game feel more immersive and made smoke amazing.

    Smoke in general, great stuff, hope to see it used better in Coh3.

    Vaulting was also a neat feature that gave more room for movement with infantry.

    Snipers being less dominant, and less cheesy brits.. though still pretty cheesy along with the OKW.

    But overall, more room for tactical movement and less demand for insane micromanagement allowing for the game to be a bit more cerebral.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    Snipers, they just don't make sense. Remove them and never let them return.

    Emplacements, terrible idea especially on small maps.

    Trucks like the OKW.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    True Sight, smoke, less micromanagement. StuGs, 251 halftracks.

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

    Partly detail level, still so much that can be done to make it feel more visceral.

    But i also think to reflect more the company level, sergeants, lieutenants and captains. Command structures and the importance they have on men and different armies but also tank and infantry co-operation like riding on tanks, using tanks for cover.

    Also houses, the way they work in CoH so far is not very good or very fun, you rush them and frustrate the opponent who will then need some specific way of countering it. Leading to people trying to wire off entrances and all that. Add methods of clearing out houses that don't require getting lucky with grenades or having flamethrowers, something more organic like some infantry is better at sorting out garrisoned infantry than others, have them rush the building and fight inside it.

    Making blobbing less viable is also a goal worth aiming for, looking for smart ways to make it less grand. Maybe granting some sort of cross fire bonus or something.

    And drop the bloody ostwinds and snipers. Especially snipers.

  • #41
    1 year ago
    ArrayArray Posts: 39
    edited July 2017

    Much of what I would say has been covered multiple times here so I will take a slightly different tack

    COH1 was regarded as brilliant on a number of levels but crucially it just felt great to play. It 'felt' great in the way units responded and the way combat unfolded and the resource mechanic was revolutionary in the way map control became a feature of gameplay. Obviously lots of other great stuff like cover, picking up weapons, sound etc. but these have been discussed.

    COH2 development made a cardinal error (imo) in messing up key aspects of this, sometimes by the misplaced idea of 'dumbing' things down to presumably attempt to increase popularity via accessibility, and sometimes by trying to enhance realism with things like unit reactions and behaviour which messed up the fluidity of control and the 'feel'.

    The result was my first experience of COH2 where two infantry units moving as though through treacle slowly met each other and then stood a while face to face till one or the other landed a grenade or molotov and actually damaged the other squad (one commentator on the forums described it as 'casting spells' on each other which was apt).

    Much much time was then wasted rowing back from this towards a more COH1 feel and eventually the game is sort of where it should have been at launch but we are 4 years on with a depleted player-base and still haven't got round to finishing the balance to introduce the diversity that COH1 achieved. Lots of wasted effort fixing what shouldn't have been broken.

    In essence my opinion is that the perfect sequel would have been COH1+. The same feel but on the more epic scale that COH2 aspired to (multiple theatres and historical periods) but fell short due to being rushed (for well known reasons)- if all the effort was put into the presentation and map pool and faction design and adding a few features (vault, true-sight) rather than trying to manipulate the game-play to justify this being a 'different' game rather than a mega expansion it would have been much more successful in the long run.

  • #42
    1 year ago
    KoshKosh Posts: 1
    edited July 2017

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

    • Team Balance. My 2 friends and I often felt like COH1 had better 2v2 and 3v3 team balance. We didn't play nearly as much COH2 because we just didn't have as much fun and lost significantly more than we won despite trying to do our best to actually read up on what was good that patch

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

    • Balance, team games in particular
    • Campaign
    • Modability
    • TANK ARMOR FRONT/BACK/SIDE - if I remember correctly - COH1 actually had hit boxes on the sides of vehicles. In COH2 it simply splits a tank 50/50 down the middle for front/back hits. COH1 system allowed for much more effective flanking with less RNG.

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

    • I like the commanders as options but there needs to be much more customability or even creating your own commander
    • TrueSight is awesome
    • Vaulting, reversing, those types of gameplay changes have been great

    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

    • Commanders
    • Bulletins
      • I like the customizing/loadout feeling here, but for the sake of fun and balanced COH3, I would be fine seeing them removed

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

    • Second monitor support for overhead map
    • Modding
    • Higher unit pop and scale. Squad play and intense micro is nice and blobbing sucks, but if the overall scale of the battle can be increased that would be great. More units per squad or something like that at least. Possibly tie map size to pop cap.

    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.?

    I play most games with friends. Only 2 others really play CoH. We play FPS (Battlefield), RTS (COH), Diablo, ProjectZomboid lots of different things when we find the time. Whatever we're having fun with. Unfortunately COH2 fell way down on the fun list with so many stompy losses and toxic chat over it.

    Hoping the best for COH 3. Good luck!

  • #43
    1 year ago
    DelodaxDelodax SwedenPosts: 2
    • What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on

    I loved dynamically choosing doctrine while playing in CoH1.

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

    I've played a whole lot more CoH2 than 1, so it's hard to say. One thing I liked with CoH2 was the openness of the Ardennes Assault campaign, I prefer that to more "cinematic" experiences.

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

    Making it easier for support type units like engineers to get exp from constructing things, having successful mine placements etc.

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

    More of less all features added in CoH2 were for the better. I mainly wanna see more consistency in unit performance and abilities.

    • If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    The whole loadout-approach is a hindrance imo. Intel bulletins are either useless or too powerful/situational.

    • What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

    Keeping a nice balance between action and realism (think it's at a nice place right now).

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

    More factions. More community tournaments and activity. Such a great game to spectate!

    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.?

    Mostly competitive 1v1 and 2v2. But, it was a great introduction playing the campaigns and ToW.

  • #44
    1 year ago
    RaithRaith Posts: 195

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on:
    I didn't play COH1 multiplayer so I can't comment on that. But the COH1 campaign was better in all respects (from memory), and had much more heart to it than the COH2 one's.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver:
    N/A
    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.
    Again, the campaign was better.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    I love COH2 for how it plays more than anything else. Cover, truesight, meaningful units that are relevant the entire match, low pop-cap etc. The game you lay over the top of that is entirely secondary to me - for example, I loved DOW2 even more because the W40k setting (and melee dynamic) was more interesting to me, but the gameplay was very simmilar.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    Doctrinal unit call-ins. They only serve to subvert the design of the game and encourage shallow strategies around their exploitation. Having doctrinal units is fine, but they should be bound to a tech building and have build time like everything else. The one exception is infantry squads that are deployed on-map, Paratroopers/Partisans etc.

    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    The smaller scale tatical RTS gameplay (Don't make another DOW3 FFS!)

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    I'd like to see fundamental ballance looked at intelligently and lessons learned from COH2's long lifetime. Fundamental things like WM Tech 4 not existing in 1v1, and small squads being wiped by one mortar/mine are still problems in the game even after all these patches.

    PS:
    Clearly this is some early focus testing for an eventual COH3, which I'm happy to hear about. Here's the No.1 thing I want as a player of these games. Make SMALL changes to what we love please. I'd much rather have a COH3 that's only 10% better than COH2 than one with its fundamentals messed with. For the love of all that is holy do NOT do a Dawn of War 3 with this.

  • #45
    1 year ago
    kitekazekitekaze Posts: 154
    edited July 2017

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    Many things:
    1/Modding capability restrict modder. Once a game is finished, developer should unlock restriction on mod, it allows the game to spread to other community, thus bring more player to the current (and future game).
    Further more, CoH1 can combine modding and mapping in "DLC" state of module. CoH2 split this into two, which restrict creativity heavily.
    2/Graphic: CoH2 artillery shell fx does not cause impressive impact as coh1.
    The portrait of unit in CoH1 is better, you can't see their eyes, because they are forgotten soldiers of war, not some Marvel heroes.
    3/Cinematic mode, everyone want this back.
    4/The commander tree system. Restrict player to one tree per doctrine is not an improvement at all. But if the game can follow CoHO when it come to doctrine system, it would be great. (branching ability)
    5/Many great feature is lost, this including Vampire "Stealing" resource, Bergetiger recover vehicle, medic save casualty, different gain way of veterancy from each faction. A blank game like starcraft does not interest player at all.
    The more distinguishing each faction is, the better the game become. Just look at TWW is a great example of good game.
    CoH1 have each faction start differently, and rely different way to win the battle. USF is about fast and hard while wehrmact slowly build up power. British can be bit static with sim city but they can slowly relocate their main base, while PE excel in mobility an can engage opponent with unusual tactic.
    6/CoH2 has less RNG. While this bring better balance in 1v1, it make the game more linear. Pianist playing is only for tactical game, strategy game is about less micro and more important in decision. CoH1 make good use of this.
    Remember airplane crash causing frustration in CoH2? CoH1 has less of this because the small number of plane.
    7/Sound. The CoH2 has some good voice acting, but does not have best script. Take Brit in CoH1 for example, it has different lines for no organized, organized, combat, and during sneak attack (night battle).
    8/Campaign. CoH2 have poor campaign that keep trying to bring propaganda about Soviet is a bad guy. We know how bad Soviet is, Relic please just keep neutrality in this. Now give us a good story about the bravery and valor of soldier fight for his country in war, and in both side.
    (There is more, but don't have much time, will return later)

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    CoHO is the best step Relic ever move, keep following this trail and you will earn both fame and money. The failure of THQ has nothing to do with this gem.
    And new factions (Soviet and Ostheer in CoH1 EF mod) is all Relic need to make CoH1 even more impactful.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    - Balance: Excellent, just need a few need improvement (change zombie to mp gain, repair bunker for both side) and further polish allies late game (stand no chance to axis superhuman).
    -Commander design: Excellent, base on the real fact of faction doctrinal. For example, US attrition ability is best describe of US armor, lose one but bring ten more to the war. Or axis propaganda war, force enemy to retreat with just... leaflet and surprised voice of thunder and steel.
    - Campaign: Nearly great, a story of soldier fight for their country, what could be better in war?

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    - Campaign: Meh
    - Faction design: Not as great as coh1, but it feature in scope for some faction (US base on 1944 andernes, while brit is 1945) make the game not quite balance.
    - Commander: Too confusing, especially EFA factions, all commanders has same taste, just with different order.
    - System: TrueSight - Not really a fan, because maps in CoH2 are too small in general. This often result as the enemy can see every of your movement. Add some hiding spot like CoH3 would be better.
    Also, infantry and tank can see 360 degree make true sight almost useless. Flanking is not reward since enemy still spot your troop.
    Vaulting - This system is likable, but it need improvement in pathfinding for auto movement. Otherwise, it's often neglected, since these objects does not block sight, average enemy would spot your position.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    Many things. As I said, restart from CoHO is the best thing Relic should do.

    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    - Workshop, I love it, it's easy to maneuver. But filtering those anime faceplate would be a great pleasure.
    - Vaulting and TrueSight, with more investment in these system.
    - Quality of Life such as Reverse movement (use T hotkey instead of U please), multiple squad reinforcement.
    - Bulletin, but improve it a bit.
    COMMON bulletin should be as current RARE bulletin.
    RARE bulletin give double of COMMON, but also give penalty.
    For example:
    COMMON increase 6% piercing for AT gun
    RARE increase 12% piercing, but also give 6% easier to hit (1.06x received accuracy).

    • Skin and Victory Strike.
    • Use custom avatar(steam avatar) instead of faceplate.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    The untapped potential should be the Men of War. Many shiny vehicles and fx effect.
    Men of War also does not require high PC spec, giving better range of potential player. But most important is its modification power.

    In CoH1, I play all modes (Game rely on skill, not micro), all competitive. I also make mod and play mod, mostly about cooperation.
    In CoH2, I only play team modes (Too much micro make me fell short, especially with aging).

  • #46
    1 year ago
    scratchedpaintjobscratched… Posts: 10
    edited July 2017

    mainly semi-competetively 2v2 AT, sometimes 1v1 and 3v3AT

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    -the flow and the beauty of the WM vs US matchup is something that coh2 has not reached
    -optimization, vcoh was running very well on my equipment later on, coh2 is still not good on high end equipment
    -parts of the ui (ressources being under each other and not next to each other)
    -side armor :)
    -ressource and popcap system
    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    did deviler:
    -graphics
    -truesight
    -other parts of ui (squads in top right corner, timer, faster reinforcing)
    did not deliver:
    -campy british playstyle
    -customizable hotkeys
    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    -balance, escpecially usf and wm
    -graphics (for its time)
    -most maps are better than in coh2
    -vastly different playstyle of factions, this has been slightly reduced with coh2, especially with the later patches
    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    -truesight
    -graphics
    -uncommon opinion: bulletins
    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    -the huge amount of commanders
    -buying commanders (skins are fine)
    -some of the ridiculous RNG
    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    -modding
    -esports (CDPR threw 100'000 dollars at gwent in beta)
    -an audio mode where every army speaks in their native language

    If you are asking this for a potential COH3:
    1. Just try and and take what makes coh so good: the very fluid and highly strategic gameplay with flanks and ambushes
    2. if you want to try something new, think about whether it actually improves the gameplay proposed in number 1. if you think it does, rethink. if you still think it does, rethink again. then you can add it to the game (imo this is the reason why dow 3 failed in comparison to dow2, the lane system and the turrets severely decrease highly fluid gameplay)
    3. release a finished game with observer mode, replays, leaderboards, custom lobby matches, good optimization, etc
    4. no p2w

    edit: i forgot abandoning, it would 110% cut this mechanic out of coh2

  • #47
    1 year ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343
    edited July 2017

    First of all, I would have to agree with everything ImperialDane said.

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

    The tank combat system of CoH1
    - Not every short fired at max range would hit and penetrate; you had to move closer and flank to finish off tanks
    - The critical system in CoH1 felt very engaging and thrilling. In order to prevent it from being complete RNG though, maybe make the penalties less binary (i.e., smaller penalties but make them stack)
    - CRUCIAL: Reverse speed was slower than Forward speed
    - Tanks felt as if they had mass and momentum; crushing infantry units in CoH1 would slow your tanks down

    The infantry movement and formations system in CoH1
    Infantry ducking for cover, jumping around in craters feels very alive.

    Compare a Rifleman squad in CoH2 running forward towards the target, all models standing up with a stiff upper lip. Now compare this to CoH1, where RIflemen models would break off the formation, jump like hellcats in craters, then leap off and proceed.

    More crucially, each faction seemed to have a different set of animations; like G43 Panzergrenadiers would roll on the ground while firing.

    This movement felt very alive and dynamic, and it still feels fresh.

    The downsides for this movement were:

    • Squad dancing lowering DPS
    • Squads jumping OUT of cover, making it impossible to micro that

    Maybe you can implement a logic where squads won't dance too much when ordered around cover, or something.

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

    Vaulting.

    Vaulting is really nice, as you get to see fences and stuff like that in maps, without impacting mobility too much. However, it would be nice if retreat paths, or even pathfinding, could account for it

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

    Commander design
    CoH1, by design, had fewer commanders which meant more attention seems to have been paid to them to make them "work" and also have a "theme" behind each commander. CoH2 seems to have too many commanders, and in EFA factions, simply too much overlap between them. Sometimes, less is more.

    Visually, it felt really immersive to see medics going after casualties and ferrying them back. Maybe you could reintroduce the visual of carrying casualties back, but without squad replenishment/resource changing (i.e., just keep it a visual candy)

    I also liked the small things, like different voice-lines in rain, night, muffled radio when a tank is off in the distance, etc.

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

    **Truesight, **for sure. Although, I feel that the truesight feature has been somewhat degraded due to the wide availability of recon options (e.g., Infrared Halftrack, etc). Maybe different units should have different sight ranges.
    E.g., if tanks couldn't see far and would require the presence of infantry units, it would promote unit mixing.

    Absence of Target Tables and infantry armour types. This makes an enormous difference. CoH1 was ripe with must-memorise rules (about e.g., which weapon is good vs which infantry types). It makes it a hell to learn the game, and I'm sure it makes it a hell to maintain. Keep target tables out for as long as you can.

    Smoke in CoH2 is an amazingly fun feature. and works well with truesight.

    There's been an amazing collection of QoL improvements in CoH2 that I could never feel at ease without (e.g., reverse button).

    CoH2 took several important steps at reducing the impact of blobbing and sniper spam that plagued CoH1.

    • If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    Emplacements

    • Emplacements never really worked in CoH1, and they seem to work even worse in CoH2. Thankfully, unlike CoH1 Brits, CoH2 Brits have alternatives to emplacements they can use.
    • If there's ever any need to add defensive structures etc, just introduce buildable fortifications that can garrison units inside etc.
    • When in doubt go for Sims rather than Sim City

    Forward retreat points/Insta-glue repairs/Blob-healing

    • On one hand, it might feel like an improvement reducing the downtime of units before they can re-enter the field
    • On the other hand, being able to constantly keep the frontline reinforced means that the frontline won't budge; and that promotes static play and blobbing
    • If you fail to account for the impact of mass retreats, the frontline will move, anyway, closer to your base, limiting your downtime

    Less wunderwaffe. Or, if you do put wunderwaffe in, make them like the Tiger Ace, where you can only ever get one per match.

    Team-weapon spam. On one hand, if team weapons (and suppression) are weak, you can't defend against blobs. On the other hand, if they're too strong, you can almost entirely rely on team weapons to do the job for you. CoH1 did it better by disabling weapons while they were capping territory.

    CoH2 LMGs; all of them; especially the ones that fire on the move. They're all high-damage A-move grade weapons that require no micro. At least find a way to make the weapon to require micro to operate (e.g., steep penalties if not behind cover).

    • What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    • Truesight.
    • The variety of abilities that are present in each squad/tank/etc.
    • A veterancy system that allows even the weakest squad types to achieve it
    • The stealth mechanic implementation is better. However, I would stick with Soviet sniper-like camo rather than Jagdpanzer4-like camo
    • Weapon racks felt like a nice idea conceptually. However you should limit them to role-change rather than damage-upgrades (see LMG blobs/Bar blobs)
    • The tank crew mechanic feels like a nice touch.
    • Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

    Rebindable hotkeys?

    Side armour. Also, don't forget about reintroducing reverse speeds back.

    QoL for Transport/Mechanized play. E.g., if you select a blob of infantry & transport vehicles, and hit a hotkey, infantry should automatically find a way to enter the closest transport vehicle. In both installments the micro required to use transport vehicles seems extremely punishing.

    If you could make it so that heavy static artillery could be towed in transport vehicles, that would be great. However, don't overdo it. Otherwise, you will require large maps, and large maps means tactical infantry play becomes unimportant.

    Variable weather conditions (or night) would also be an idea to try. Blizzards didn't quite work because the penalties were binary (extreme speed loss, death) and they came unannounced and very fast. If you had 10-15 minutes to prepare for a blizzard, and the bonuses weren't that crippling, blizzards could have worked.

    Maybe a day-night variation could be nice to try (e.g., camouflage is easier at night, and the sight penalty on certain units is different than others. But, again, don't overdo it. You could, e.g., make each real-life hour correspond to one 1-game day. That way, during the game, you are expected to make a shift in tactics, but everybody knows this in advance.

  • #48
    1 year ago

    I'm gonna answer these the best I can, but I have spent about five times as many hours with COH2 than COH1 so I'm gonna be a tad bit biased towards the former.

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    The campain was MUCH better, squad wipes were not quite as common and random if I remember correctly. The MOD support was also better implemented.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    The UI is ALOT more user friendly in COH2, the gameplay does not feels as clumsy. The truesight system in COH2 is amazing, I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about that. However, I don't like having to use software such as autohotkey to be able to customize my key bindings.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    The campaign, and the actual design of the tier structures in multiplayer.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    The wide variety of commanders (even if alot of them are kinda redundant), the truesight system, vaulting, the cover system and the responsivness of the units overall.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    Some of the RNG mechanics like abandoned vehichles, random squad wipes because of clumping of units, the A-move of support units such as machine guns, snipers, etc. I don't like that calling in powerful loitering planes such as the Sturmovich, Stuka AT strafe etc requires zero micro, just click and profit. Also, call-in tanks gotta go, imo.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    The assymetrical faction design, truesight, vaulting, the dark humour and gore, the bulletin system, the cover system.

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

    The garrison play is kinda boring in both games, you don't get that many options in terms of how to position your troops in buildings and what to do while you're in them. Instead of set places for your models I think you should be able to move around more freely in the garrisons. Also, it would be nice to have be able to move ur squads in different formations to have a bit more control of their movement and positioning.

  • #49
    1 year ago

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on?
    The most important point to me was that you deleted the 2v2 AT multiplayer part and that you combined 2v2 random and 2v2 AT. Also that you terminated the normal lobby.
    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver?
    The only nice thing I can think of is that you were able to change your tank skins. That was funny in COH 2. Otherwise probably for lobby games that you were able to play as USF and have a mate that plays Wehrmacht, probably could have been fun in some 2v2 lobby games in COH 1.
    And also that Germans also had an howitzer.
    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)?
    Well the factions where awesome and well balanced (US vs Wehrmacht).
    The doctrines were awesome and you had some very well balanced maps.
    Just simply the feeling of the game, the harmony between micro and macro, how you could fail by making the wrong choices, but also how you could win by chosing the right tactic.
    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be?
    That you could change the skin of your tanks. That's it. Probably that you could watch games of other players live.
    If you could, what you would cut from COH2?
    The complete crappy Commander technique. Basicly all DLC pay to win things. Just too many various useless units, everybody sticked to the same macro.
    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2?
    I don't know. Really nothing from the game itself, more like the things like watching currently played matches.
    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential??
    Ballancing and bug fixing. In CoH 1 you could just simply fix some simple bugs and change the bloddy brits truck mechanic and the game would be much more interesting with OF factions.
    COH2 fell short in every simple game thing, I can not see any kind of improvement in regards to COH1. Complete failure in my opinion.

    If you take a look at COH from this year on it's pretty easy to say that you would need to improve the graphics but otherwise I think that COH 1 was close to perfection (just Brits and PE needed too be more balanced).

  • #50
    1 year ago
    GbpirateGbpirate Posts: 63
    edited July 2017

    I was gifted Company of Heroes at the great young age of ten by my parents. At first I thought, from the advertisements I saw on TV, that it was some cheap knockoff of Atari's Axis & Allies... boy was I wrong.
    I played comp stomp or casual team games online for years before finally deciding to play competitively in the summer of 2012. I got up to level 10 with PE and ~rank 5,000.
    When I heard about CoH2 I was real excited! I was super stoked to play in the closed and open betas in the months running up to release and loved it. Over the past few years, I've exclusively played competitively, usually 1v1s, sometimes 2v2s, and often times 4v4s with other Bears.

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    I don't have any complaints, really. Some people are mentioning the soundtrack, but gameplay-wise I feel like there was almost always improvement in the multiplayer scene. The only exception would be commanders for the vanilla factions. There were too many similar commanders. I'd have preferred to have all of the factions have the same sorts of commanders (That is, a lot of similar ones or a few different ones like the WFA/UKF factions). The singleplayer for coh1 was miles better; I think it helped to condense the storyline into a few months rather than nearly four years.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    There's a lot of things that CoH2 improved on! I liked the UI changes, to start. Having a timer in-game, the list of units on the top right made it much easier to see who is being shot at, and other little things (like being able to click on the minimap to send units and being able to click on the unit icon on the map to select the squad). I also like the ability to customize hotkeys to gridkeys. They are a godsend (though many people want fully customizable keys). I loved the addition of true sight and other mechanics to make the game more realistic, in a sense. Weather effects were well-intended but their execution could have been better and truly random (instead of occurring every ten minutes or so).

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    The campaign was amazing. And the add-on campaigns. I also liked the Tales of Valor add-on that unlocked a few more units for the existing factions. CoH1 was great because of its unique design in terms of gameplay as well as breathtakingly beautiful graphics. I liked the distinct commander choices, yet loved coh2s increased number of commanders. I especially liked the PEs design in terms of side-tech in each structure. In a new faction, I would like to see a linear teching structure (maybe with a choice for late-game vehicles) with options to spend fuel on side-tech within each structure. One common example I often give is being able to side-tech to Panzer 3s in Ostheer's Tier 2 structure. I liked the British glider commander. It was so cool calling in the HQ glider and the tetrach tank!

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    CoH2 was almost 100% improvement over CoH when it comes to gameplay. TrueSight, weather features, total new content (so it didn't feel like re-releasing the same game, I.e. Battlefield 3 --> Battlefield 4), UI improvements. I liked the commander designs for the WFA/UKF. Few yet unique commanders. I loved how CoH2 continued on with lots of flavour in the UI, in the cheeky audio lines the units say from time to time, and in the important lines themselves (games like Sudden Strike 4 having a generic american person announce everything really reduces immersion). I also liked the way that new players have so many things to help them in the game. There is a list of helpful hints as well as short training videos demonstrating game mechanics and even a fun training mission, not to mention the stuff in the campaign to help new players out. I love the faction design of Ostheer. The strict, linear teching made it user/noob friendly as a first faction.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    My only gripe about the UI is the big bar at the bottom center of the screen that has a sentence or two about the unit you have selected. It'd be much easier if that went away and was replaced by a hover-enabled tooltip or even an encyclopedia in the menu. I would take away from CoH2 some poor choices in faction abilities. All factions should have access to mines, to flamethrowers (or other just as effective building-clearing devices), and to mobile indirect fire without having to choose a commander. Also, having more access to smoke (maybe not as much as the USF) across all factions would be great, too. I would cut out giant Tank Destroyers as well as vehicles that were barely produced. Jagdtigers, Elefants, maybe even ISU-152s. And the Ostwind. They really make balance difficult and give the late game advantage to the Axis (not trying to say Axis are OP, here.) I'd also like to take away click and kill abilities. While a lot of them are gone or have been changed (like mortars precision strike, Stuka CAS nerfed, Scavenger Doctrine Artillery capped at a certain # of shells), some still remain (like artillery cover -- though it has been heavily nerfed). More passive abilities, upgrades to units, new units, or artillery strikes would be great. No 360 degree base defenses (OKW). No useless or non-competitive commanders (two of the USF commanders, for example).

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    I'd like to have a variety of factions. While at first I thought that having the Soviets play with the Americans or British would ruin immersion, it really didn't. I'm not sure why, but it didn't feel as bad as I thought it would. TrueSight. Improved weather mechanics. UI upgrades/improvements. Grid Hotkeys. Forward Retreat Points (with all factions). Vaulting. CoH2's veterancy system. I like how it was standard across all factions, unlike coh1. Buying veterancy for coh1's Wehr seemed stupid to me.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    Competitiveness. At launch, CoH2 felt very barebones. No leaderboards, no observer mode. There was always a feeling of pay to win with any new commander. I think there are a couple ways with which that could be alleviated. First, maintaining that secret testing group that Relic used a few years ago to test new content. Have people play 1v1s with those new commanders before release, send Relic the replays to collect relevant data, and ask for their input. If necessary, pay the players a certain amount per game per week or encourage them with other non-monetary rewards. Second, do not allow new commanders to be used in automatch games for some period of time. Ask players (the whole playerbase, in custom games) to voluntarily play 1v1s and give input/upload replays. Third, allow automatch players to have every commander playable (or at least the designated "competitive" commanders). Some of the Call of Duty titles did this years ago, where players had access to everything regardless of rank and play time.

    Customizable commanders. I had this idea with the original factions because I was annoyed at buying a new commander with three abilities that I already had. If commanders are more unique like the later factions, this may be redundant. But being able to customize commanders would be a lot of fun (and could still work for competitive/automatch if desired; or there could be no customization for automatch loadouts).

    A more user-friendly map-making tool. Civ 5 has a great map-making tool, as did Atari's Axis & Allies. CoH has a lot more variation in terms of terrain, objects, and cover, so maybe it wouldn't work as well, but the map maker has always been buggy and difficult to use for myself.

    More units and vehicles. Super sad that there was no Panzer III or foreign tanks in coh2 (though PE had Hotchkiss). Having a wider variety of units and tanks would be fun, especially if factions had side-tech within structures that unlocked new units. Perhaps even stretching out tech to include a fifth building would be great. Sort of relevant here, but I like how the USF have the pack howitzer and the mortar. having a variety of indirect fire at lower tiers is great.

    Edit: a CoH set in 1942 or '43 would be great as it would allow for more faction choices for the axis. like Italy, or even Hungary/Romania.

    Or, there could be similar factions set in an early war and late war period, where the groups are segregated but existing factions remain very similar. This would allow for different US, UK, German factions to exist while also incorporating Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, or even French factions in the early/mid-war period.

    Another edit:
    If I were to update coh2 today, I would make commanders and bulletins unlockable via the achievements in addition to the war spoils system.

    I'd also like to have different balance systems for team games. Reducing fuel and munition income in team games, assuming territory points work the same, would be a great step in slowing the game down, as well as reducing commander xp gained. Another solution to unit spamming would be reducing popcap for each individual player, creating a need to communicate between players.

  • #51
    1 year ago
    LegioxRomaLegioxRoma Posts: 1
    edited July 2017

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    Well, i really loved the chat and leaderboard system. Trying to get a better rank was the thing that made me spent so much hours at this game. The gameplay was really amazing..the earlygame with bike wars, the flank, midd game with light veich and late game with tanks..really i loved it. In coh2 the chat it's useless and the leaderboard isn't well designed (it arrived also really late after the launch of the game). Also the possibility to see your and enemy's ranks while loading a game was amazing. One thing we shouldn't forget are the maps..in COH1 are really well designed and balanced
    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    The TrueSight, the UI.
    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    Gameplay, Chat and Leaderboard System, Maps
    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    TrueSIght, UI, The tourney made by Relic and Sega
    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    Totally the gameplay where who spam more win.
    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    TrueSight, UI, bulletins system, ingame-coins.
    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    COH1'd had been a real competitive game. Sadly there wasn't so many effort by the developers like there's doing right now with coh2

    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.?
    Always played competitive mostly 2v2 AT on both games COH and COH2. I've spent like 4k hours in COH and around 1.5/2k in COH2

  • #52
    1 year ago
    ZaneyZaney Posts: 7
    edited July 2017

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    * The voice acting, coh1's voice acting was supreme, coh2's voice acting was good.
    * Unit damage stats in the UI, very helpful in case a squad has a BAR rifle and a Panzerschreck, but the squad icon only shows a BAR
    * Maps - I remember coh1 having better maps (quality over quantity)
    *

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    * Customize hotkeys, gridkeys was nice!
    * Factions - I never liked panzer elite and the british
    * unit callins shouldn't replace teching
    * retreat paths! Models should be able to quickly vault over fences while retreating

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    * Victory points
    * Ressource system
    * The cover mechanics
    * suppression/pinning units

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    * TrueSight
    * the support relic has given Coh2
    * The UI
    * Focus on unit preservation
    * The army size
    * the amount of micro needed, just perfect!

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    * Pay-2-Win commanders
    * Loiter planes - they could use some tweaking so they involve more skill
    * 2v2 maps with poor start positions in the 1v1 map pool
    * Bulletins

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    * The unit icons in the top right corner
    * The cover mechanics
    * Vaulting
    * Capping circles
    * Victory points
    * Ressource system
    * RNG (unit accuracy, penetration), somethings could use some tweaking (1 shot squad wipes can feel unfair at some times)
    * attack ground
    * battlefield manipulations (barbed wire, tank traps)
    * Dynamic battlefield, things blow op, craters form
    * the popcap system and the army size (instead of those RTS' with huuuugeee blobs)
    * base building
    * Oberserver mode/arranged team games
    * Focus on unit preservation
    * cloaking mechanics
    * Squads
    * retreats

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    * unlockables/micro transaction limit those to the cosmetic stuff
    * more army customization (cosmetics), more skins, uniforms, decals, player profiles, even voice lines
    * better army design, like mines shouldn't be locked behind a commander if no alternative is given... same with snipers, if an army doesn't have snipers, give them an alternative (and a counter to snipers)
    * mechanics such as vehicles crits: main gun destroyed and abandoned could involve more skill and slightly less RNG
    * The ability to chose your loadout once you know who and what you are fighting
    * Customized commander tree, like coh-online
    * Side armor for tanks - instead of only front and rear armor

    I mainly play multiplayer 1v1

  • #53
    1 year ago

    Hello boys and girls,

    my name is HosterTaube and I've been playing CoH 1 and played CoH 2.
    Usually, I play mods or Community 3v3 or 4v4. I like the M26 main battle tank.

    The questions:

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

    The absence of the so-called TrueSight™ system is a very good point to start. Without TrueSight™ the game is more predictable in what one is doing or seeing. It is a great increase in terms of playability.
    I love the minimap that give you the possibility to see sth. in it, especially units. While its successor has an over coloured blinking flashing overloaded tiny minimap, that looks like a kindergarten birthday party, CoH 1 has one, that is capable to give the player information and is useful.
    Symbols and health bars are used for giving information as well in CoH 1, not for just being there and blinking in a high frequency as in CoH 2. Keep it clear and simple.
    Target tables are allowing the game maker to balance units against each other, which has the advantage of completely individual and independent interacting from one unit to another.
    CoH 1 has a very interesting thing called inertia that has sth. to do with mass. It describes, that very heavy things like tanks or heavy vehicles couldn’t be braked or accelerated in a very short time. Unfortunately, this great knowledge did not survive in CoH 2, where tanks behaving like Matchbox.
    There are good paint jobs in CoH 1, not like in CoH 2, where thanks can be covered by nut nougat creme. This allows the game maker to earn a lot money, but looks, well, ....unreal.
    Each fraction has 3 commanders, not 10 or 523. This keeps the game simple, predictive and easy to learn. Everybody knows the other commanders and can fight against them and counter them.
    The graphics is good, with texture packs it’s still ok today, but not resource hungry. When CoH 2 came out, even a Geforce Titan had problems with it. And no, it wasn't a mind braking graphical revolution like Crysis.

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

    Reverse gear.

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

    Pathfinding ;)

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

    The CoH in the name.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    

    2

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    

    CoH

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

    Multicore Support, I mean real multicore support, not only 2 cores.

  • #54
    1 year ago
    insoreigesinsoreiges Posts: 1
    edited July 2017

    Still playing vCoH 1v1 competitive multiplayer in 2017. Tried some COH2, didn't go well. So my post will focus on MP aspect.

    • What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    • Veterancy and unit preservation. COH1 handed out vet a lot less generously but the rewards were much higher. Vet3 rifle squad has a goddamn space marine level brutality and an achievement to be proud of. COH2 on the other hand hands out veterancy like nothing and thus lowers its overall impact. This also lowered the impact of another COH1/2 core mechanic: unit preservation. Losing even a vet2 squad in COH1 was a big setback, not so much in COH2.

    • Resources and harassment. In COH2 every point gives more or less the same amount of munitions/fuel income, which made harassment focused mostly on cutoffs. Caches are nice though but so were observation posts. In COH1 harassing high fuel/munitions point was a big deal in addition to harassing cutoffs, which was a gameplay tactic I personally enjoyed. Another issue is popcap not being tied to sectors in COH2. When you expect your opponent in COH1 to roll out a doctrinal heavy tank you could try and hinder his/her progress towards it by hitting his popcap limit by capping sectors. Another fun tactic gone in COH2.

    • Tech progression. A lot of fun in COH1 comes from outplaying your opponent strategically. This, in turn, came from tech progression being not linear and effectively limited by fuel. For example, as an American player, I could go for rifle upgrades OR rush to M8 OR snipers OR supply yard upgrades OR even risk it and go for Shermans. You have a number of tech choices that you have to choose from because you can't have enough fuel on all of them. You also had to guess where exactly your opponents fuel went and prepare accordingly. This also ties nicely to resource distribution I mentioned above. You could starve your opponent on fuel more effectively limiting his choices. In COH2 tech progression feels a lot more linear. Infantry upgrades rarely cost a significant amount of fuel. So you can spend a little fuel and some munitions to upgrade your infantry while still racing for tech. Fewer choices to make, fewer fun consequences to exploit.

    • Commanders and play style. Specifically how relic approached Soviet and Ostheer commanders. I feel like one of the fun aspects for COH1 "commanders" was figuring out which part of the tree your opponent went for and planning for it accordingly. Like most things in COH1 commanders were limited in scope but played very well with the rest of the mechanics. In COH2 it felt like the role of the commanders was shifted to give players "their unique style" but in reality, there are simply too many of them and this is overwhelming for someone how can't allocate too much time to learn them all. Some commanders initially looked a lot like money-grab which may or may not have been relic's intent but definitely scared away some people.

    • COH1 had more focus on unit positioning and less focus on unit abilities, compared to COH2. But I just don't like microing too much I guess.

    • What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    • TrueSight is great even if its role is slightly diminished in the late game.
    • Smoke mechanic that works with TS is fantastic, a whole new level of tactical gameplay.
    • Veterancy awarded by dealing damage instead of straight up kills is much better but needs to be less generous.
    • For single player missions, i liked mission packs a lot until relic stopped making them.
    • Some UI improvements make COH2 easier to play, like unit shields. However, UI, in general, feels overloaded with stuff constantly blinking at you. Still more informative overall. Giving capping orders on the minimap is great.
    • Variety in infantry units in COH2 is much better than in COH1.
    • If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    • Commanders and bulletins mostly.
    • Less focus on unit abilities.
    • Vaulting. I know it's silly when your units can't jump over a fence but I feel like it gave COH1 maps more interesting strategic elements compared to COH2. A minor issue though.
    • What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    • Directional cover, suppression, flanking, veterancy and unit preservation are all integral tactical mechanics in both COH1 and COH2. Please don't DOW3-simplify them in COH3. Build on them instead. Make them count even more.

    • UI improvements, smoke, TrueSight, loitering planes :)

    • Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    • A great question. Hotkey customization comes to mind :)

    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.?

    • Ladder 1v1 vCoH factions.
  • #55
    1 year ago
    WigginWiggin Posts: 1

    I've been playing Company of Heroes since the day the 2006 demo came out. I mostly play 1v1s auotmatch and 2v2 automatch. I prefer 1v1 games honestly. It was one of my favorite franchises when COH1 was the only game in the series. I also participated in the Britts alpha for COH2.

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

    There are many things that COH1 got right the COH2 failed to deliver on. COH1 was amazingly new and fresh in 2007. It brought to life an era in history with stunning graphics. COH2 on the other hand felt like a melding of COHO and COH1 that went terribly wrong and off the rails along the way. COH1 had interesting factions, units and looked beautiful to boot. COH1 felt like a rich experience that was rooted in history and allowed players to control units and learn something in the process. What I'm trying to get at is that COH1 felt like a game that had soul and purpose and you could tell a lot of love went into it. This is something I never felt while playing COH2. Also was really expecting some sort of melee combat at close ranges and was quite disappointed to find out that did not happen in COH2. Also the ability to change out units before you went into battle depending on your play style.

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

    Some of the things I mentioned in response to the first question. Things that could be improved from COH1 that COH2 did not deliver on would be map sizes, balance and a focus on realism and authenticity. I've love to see proper tank ballistics and tanks taking into account for all armored sides of the tanks. Only having stats for front and rear armor is quite silly. This game is based off history, there is no reason to make up unit stats or abilities. One of the things COH3 could improve on is the reliance of historical information.

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

    COH1 felt like a masterpiece in most areas. The rain effects were amazing and well done, the commanders felt like they were well thought out and provided different tactics and interesting units. It also was much more accommodating to modding that has keep the game alive to this day. The lack of full modding support in COH2 feels like a way to ensure future content could be sold to the community and that as a player felt rather insulting. Also please bring back static bunkers for all factions.

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

    The only things that I enjoyed about COH2 was the engine update, visual updates, weather effects, truesight. Almost everything else felt like a way to milk money out of the playerbase.

    • If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    Honestly almost everything. I really feel building on COH2 is a mistake. It took many wrong steps that has left me unwilling to play the game anymore even after 450~ hours due to the amount of the frustration and RNG. I'd almost entierly cut out RNG as a way to balance the game, I get that it make things interesting but when I shoot 9 bazookas at a Stug and it takes no damage you're now insulting the player. There is no reward for flanking or out thinking your opponent. It rewards the player who has the biggest tank or the most amount of spam. So again, building on COH2 as a base is not something I hope to see gameplay wise. Please cut RNG, bulletins, dlc commanders, unrealistic unit skins, asymmetrical factions. Every faction portrayed had an MG team, mines and a sniper and engineers, trying to force differences is just annoying and insulting as a WWII buff.
    I'd also cut from COH2 the design view that "every game/round needs to tell a story". It doesn't need to force a story with RNG and inconsistent outcomes. My best and favorite stories from COH are ones where I out maneuver, thought and played the other guy not due to the RNG creating a scenario.

    • What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    The engine update, the TrueSight, footprints in the snow and all graphical improvements. Not necessarily the art direction of units. Unit skins.

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

    You have 5 years of a war that shaped the world today and instead it's just used as a backdrop for an e-sport attempt in COH2. So many of the things that COH1 had never made it into COH2. It feels forced and inconsistent design wise. We are okay with some unit utility overlap. It's astounding to think about because you have units that you can give 3 different weapons to but only one real inf unit to build. Let the player create the roles they want to have their units perform, don't pigeon hole them into a role based on design choices. One thing that both BK mod for COH1 and Battleground: Eurrope for COH2 got right was allowing the player to create a unit and make decisions on how THEY wanted the unit to perform. If they needed an AT unit they could get one, if they needed mines many units could build mines, again some utility instead of static roles. In COH2 you're forced to build only XYZ units or you're going to lose . Realistic armor penetration and better path finding for armor. More variety of units over all was never really explored in the base game.

  • #56
    1 year ago
    CastledCardCastledCa… AmericaPosts: 1
    edited July 2017

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    What I loved most about CoH 1 was that its story was simple and didn't try to do anything crazy. It had a small cast of characters in Able Company and focused on the division fighting through the western front. It showed that the Germans weren't robots and were humans like the Americans. CoH 2 tried this with the Russians, but caused controversy with how it did it. There can be sad moments in the story, but it shouldn't try anything to crazy.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    What I loved about CoH 2 was the quality of life it added. Being able to manually reverse, units listening to the player better, like not leaving cover, and the UI was much improved. However, one thing that CoH 1 did better was modding tools. In CoH 2, modders are restricted by not being able to add custom models into the game and more complex things that a CoH 1 modder wouldn't have a problem with. One thing I'd like to see in the next game is being able to play a modded version of the game that doesn't require playing online. I played the entire CoH 1 campaign with Blitzkrieg and, even though there were some issues, I had a lot of fun playing it that way. Another thing, CoH 1 had a better server browser than CoH 2 has. In the first one you could give your lobby a custom name, but you can't in CoH 2. I want to clearly state that my lobby has a mod on and you shouldn't join unless you know how to play that mod. I'd also like to be able to limit who can join my lobbies, and kick players while in game. I'm tired of people with two hours of game time joining my matches against expert bots with an overhaul mod on. I feel like a dick for kicking them, but there should already be a system in place to prevent them from joining to begin with.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    The DLC and microtransactions. Commanders shouldn't be found in crates, or bought. They should all be available from the start so a player can have whatever playstyle they want from the start. I'd also like to see free multiplayer DLC. If microtransactions had to be in the game, make it so only cosmetic items can be bought so the multiplayer DLC can be free like Siege, For Honor, and Battlefront 2 are doing.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    I'd like for CoH 3 to have a different setting like CoH 2 did. I think it'd be interesting to see Africa, but I think there's a lot of potential in the Pacific region. Like how weather was the gimmick for CoH 2, naval warfare could play a part in CoH 3.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    I love Blitzkrieg and Spearhead because of the tactical gameplay they bring. I think that CoH 3 should grab some elements from these mods. The main thing I enjoy from the gameplay that these mods bring is that soldiers die much faster than vanilla gameplay. In vanilla, if a unit is under MG fire, they can safely stay under fire for a while and retreat with an increase to defense from the retreat. However, in a mod like Spearhead, if a unit is under MG fire, and the player isn't paying attention, they'll all be dead in a short amount of time, and there is no increase to defense when retreating. Maybe the time to kill is to extreme for CoH gameplay, but I think a happy balance between vanilla and these two mods can be found. Lastly, I've never been a big fan of either games on a performance level. With a GTX 1080 and i7 6700k, CoH 2 chugs half way through a match, and CoH 1 doesn't perform as well as it should with my setup. CoH 1 sometimes dips to the 30s. I didn't play DoW 3, but I hope that CoH 3 gets a big performance boost from a much better engine. I'd also like to see a more zoomed out camera. The Blitzkrieg game mode mod is my favorite zoom out mod. Also I'd like to be able to customize the key bindings. I need to use a hotkey mod to make the arrow keys WASD, and I'd prefer to be able to change that ingame, because typing is really awkward when you need to press the up arrow to type W.

    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.?
    I like playing massive 3v3, 4v4 matches because I love the mass destruction that comes as a result. I do wish though that players that prefer a modded experience could play some form of competitive.

  • #57
    1 year ago

    I have thought about some additional things that i would like to mention:

    Both coh and coh2 lack !consistent! antiair, as planes have no health afaik and therefore a lot of RNG is involved

    What coh did better than coh 2 is call-ins costing manpower instead of a mix between manpower and fuel, it meant that only getting call-ins was not ressource-effective. That's the reason why coh2 has such a problem with the call-in meta!

  • #58
    1 year ago
    iEclisseiEclisse Posts: 1
    edited July 2017

    I play 2x2 cause i cant play 1x1x1 or 2x2x2. Thanks for it.

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    AI Navigation. The pathfinder in COH 2 is really stupid. Tanks always get stucked for no reason. Tanks can pass
    Through each other. I have to use button to move backward(really?)
    Also i loved LAN game. It's really usefull when u at ocean or somwhere else where u have not internet, but have friends
    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    Engine optimization. It's awful. Really awful.
    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    I remember all staff from C&C Generals... i don't now why. But i dpn't remember somthing really cool from coh1. I started to play it on start and i remember sherman calliope. Tank that can shoot and use artillery. WOW! That was really cool. I love unique units, but it was nerfed so stupid. And it makes that tank really useless.
    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    Hmm... How do you fell when you play OKW\Vaterland:"WOW I HAVE KING TIGER\TIGER\ELITE TIGER\WURFRAMMEN etc. I WILL DESTROY YOU ALL MUAHAHHA. When you play soviets\british\usf:"cherchil? eh... pershing? eh... is2? eh..."
    They have no really unique units. Again. Coh1 , coh 2, why calliope can't shoot? It's really interesting unit. Why allies so boring? Why okw and vaterland have many abilites like invoker in dota 2 and allies just like one click boring idiots?
    What about faction design it's ok. 7\10 or something.
    Balance so strange. Asymmetric balance is pretty cool. but it's not working well.For Example: Why sometimes Panther is invincble?Why Firefly can't make damage after 5-6 shoots? It's stupid and unreal.

    Let's talk about multiplayer. It's piece of cake. Really big cake.
    -I cant recconect if i was dropped from the game
    -No "pause" to stop match if one player disconnected
    -In automatch i can play ONLY VP500 and ONLY Allies vs Ostheer. It's so stupid. I want to play OKW, but my friend like to play soviets. I don't want create game ,then waiting for some idiots that will leave if something go wrong. I want just push button "play". Nothing else. Easy and fun.
    -Why there are no modes like All pick, random faction and other cool staff. Look at the dota 2. I don't like this game, but it have really good ideas about multiplayer. They are REALLY usefull for customization you game Preferences.
    -LVL in COH2 gives nothing. It's absolutely useless feature. Look at Battlefield 3. All LVL have cool gifts. U got Level? Hey we gives you cool weapon. Like to play on tank? Okey. U killed 10 tanks and we gives you cool item on it. Got it? But all that gifts don't affect to balance. U just got more freedom for your tactics.
    -Why there are no deathmatch?or 2x2x2x2? COH2 have the most boring multiplayer ever.

    I f you could, what you would cut from COH2
    To cut? Are you serious? Hahah. Go and add content for it lol, when we talk about cuting
    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    you HAVE to carry forward things from coh2

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

    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.?
    It's all the same mode. Allies vs Othseer. COH2 have no interesting modes to play. I want to play 1х1х1, or 2х2х2, but i cant.

    I am disappointed(((

  • #59
    1 year ago
    elchino7elchino7 Posts: 8

    Copying answer from coh2.org with some edits:

    In the case we get CoH3, i don't want to see the same mistakes/decisions done during the first year of release and having to wait 2/3 years for the game to be in a good state or suffer waiting for months to fix some critical issues. I know that for times you had your hands tied up, but i would like to see CoH2 been used as a stone which you can use to step up on it rather than starting from ground and waiting months to see the same results.

    Features:
    -I don't think it might be possible sometimes due to time constraints but mod/world builder from day 1? Improving mod capabilities would be glorious but i think that having the tools for the community to make maps as soon as possible is required.
    I'll like more frequent map rotations of community created maps. We could have a "permanent rotation" of maps on automatch, and add to them some community maps to be tested in the wild. A global ban (in order to not waste bans) or more specific bans as an extra option on non permanent map should be added. Once a map gains enough feedback (for fixes) and popularity, it could be added into the permanent rotation.

    This i'll assume will have an "ez"* yes or no possibility depending on the engine but:
    -Reconnection/pause system
    -Been able to rewind/jump timestamps with the replays.

    -Leaderboard/Achievements:
    The first for the competitive players and the 2nd one for the more casual player base. I think the medal system was cool.

    Gameplay:
    -Hotkeys: remove the necessity of having to use 3rd party tools.
    -NEVER AGAIN STUPID RNG (AKA every plane crash tells a story). Moderate RNG use is fine. 1% chance of collapsing a building because someone snort inside, is not good.
    Ex: flamethrower exploding on last member of a squad dying and doing AoE damage is fine. Flamethrower randomly exploding at the first engagement after spending your first 60munitions on it on the other hand...
    Ex: If there's has to be variance, the results should have a similar value, specially in cases on which the amount of tries is extremely low. Take the old ram for example of something which should not happen.

    -Emplacement/Automatic i win button skills-units => Please no. Overtuned abilities/units which requries the least amount of player input for great results are not good.
    Ex: IL2 pawning strafing run, Tie fighter pin strafe, pArty Cover, release Freedom bringers P47, Scavenge artillery wiping base shenanigans... For units, think about the old ISU152 vs Elephant meta or the original Tiger Ace.

    Commanders:
    First of all, NEVER AGAIN the whole disaster as the current roster of EFA commanders. (+20 commanders)
    Do an amalgamate from coh1 and coh2 system. We could have TOP 6/8 commanders (FOR ALL the lifespan of a faction) which have around 6-7 abilities. You don't unlock all 7 of them, cause you will have to choose from one or another ability at some point of the tree. Tree structure could vary. Ex: you could either have early, mid or late game alternative choices depending on the commander. Picking either Shocktroops or Guards early on and at the end, either a Loiter IL2 anti infantry or an IL2 Bombing run.

    Balance:
    Balance can't be perfect. I don't think that balance done with the community input exclusively is required but using mods/test server to try them before releasing them on the wild should be done without exception. How many bugs had been discovered by the community? How many of them have also been fixed by them?
    Having it been released as a mod instead of requiring to download a different client would be good (unless you want to test new/exclusive functions)
    Reworks/fine tuning can take time. But if something is going rampant on the ladder, don't leave us "alone" for months (Tiger Ace/Windustry, double damage rocket artillery, superman bug etc.).
    PD: also the least amount of ninja changes as possible pls.

    Monetization:

    The system we have now is fine and would had solve the whole "P2W" commander release up to some point (commander wise).
    If you want to let your creativity go wild, why not recover the whole theatre of war. From what i understand, the whole Co-OP mode on Starcraft 2 is more popular ATM than the whole sum of all the multiplayer game modes. If you want to release Tiger Ace/Windustry YOLO commanders, do so for those game modes.
    Community based created skins for vehicles and even infantry should be good.

  • #60
    1 year ago

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

    Most of what needed to be said has been said; the poor changes to resource points, the unnecessary population limit, lack of side tech, poor doctrine design etc.

    However, something I feel is definitely worth mentioning, and really gets to the heart of the matter, is the level of strategic depth of Coh1 vs coh2. See, Coh1 was just a more complex strategy game with less margin for error. Cut-off play was a massive part of the strategy in Coh1, the humble strategic point served as a major tactical contention zone, focusing the carnage of the early-mid game. It was slashed in coh2, mainly due to the changes to resource points. Whereas in coh1 you had to be connected to munitions and fuel points in order to get munitions and fuel, in coh2 all points gave a resource of one kind or another. This made cut-offs not as big a deal, as you were still at least getting some resources from your connected points. Games that really should have ended when players messed up in the first engagement are prolonged because of it. This is compounded by call-in meta, which simply shouldn’t exist. I like come backs as much as the next guy, but please make call-ins require tech. No one wants to feel that they won solely because of a gimic strategy.

    One of the other big problems of coh2 was that not all factions had access to the essentials. All factions should have access to building clearing, smoke, mortars etc. There’s no shame in making a faction less unique if it means that they actually play well and have strategic depth. It makes them easier to balance as well, which taxes your support for the game less in the long run.

    But never let it be underestimated how important those side tech options were either. When playing US in Coh1 you actually had to think really hard about where to invest you fuel. It’s not like in Coh2 where the only real decision is what vehicle you want to buy, in coh1 you had to decide between side tech, supply yard upgrades, regular tech and vehicles. It was the same with PE and Wehr, it made for much richer gameplay and strategy.

    And finally, obviously doctrines need to return to their old ways. Its not that I had so much of an issue with Micro transactions, or repetition, but the linearity and the blandness of the commanders is the really shortfall. The commanders didn’t encompass a central idea like they did in coh1. When you were playing defensive in Coh1, your strategy was fundamentally different from when you were playing terror or blitzkrieg. In coh2, you merely pick commanders because they have the best abilities, with no strategy in mind. One of the biggest improvements Coh3 could make over coh2 would be to include well thought out commanders, that integrate well into the core faction.

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

    Well firstly, bringing back the PE would be awesome. Here are some ideas I created for going about doing that: https://www.coh2.org/topic/58911/ideas-for-the-missing-6th-faction

    Some of the doctrines in this really highlight the level of thought and integration that needs to go into commanders.

    Having said this, I think really the most sensible way of improving the coh formula would be taking another look at the weather dynamics. Cold Tech wasn’t a bad idea, it just wasn’t implemented very well. There were two reasons for this:

    1. The Impacts of weather were game changing, far too severe.

    You need to moderate how much of an impact weather should have on the game. Units dying on retreat because of freezing to death was frustratingly annoying as the player really could do very little about it. The reductions to line of sight were excessive and slowed down gameplay. The fact that there was very little warning either and the effects didn't come into play moderately. How much better would it have been if LOS was reduced gradually and stayed at its worst for a few seconds before gradually getting better again. Likewise for the other effects.

    1. There were not enough ways for players to adapt to the weather and mitigate its effects.

    Being able to build bonfires, jump into buildings/halftracks and hide in green cover was simply not enough. What you could have done, taking Soviets as an example, would be to introduce a side-tech in the HQ called ‘Improved Logistics’. For a manpower and fuel cost, it unlocks squad upgrades that improve the squad’s effectiveness in snowy conditions. Squad upgrade examples include:

    ‘Winter Boots’ - which allows squads to move at normal speed when walking through deep snow (20 munitions)

    ‘Winter Coats’ – increases the length of time it takes for units to freeze by 100% (50 munitions)

    ‘Improved awareness’ – eliminates LOS penalty during blizzards (35 munitions)

    This is just an example. Crucially upgrades like this give players the option of mitigating the effects of weather, but at the cost of resources. This adds another level to the strategy of the game, as players must decide whether they should wait out the storm and capitalize on the break in the weather using the resources they saved, or should they use the weather to their advantage, investing in the winter upgrades to get the upper hand for the time being. It would add another layer to their strategy.

    Another way Coh could improve would be by taking night and day into account. I’ve only ever come across one game that has attempted this, Panzers Phase 2. It didn’t really do it very well, but Coh could implement it far better. Much the same way that Cold Tech works, players would have the choice of investing in upgrades that augment their armies at night. Headlights on tanks and vehicles for a munitions cost, which increase their line of sight, but the headlights can be seen through fog of war. These headlights can be turned off and on for a cheeky flank or ambush. Flare gun side tech options for infantry squads. Spot light emplacements. Search lights upgrades for Halftracks. Artillery flares. The list really goes on. Again, players have to decide to either wait out the night, ignoring the night time upgrades, or use the night to their advantage in order to get the upper hand. It would increase the strategic depth of the game. You could even go as far as to create commanders specifically designed for being used at night.

    The bottom line

    Everything I mentioned above is important but I think the most important thing or relic to bear in mind when creating coh3 is not to diverge too far away from the originals. Stay ww2. Stay away from the pacific. Keep all the core mechanics. Keep the art style, the sound style, the gameplay. Just perfect what Coh1 and Coh2 got right. That’s all you would need to do to make a great coh. Focus on the small details of the sound effects, the UI, the faction design, the commander design. Don’t try invest in this new fancy game feature that sucks up a lot of resources and is at risk of being hated. Perfect cold tech and night time mechanics, perhaps enter Africa, but other than that don’t go too crazy.

  • #61
    1 year ago
    hoiWAXhoiWAX Posts: 5

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    requiring a brain to win games (1v1)
    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    coh2 had better graphics
    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    - requiring brain to win
    - commanders added to your playstyle while in coh2 commanders decided your playstyle
    - russian campaign was a bit meh in terms of story
    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    - the graphics
    - beating eloboosted players
    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    - all the eloboosted players
    - all the callin commanders
    - brits
    - kyle having a say over who gets banned from the game or not
    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2
    - my list of boosted players
    - factions that reward AGGRESSIVE playstyle
    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    - requiring higher IQ to win games

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.