COH1 VS COH2 - Feedback Wanted

124»

Comments

  • #92
    1 year ago
    MisterMafMisterMaf Posts: 28
    edited December 2017

    Little late to the draw on this one but I figured I might as well throw in my $0.02.

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

    The voice acting. Goodness gracious, the voice acting in Company of Heroes 1 was one of my favorite parts of the entire game. Every unit had such personality. They were so memorable both in writing and delivery, and matched their unit type to the point that it made that unit more satisfying to use. Tankers had deep, rumbling voices that imparted a feeling of unstoppable power as they rolled across the battlefield at your order. Hit 'em fast, hit 'em hard. Goddamn steel ghost. / Ha! They're scratching your paintjob, Helmut! Light vehicles were chirpier, snipers were slow and methodical, and the officers carried themselves like leaders — but the stars of the show were and always will be the riflemen. Tommies, rifles, and grenadiers of all flavors absolutely dripped with charisma. The British rifle leader was sassy and crude — a trait he has been graciously able to retain in UKF. The American rifle leader was loud and aggressive, grenadiers were proud, panzergrenadiers were straight and professional, and the poor volksgrenadier leader could never catch a break — which made his pleasant surprise when his squad actually did something right all the better.

    The voice acting in Company of Heroes 2 is, more often than not, pretty bland. High quality and professionally done to be sure, but lacking in that charm that made the VOs in the first game so great. USF especially suffers from this, as does Ostheer. The British are, in their entirety, the notable exception, and it's one of several reasons why they're my favorite faction to play.

    There were also great idle lines in CoH1 that you could hear randomly during downtime that, so far as I can tell, are tragically absent now. My favorite has to be from the Wirbelwind on rainy maps — "Rain. Open-top tank. ****ing great engineering. (WEATHER-CONTEXT-RELATED LINES. WESTERN FRONT ARMIES DON'T COMMENT ON THE SNOW.) He just sounds exhausted. Just so completely done, and bitter to boot. Meanwhile a closed-top Panzer crewman might cheerfully tell the others about some fun little dancing puppets he saw in Leipzig, and riflemen would chatter among themselves, which you would only really hear if you stopped to pay attention. I really miss that. Also the comedy gold easter egg voice lines that only play once in a million times that you probably won't even know about about unless you listen to a video of them on YouTube, and the fourth-wall-breaking lines when you click on a unit repeatedly. 10/10, so great.

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

    For all my bitching and moaning, CoH2 does have better balance than the first game. It look very a long time to get here and it's far from perfect, but the game is more fair to all factions across the board. The lack of purchased veterancy is a huge part of it, as is the better map design that doesn't focus so much on chokepoints. Gods I do not miss the godawful maps from Company of Heroes 1 that enabled Axis to easily stall for time by locking down a chokepoint until they could get their super-units on the field, all of them vet 3. That blew, a lot. Blobbing is also still a problem, but not nearly to the extent as it was in the first game.

    Matchmaking is also a great addition. The lobbies of the first game were awful; it took ages to get a match, and people would only play with you if they were confident that your stats implied their team would win with you in the game.

    Audio sound effects are also better — I have a mod for the first game that overhauls the sound effects, but it's not needed at all for CoH2 because the sounds are just really good. Well done on that front.

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

    The Tales of Valor campaigns were excellent and left me wanting more, which is unusual for a singleplayer experience in an RTS. Usually I don't really care about campaigns in RTS games and only play them to get my money's worth, but I genuinely had a lot of fun with Tales of Valor. Short, focused, story-centric singleplayer experiences based on actual events were much more interesting than slogging through a large-scale, extended campaign mission by mission. Playing as the Axis side for once was also refreshing.

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

    TrueSight was a good addition. I didn't like commanders at first, but eventually, the more that were added the more options players had to match their style and to counter enemy commanders. Overpowered commanders got toned down, and this latest patch that overhauled weak commanders was very welcome.

    Speaking of updates, the slow but steady regimen of patches in which the developers thoroughly test it as a mod beforehand and explain all of their decisions is very, very good. Please do not stop this.

    Also speaking of mods, Steam Workshop integration is also a good move. In some ways mod support isn't as full as the first game — mods like Europe in Ruins and Operation Market Garden, which allow players to build a company through a website and then bring it into the game — are, by my understanding, tragically impossible in CoH2, but the ease of creating and distributing the mods that are supported is wonderful.

    Additionally, the option to blacklist maps in matchmaking is fan-****ing-tastic, and I don't think it needs elaboration as to why.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    Winter weather effects. IMO the single best change Relic made in this game was removing blizzards from matchmaking. I'm also on the fence about bulletins. They're okay I guess, but I could do without them.

    Ax maps that focus heavily on chokepoints from your design board entirely.

    Heavy starting infantry like Sturmpioneers and Tommies are hard to balance and I think the game would be better without them.

    Anything that can one-shot anything — especially expensive things — are no fun.

    One of the biggest things of all that needs to go is the mechanic offered by the IR halftrack and Valentine tank which give you free, virtually un-counterable sight on all the enemies' frontline activities.

    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

    Mod support and extended developer support for the game are a must for future games. TrueSight would also be welcome. Please take come cues from the voice acting in the first game and/or UKF for the next one, as well. Twitch integration and spectator mode are also pretty nice, and the main menu announcements are helpful to keep track of what's going on.

    Everything that I didn't explicitly say I would cut are worth keeping, I think. I loathed the store at first but I think it's at a relatively fair place right now and I realize it's necessary to support the long-term development this game has benefited from, so even keep that if you must.

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

    Faction balance, while better than before and continually being worked on, is still not super great. I realize it's a monumental task with such a complicated game, but it's a shortcoming regardless.

    Exploring more settings moving forward would be great. Going to the eastern theatre was a good move, but consider under-served settings like the Pacific, Africa, or even another era for future games. The Cold War is ripe with scenarios both historical and hypothetical that you could make a game out of.

    And for ****'s sake, please support SLI and Crossfire next time.

  • #93
    1 year ago

    I play mostly team games and comp stomps. I'm not a big fan of the RTS genre but CoH is an exception because I'm interested in the WW2 setting and it's done so well here.

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

    Playing CoH1 really felt like commanding a company. Playing CoH2 felt more like commanding a platoon because of the higher pop cost of units in general. I liked having more units on the field.
    The CoH2 campaigns were also a bit lacking. The CoH1 campaigns were more atmospheric and I expected a german campaign like the one of the Panzerelite in CoH1. The British Forces also had no campaign of their own.

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

    The raw balance of the different units is much better in CoH2. There was a serious ongoing effort to improve balance between factions over the lifetime of the game. This is what kept the multiplayer aspect well and alive. UI, unit control and hotkeys were also a big step forward. Tactical map however was a step back.

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

    CoH1 had a better approach to doctrines/commanders. Yes, there were only three but they were unique and concentrated on a specific aspect. This is something CoH2 didn't do well. On one side there are many commanders, which adds diversity to the game, but on the other hand many of them share abilities. Only a handful of them are really competitive, while others are rarely used.
    I think it would be better to have a limited amount, treated like units, constantly balanced instead of adding more and more commanders/doctrines leaving others (or even the new ones) in the dust. If you only have a few for each faction, you could also bring back the "skill trees" from CoH1, where you had the choice to trade in command points for one ability or the other. These were really interesting.

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

    The different units, the asymmetric factions and the effort to make them similar in performance despite these difficulties. Together with the setting and the historical vehicles this creates an interesting game.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    The leveling system, grinding supply points and buying commanders and vehicle skins is too much. I'm not completely against it, but this is just too much.

    What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

    The WW2 setting and the European Theater. No need to try something new. Not yet.

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

    I always wanted a complete co-op campaign. The co-op missions in CoH2 were really good and I'd like to see more of this.

  • #94
    1 year ago

    @Kyle_RE hello...i saw this post and thought this was the place where i could put this 2 ideas from other threads that you may like...please consider them :)

    https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/244598/would-you-like-the-idea-of-being-able-to-search-as-random-faction-in-automatches-like-in-coh1#latest

    https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/241479/will-there-be-a-new-dlc#latest

    please let us know what you think about them, and if they can or can't be added :)

  • #95
    1 year ago

    Dear Relic
    pls continue develope coh2 and make it better than coh1
    there so many thing you not add to the game yet (pz III, T-26, 88 flak), you cannot just leave the game like this
    atleast give player and modder some tool mod and some guide (create singleplayer map, vehicle model) so they can continue by their own

  • #96
    1 year ago

    The graphics on COH1 just dont cut it in 2018. I'm afraid, no matter how much you improve the game play, this would keep from going back to COH1 over any changes in game. Doom was cool one time too.

  • #97
    1 year ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 116
       Most of all I like to play CoH2, but I wish it was slightly changed in the balance of power, parties, possibilities. I love playing 4v4 and the number of commanders who have the Soviet Union, is well and good, but they are almost all the same. 
    
    • I want to see in the game a new commander, who already offered on the forum. Or the other , but which will have the ambulance for the USSR, anti-aircraft gun and Increased rations , # to improve the performance of infantry units.
    • I understand that OKW is elite, there is a king tiger without a commander, firing the building, STG 44 without a commander and standard troops (Ollie from the Soviet Union, whose machines only the commander and only some troops (upgrade), units with automatic weapons are present only in the form of penal battalions (which will make things worse, I'm sure))
      Do not engage in cards, special painting, tournaments, you just have to go and change the aspect ratio. And do not say that the USSR the best. Where Not One Step Back Tactics? Where Soviet anti-aircraft guns? WHERE'S THE COMMISSIONER?
      I understand that still I will say that USSR is the best, and that his (for example) engineers destroy sappers 1vs1 OKW and that the machines (without improvement) (Sarcasm)
      And I still think that CoH2 needs a change of troops, the introduction of new units and of course, new commanders (Soviet commanders, at least 1, 1 is small).

      I hope that my words will be read and you will realize that for the Soviet Union to play a very difficult. Are You not interested in my opinion, a desire, remarks..?

  • #98
    8 months ago
    omar_empomar_emp United Arab EmiratesPosts: 511

    give some basic match players attention not all players play auto match .

    • fix basic match bugs, custom workshop items that makes the game not start able (custom skins,decal, face plate, victory strike)

    • the ability to see player level so you could balance games

    • banning a player from current lobby

    • better lobby browsing with basic match alone and auto match alone

  • #99
    8 months ago
    filmgeek47filmgeek47 Posts: 81
    edited July 2018

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    Commander balance and utility. The idea behind having a bunch of modular commanders was cool, but NONE of the commander choices ever felt as cohesive and satisfying to use as the options in coh1. It often felt like commanders were intentionally hamstrung or given throw away abilities just to encourage people to use other ones. This aspect of the game design also created weird decisions, like not offering the russians built-in non commander specific defensive structures, which basically makes this faction useless for comp stompers.

    Even today, it still feels like several of the base factions are missing key elements (particularly heavier tanks) that can only be provided by selecting commanders that give them. The American faction is especially suffering from this, as unless you're an absolute expert player, it's insanely difficult to micro the Americans to an even fight with the Axis' built in quality tank options. Instead, those of us "average" allied players have to either stick with the British, or use American commanders that fix what's broken about the faction (like the pershing commander).

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    Replay-ability. Something about the defensive nature of the map designs, the level of RNG, and the commander designs means that even all these years later, I still enjoy playing through the same maps again and again in comp stomps with my friends. COH2 has highlighted some of the glaring shortcomings, but for defensive players, COH1 maps provided some strategically satisfying long games, where you'd spend twenty minutes intricately building a defense, only to find yourself flanked and fighting for your life.

    For those of us who enjoy turtling up and playing defensively, COH1 was much more satisfying. I literally spent years posting in vain on the coh2 forums about fixing the bridge blowing mechanics (which make little sense, both conceptually and in consistency, as every bridge seems to have different hit-points that don't correlate with their appearance), as in coh1 you had these amazing bridge on the river Kwai moments where you could saving a failing play through with a perfectly setup charge and bridge take down. My buddies and I spent many hours playing through maps in "unique" ways, using the british mobile command centers to hole up on one corner of the map, then carefully expand.

    As mentioned above, the commander designs were far superior. Each commander tree felt like it's own fleshed out faction, so even people like me that get weirded out playing as Nazis could enjoy a depth of gameplay just playing through the different british and american commanders.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    I think COH2 has evolved into a better game in almost every way. I loved all the nuanced feature additions, TrueSight, winter effects. They all added fantastic and memorable gameplay moments (and still do today).

    The campaign was also MUCH better in Coh2. I frankly barely even remember the coh1 campaign b/c it was boring as hell when I played through it ages ago. Ardennes assault as an expansion is truly phenominal. I play through it once a year and have a blast doing so.

    I also loved the idea behind each of the factions. I liked that each faction felt more unique in coh2 than the original.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    I would cut the modular commanders, and replace them with a set of really well rounded commanders similar to coh1. You got much closer to the ideal with the new commanders in the last dlc. Having 6 per faction made each commander comparatively "fuller" and more useful, but the swath of russian commanders is just silly, and even a couple of the british ones overlap so badly that it feels like they were assembled by a dice rolling machine.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    All the upgrades to the core game mechanics. The improvements to tank play, truesight, winter effects, all of it. The little details like only needing to be in proximity of a capture point dramatically improved gameplay.

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

    The biggest thing I'd like to see is more of a meta-game mode, a big picture campaign like Ardennes assault, but with greater randomization, and the ability to play with a couple of friends. I enjoyed the campaign, but my favorite strategy campaigns have always been designed so that you have limited resources across the entire playthrough, and have to play out a grand strategy, rather than just making it from one limited mission to the next.

    I'd love to see more maps in general. The game has a ton of maps, 90% of which are useless for those of us who prefer defensive "front" oriented play.

    I don't see this happening, but I'd LOVE to see a World War One version of Coh, with the ability to build and fight through trenches. A real love letter to defensive players.

    I realize we're a minority of the playerbase, so that's unlikely to happen, but please consider creating two large sets of maps for the next release. One for aggressive fast play like coh2, and another set with defensive players in mind. Lots of bridges, choke points, rivers. narrow paths around the edges of the map that force infantry only play. This game has a player base with two very different sets of needs, and I think satisfying both really comes down to offering maps that cater to both sides.

    For comp stompers/defensive folk, Iwant to see a true successor to Seine River Docks, Lyon etc from coh1.

    And no, before you ask, none of the community content has totally scratched that itch. It's just too complex to create a defensive map that's both balanced and not totally static.

  • #100
    7 months ago
    MaxnwilMaxnwil Posts: 5
    edited July 2018

    Hi Relic! I'm glad you asked this question- both games have a lot of great things and its a useful exercise to compare them.

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

    • Each doctrine felt deliberate and interesting. COHO did a great job building on this by making commanders customizeable. CoH2 commanders felt like a weak compromise between a few deliberate commanders and customizeable flexibility. I like their portraits though!
    • Overall defenses. I get that wars of attrition aren't sexy on twitch, but as a player, I love them. A lot of design choices felt like steps back in terms of defensive structures. Eventually CoH2 caught up, but trenches and soft bunkers aren't as great as the concrete pillboxes and forward barracks of CoH1. Even in flavor, there was a difference: I loved that the axis got Tiger Teeth and allies got hedgehog tank traps. In CoH2 it seems like almost everyone gets the same drab trenches.
    • Oh, and the Goliath. COH2 Goliath is so disappointing

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

    • I'm gonna echo a lot of what others have been saying here: Truesight, "reverse move" for tanks, vaulting and better mod integration were all really well done!

    • On the other hand, I would have loved to see an expansion on the Operations gamemodes. It seemed like Theater of War was the spiritual successor, but I miss Operation Stonewall. The idea of a small elite force defending against waves of enemies is really exciting for a defensive-minded coop player like myself, so you can imagine why I'm keen to see Operation Stonewall return. (Relatedly- I really enjoyed Dawn of War 2's Last Stand mode). Defensive gamemodes aside, I also enjoyed Operation Assault and would be curious to see it return as well.

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

    The whole thing was great, but I'll just emphasize a few:

    • The big thing that I haven't seen everyone else comment on is the level design. COH1 Level design was exquisite: I really felt like each map was unique, with some being littered with chokepoints and others being totally open. I felt like with CoH2, every map just ended up being relatively open, with any rivers being crossable in multiple locations. Plus, the struggle for the high resource points was always great too.

    • Campaign was incredibly compelling, and just the right length. I loved it.

    • Doctrines felt unique. Each faction having just a few choices that changed the gameplay in big ways was great. To be honest, this was at its peak in CoHO- the infantry players getting massive amounts of artillery and forward bases, the terror player getting to rain V1s and sow confusion, the defensive player getting special engineers to build better defenses... they were all really great.

    • Battles felt big. Bigger pop caps and more units is more important to me than high-detail models. If there's a choice between a little bigger or a little prettier, go with a little bigger.

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

    • CoH2 did a great job making each faction VERY unique, and I really enjoyed that. The Americans and OKW in particular are delightfully distinct.

    • Ardennes Assault. That dynamic map, with a company of soldiers you cared about, and lasting impacts between each turn, was SO GOOD. I'd love to see a bigger dynamic map, with that fleshed out into a full campaign. I don't mean to say drop the original campaign, though I do think Ardennes Assault was more fun than the CoH2 campaign. I'd gladly pay for a full dynamic campaign in a later DLC. Make it somewhere like North Africa or Italy, and that would be amazing!

    -Gameplay choices were great. Vaulting and Truesight were fantastic additions and I greatly enjoy them. I liked having winter effects (and I liked having the ability to turn them off if I didn't want to deal with them )

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    • I'd cut out a huge number of commanders, especially wehr and russia. I'd also get rid of the loot and intel bulletins, or make them more powerful. Right now they're way too involved and don't give enough of a reward to bother figuring out.
    • Small pop caps. I enjoy the bigger battles. I liked how a big battle of COH1 felt, and could've even gone 25% bigger.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    • There are a lot of little changes that I think are big improvements. The ability to reinforce whole groups at once, capturing territory from a halftrack, etc. are great. And of course, the aforementioned Truesight, environmental effects,

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

    • I'd love to see a bigger dynamic campaign, and an expansion of the operations/theater of war into a deeper co-op experience. I play games with my family, and co-op game modes are far and away our preference. Comp-stomping is great, and I'd love to see a deeper dive there.

    ALSO. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE GAME BE DESIGNED AROUND E-SPORTS.

    I get that E-Sports are so hot right now, but seriously, y'all are AMAZING designers capable of making amazing stand-alone games. Leave E-Sports to Blizzard or whatever. I'd much rather play CoH than starcraft, and I think that's because of the design decisions other studios make to cater to E-Sports. It felt like Dawn of War 3 made similar choices, and while I still enjoyed DoW3, it definitely did not live up to its potential. Back to your roots!

  • #101
    7 months ago
    dhkdeoendhkdeoen Posts: 22

    I'll make it short since you guys would read tons of these. I was lvl 16 PE in CoH 1, and lvl 16~17 in almost every faction in CoH2, just letting you know.

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    Smoothness. Everytime I control vehicles in CoH2, it feels a bit clunky, and I think it has nothing to do with slow paced vehicle movement speed of CoH2. Probably have to do with pathing, I think.
    and I was so dissapointed by the campaign. It's Company of Heroes, not Company of Assholes. You could've done like showing off the 'glorious victory' of the Soviet Union while contradicting it to the war crime also done by Soviets;you guys have done it vice versa.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    Sounds and graphics and so on. When it comes to game systems(not mechanics) like those, I think CoH2 is flat out better.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    If there's something CoH1 did better than CoH2, that'd be balance. But then again, CoH1 never supported mirror match and the 'balance' was strictly set by the design, but not the players.(what do I mean by that is, you have designated counter unit for certain build that does certain damage to only that unit, like Ostwind and M10 in CoH1, and I really didn't like that.)

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    its scale, graphics and sound. It delivered what I thought Eastern front(and WW2 in general) would be perfectly.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    too much commander in vanilla factions(soviets and wehr). I know it'd be hard to merge those now, because there are people who already bought commanders in real money, but I'd merge those commanders into several if I could.

    Intel bulletins are also weird. If my memory serves me right it was nerfed in generals due to balance problems in early days. and now it barely means anything in the game. Not that I mean I hate it, but it begs the question of why it exists.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    Game systems in general. Bent over covers, graphics, sound design, truesight system.. and its scale.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    CoH1 felt like I was doing very small war with WW2 arsenal, while CoH2 felt like I'm actually part of a bigger war.

  • #102
    5 months ago

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    In a sentence, the depth of the gameplay. COH2's gameplay always felt a lot shallower, especially in terms of strategy. I believe the reason was to cater to a larger audience and to make it easier to roll out new commanders at regular intervals. Unfortunately, the result was a game that felt heavily dumbed down and far less intricate. The various tech paths (where unit upgrades had a real opportunity cost) and the cutthroat resource system all helped to make coh1 feel far more strategic. In order to facilitate the release of new commanders in COH2, unit teching was streamlined and all the choices were allocated towards unit abilities and tactics. While tactics are neat, they generally have far less depth than strategy and grow stale quickly if not backed by intriguing strategic decision-making.
    Lastly, the comeback mechanics introduced in coh2 via a static popcap, vet being earned by taking damage and linear upkeep were too pronounced. While comeback mechanics are fine and can add enjoyment to a game, they need to be finely tuned. Good play wasn't rewarded enough and bad play not punished enough. This was the single biggest factor that made me go back to COH1. I believe that once players have progressed beyond a certain level in the learning curve, they derive most of their pleasure from being rewarded for good play. For example, having a perfectly executed early flank win a game or perfectly microing an early m8 to surprise the enemy to win the game. When the game doesn't reward such play and is instead more punishing to the winning side's errors than it is rewarding to its triumphs, the game starts becoming tiresome and frustrating. I believe COH1 struck this balance far more effectively than COH2, which is the reason the game has remained popular for so long. Let me reiterate that comeback mechanics are good. They definitely increase enjoyment in a game and help new players feel less hopeless in their mistakes. However, there is generally an inverse relationship between the prominence of comeback mechanics and the quality of play, namely the greater the quality of play, the more detrimental the effect of comeback mechanics. This is why it's important to keep them in check.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver.
    COH2 improved the controls and interface of the game. I think it's great that units tend to respond with more urgency and tanks can be more easily maneuvered. The gridkey mapping is also great! There is still room for improvement. While clean animations are important, the responsiveness of units is just as important.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    I love the vanilla COH faction design and the artistic style. The faction's had very interesting synergistic attributes and the resulting interplay never gets old! (Even with a limited map pool and only 3 doctrines per side). The art style is also excellent, by which I mean the music, graphic design, color palette and voice acting. The game is 12 years old and is still both visual and aurally appealing. Compared to COH2, I find the art style of COH1 to be sleeker and more congruent.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be.
    The simple mechanics of vaulting and TrueSight really added something to gameplay. I think they made maneuvering the map more interesting and intricate. The Ardennes Assault campaign concept is also great!

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2.
    I believe that COH2 shouldn't have focused on regular commander releases as a constant source of revenue. I understand the need to ensure future revenue, but the decision to primarily rely on commanders greatly impacted the quality of the game. While I do not know the exact answer to the future revenue issue, I think releasing map packs, skins, campaigns and good old expansions will be better for the gameplay as they do not affect it (except for expansions)! This is core to the issue. As soon, as the revenue model is based on releasing balance-altering content, the accountants and designers will be dragged into an eternal battle.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    The constant support Relic has put towards the game. Releasing new content, many balance patches, involving the community, supporting casters, tournaments and more!

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    Balancing team games and creating cooperative experiences. While I play anything from 1v1 to 4v4, the drop-off in quality of gameplay is exponential from 1v1 to 2v2 to 3v3 to 4v4. That is not to say that all modes may be fun in their own rights.

  • #103
    5 months ago

    A few things like the commanders or doctrines I thought are better and still are in coh 1 than coh 2 and where the hell is the V1 rocket, miss that. Thats my 2 cents. Love both games, hope another one will be on its way in near future!

  • #104
    4 months ago
    ballist1xballist1x Posts: 198
    edited October 2018
    Game has many flaws of coh1 that were not learnt from by the developers.

    Too much arty.
    Too much blogging.
    Brit faction being built around emplacements
    Terminator units (shocks and commandos)

    It's like relic just copied everything over regardless of how game breaking it was.

    What do I like?

    Well coh2 is the only ww2 rts with a decent pace so you have a monopoly.

    It's no secret that coh2 is dead and has been for a long time.

    Relics insistance on tactics like clown cars, mg spam, blogging et c ensured that would be the case.
  • #105
    4 months ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 468

    Coh1 had armor that makes RNG and every game unpredictable.

    Current Coh2 only tanks have armor, and even that, the RNG is useless as most ATG and TD penetrate 8 outta 10 times.

    Too much camping, a line of ATG/TD, covered by MGs and Mortars.

    Axis expensive tanks are useless now, ATG/TD are too effective and predictable.

  • #106
    3 months ago

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    What I loved about COH1 was the balance and use of more macromanagement instead of micromanagement that COH2 lost as patches were released. Right now for you to do well in COH2 you need super reflexes and intense use of micro. COH1 was a more relaxed experience, letting you think a bit more without infantry or tanks dying instantly if you didn't babysit them 24/7 like we have to now in COH2, not that you shouldn't, but I think it doesn't make for a more fun experience when it's basically necessary all the time.

    Alot of things that were in the release of COH2 that made COH feel like COH were removed one by one, things like Squad AI, more unpredictable RNG, armor that could bounce off shells more frequently, more resilient infantry and so on. Even things like people being wounded and writhing in pain on the ground are gone.

    Also the voice acting, man the voice acting in COH1 is absolutely amazing. Not that COH2 voice acting is bad, but COH1 voice acting takes it to another level, it has so much charm to it. Especially little things like complaining about rain, whispering when it's a nighttime map, or units getting more panicky as their health goes down and they lose men.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    What immediately comes to mind is truesight and vaulting, these are great changes that were introduced in COH2 and it's always weird not being able to vault or hide units behind buildings in COH1 because of the way sightlines work in that game.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    As I said before, the balance of macro and micromanagement in COH1 was excellent, not needing to attend immediately to a unit or risk losing it was amazing. Squad AI would make sure infantry could find cover by themselves, this was helpful in many situations where you were micromanaging other units in a huge battle. More unpredictable RNG and armor for tanks made flanking far more important, especially against German tanks, nothing quite like having a tiger tank bounce off shells left and right.

    All of this would be made even better with the authenticity of it all, infantry shouting commands and using hand signals and sprinting to cover, tank commanders panicking when their tank is about to get destroyed, men screaming and writhing in pain on the ground while medics carry whoever they can back to a medic station. All of this with excellent sound design and you had quite the battlefield spectacle indeed.

    The commanders I feel were good too. Only having 3 choices made each one unique and focused. Each having their own strengths to bring to the table. This also helps with the balancing of each commander, only having 3 for each faction makes it far easier to see what ability is overperforming or not.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    Vaulting and truesight, these 2 are one of COH2 best features and it's hard to imagine playing without them anymore. No more fences blocking your way to an fuel point, just vault over it.

    I did also like there we're more units for each faction too, personally I feel it hit the sweet spot on that part, there's just enough different units make each one feel unique and have a purpose.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    Right now there's nothing that really comes to mind that should be outright cut from the game. I'd love if blobbing could just be cut out like that but sadly it's not that simple.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    Truesight and vaulting, yes it's been mentioned a hundred times before but it needs to carry on if there ever is a COH3. But mostly I feel like if the series would to carry on, it should be more akin to COH1 than 2.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    One thing that I'd love to see is side armor, not just rear armor. This could make tank play more interesting. Also there's sometimes been ideas of a morale system to be put into the games. Also the AI has always been a bit iffy in the series and it's something that should definitely be improved going forward.

    Final Thoughts
    Overall I like both games, even though COH1 is my favorite of the series so far, I've had a ton of fun with COH2. I just feel like COH2 lost its identity a bit as a COH game as time went on and patches were released and the focus switched more on microheavy gameplay.

  • #107
    3 weeks ago
    lordpeter3lordpeter3 Posts: 321
    **What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on**
    

    -More interesting commanders: It was great in COH1 that you could choose between two lines of comander trees and choose what would suit you best. Do i go for Pershing tank forst or for Calliopes. The more custum design part of COH1 Online, was also great spending point to build your commander. Especially to draw new players in it was just amazing! Also the feel of the doctrine choice, eslecially for the german factions was just great, making your kettengrad invisible, or being able to reinfoce at you bunkers when chooseing a particular commaner just felt great. It really made you fel that you specialized yor role, not just by the units the doctrine offers, but also by adding changes to the standard stock units and buildings)
    -Interesting campaing: anthough it is always hard to make a campaing that is interesting for both online and compstomp players a good start would be to have a good story for both sides and have some events triggered while playing instead of a random CPU fighting you, making it more of a compstomp on a more fancy campaing map.
    -Side and top armour on tanks. It was just great to have front, side, rear and top armour, so flanking ar throwing arty at tanks felt just so much more real and diverse.
    -The American and British factions feel a bit better in COH1. The British truck system was great (super to see them returm for OKW though!!)
    -Destroyable bridges.
    -Costumisable armies (M10 or M18?)

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

    -True sight and vaulting. These are just such great things! They are for me the biggest sellig point for playing COH2 over COH1 besides the more active community for COH2.
    -Easier way of reenforcing squads, so that you dont have to select the squads individually if you have to recruit replaceents for your losses.
    -Better oversight of which squad you have and when they are damages with the squad icond in the top right of the screen.
    -Reverse button for tanks!
    -Slightly more enjoyable veterancy.
    -usefullness of strategic points (that they now generate a bit of fuel and ammo instead of just +3 man power)
    -Tank crews, the option for crews to jump out of tanks for the Americans is just great! It could be redesigned a bit, in a way that a tank crew always bails a tank when it is destroyed but that the crew take longer to climb out of a tank, and thus making them vulnerable to MG fire.

    ** What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)**
    -Commanders/doctrines
    -Slightly more resource income
    -Maps with good cutt of points, fights for high fuel and ammo points and that territory actually translates in popcap. that added such a nice extra strategic layer to cutting off the oppoents key resource points.
    -How models of tanks looked. For some reason they look just better. the King Tiger in COH1 just looks great with the commander looking out of the hadge. COH2 talks look a bit more bland for some reason.

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

    -Very intens online games that lat between 20 min and an hour, its just great!
    -True sight
    -Vaulting
    -Amazingly done Russian faction! Also Ostheer and OKW are just brillaint.
    -Veterancy, the 5 star veterancy for OKW is just so rewarding to get!!
    -Ice and tanks hitting the water when cracked!
    -The huge amount of commanders, it makes the game feel fresh every time. Especially the specific commanders like Encirclement Doctrine are really nice!!

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    -The Russian story campaing, it was at times painfull to watch. Feeling inaccurate and not doing justice to the Russian sacrifices in WO2.
    -Blizard and frostbite mechanics.

    **What would you want to carry forward from COH2**
    

    -Almost everything
    -Special attention to base building and building of field defences on the map! This makes the game so much fun, please keep it!

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

    -Completly destructable environments. If i destroy a house, i would like to be able to drive trough the rubble with my sherman buldozer or use the ruins for cover for my infantry. Being able to remore objects that are in the way with o.a. explosives now not all buildings, trees and bridges are destroyable wich is a bit of a missed opportunity.
    -Commander abilities that can counter those of the opponent. For example: the enemy calls in a bombing strike which I can counter by calling in fighter supports that can potentially stop the enemy bombing run.
    -More different tanks and vehicles! I miss the Berge Panzer (probable needs to be rebalanced, but the trill of recovering your tank behind enemy lines was just great!), the Jaght Panther, AT halftrack, Funkwagen, MG bike, Flak88 and the Hummel!!
    -Expand a bit on base and field defences building. How about pontoon bridges and rubber boats to get your army across a river whereyour enimy least expects it?

124»
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.