Feedback - Commander Revamp

178101213

Comments

  • #272
    9 months ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 119
    edited October 2018

    @Andy_RE написал:
    The latest mod is now live chaps. Check out the notes and let us know your thoughts.

    https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/245307/commander-revamp-preview-changelog#latest

    I'm ask You to use "Common sense" ability and to make changes that will remove Commissar's heal (and base Headquarters medics), to remove the ability of "Forward Headquarter" and give leFH to OKW and Wehrmacht for all commanders , Sector Artillery, Elefant, Jagdtiger and to make all abilities 100 manpower costs and for 1 CP.
    So same I want, to have conscripts [3rifle (+3 rifle for upgrade = 6 rifles), remove Shock Troops and Partisans, remove Molotov and RPG-43, leaving upgrade only 1 PTRS for Penal Battalion.

  • #273
    9 months ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    Keep Tellers and reigels where they are. Reduce the Tellers damage to 380, increase the riegels to 400. Now the heavy mine will 1 shot em, and the teller won't.

    @C3Tooth said:
    Totally agree

    Why this discussion is moving away from revamp commanders?

  • #274
    9 months ago

    @Andy_RE said:

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    So why did the concrete bunker have its population cost removed? In my opinion we should be moving in a direction that gives ALL bunkers, fighting positions, etc a population cost.

    It should definitely be significantly lower than mainline infantry. But it was a popcost of 3, which is exactly that. I would say give regular bunkers and FPs a popcost of 1.5 or something

    It was a tough one. We wanted to attach pop solely to the MG upgrade, and not to repair bay/ standard bunker. However, the tools don't allow this. It feels unfair to have pop attached to the repair bunker.

    As I said, a tricky one, but we'll be keeping an eye on it.

    It was the right call, having population on bunkers makes them worthless because having them not add to your pop cap is their only redeeming factor. With bunkers giving popcap you would have to start to destroy your own bunkers when you are maxed since they don't collect experience... it would be a awkward situation indeed. Keep them 0 pop.

  • #275
    9 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    @SpajN34 Then don't build as many bunkers? If they had a popcost of 1 you would need to spam them for it to be drastically affecting your army size. The ambulance doesn't receive experience either, and it can't fight anything, yet it costs population.

    Choosing how much of your pop you want locked up in stationary bunkers should be a part of the decision making. In 1v1 it's a non issue cause committing the resources hurts you more. As usual, this changes completely in team games, where bunkers and FPs are spammed far more frequently.
  • #276
    9 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited October 2018
    > @vsr said:
    > Why this discussion is moving away from revamp commanders?

    Riegel mines are Commander abilities

    Chill...
  • #277
    9 months ago
    SwireksterSwirekster Posts: 11
    edited October 2018

    problem with stormtroopers is their smg profile. It should be better in some way like:

    1. Against units in cover at close range
    2. Aginst units in buildings
    3. Better hitting % while moving at close range
    4. unit targeted by smg's take slight supression
    5. unit targeted by smg's have worse hitting %
    6. tactical assault's movement penalty removed
    7. tactical assault's movement penalty removed on retreat
    8. Make it possible to upgrade to stg44 on vet3
    9. Make it possible to upgrade to flamethrower

    AT upgrade should change their orientation to suprise AT attack unit, it would be better with;

    1. Allow stormtroopers to use panzerfaust after upgrade
    2. Allow stormtroopers to plant small AT mines
    3. Change panzershreck to german AT rifles
  • #278
    9 months ago
    ReichsgardeReichsgar… Bad Tolz, Bayern, GermanyPosts: 121
    Hello everyone, I do agree that giving SMGs to WM Stormtroopers is a good idea but to stay aligned to their supposed elite nature, I request that the devs work on giving a better SMG profile to the Sturmtruppen. It should be able to inflict higher damage and still not perform badly when engaging from mid range.

    I find that the devs have done a superb job of revamping the OKW Elite Armoured Doctrine. In particular, the recent addition of the SdKfz 223 is a welcome change. If I may suggest a further improvement, I would like to propose giving the vehicle a Command Vehicle style ability. Indeed, Sd Kfz 223 was used as a radio command vehicle that coordinated operations like the one attached.

    Rather than serving as a mine installation vehicle, I think it could serve better as a command vehicle.

    Any thoughts on this?
  • #279
    9 months ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    @Reichsgarde said:
    Hello everyone, I do agree that giving SMGs to WM Stormtroopers is a good idea but to stay aligned to their supposed elite nature, I request that the devs work on giving a better SMG profile to the Sturmtruppen. It should be able to inflict higher damage and still not perform badly when engaging from mid range.

    I find that the devs have done a superb job of revamping the OKW Elite Armoured Doctrine. In particular, the recent addition of the SdKfz 223 is a welcome change. If I may suggest a further improvement, I would like to propose giving the vehicle a Command Vehicle style ability. Indeed, Sd Kfz 223 was used as a radio command vehicle that coordinated operations like the one attached.

    Rather than serving as a mine installation vehicle, I think it could serve better as a command vehicle.

    Any thoughts on this?

    Command status at Vet 5 wouldn't be a bad idea. Giving players more reasons why to use light-vehicles and integrate them into mid-late game as well. And it can't over-perform cuz it is at Vet 5, which will take some considerable amount of micro managements and game time.

    Defensive use:

    • 10% weapon cooldown,
    • 5% defensive bonus. (similar to the werhm command tank, but it is 10% def bonus)

    Or Offensive use:

    • 10% Increased accuracy,
    • 5% less on received accuracy.
  • #280
    9 months ago
    RomanovRomanov Posts: 48

    @Reichsgarde said:
    Hello everyone, I do agree that giving SMGs to WM Stormtroopers is a good idea but to stay aligned to their supposed elite nature, I request that the devs work on giving a better SMG profile to the Sturmtruppen. It should be able to inflict higher damage and still not perform badly when engaging from mid range.

    Any thoughts on this?

    I would maybe give them some slight improvements at medium range, but in general i think they are fine. like commandos they have both smoke and the best cloak in the game that allows them to close the distance before engaging targets. the short range damage is fine in my opinion.

  • #281
    9 months ago
    AchlenAchlen Posts: 13

    @Swirekster said:
    problem with stormtroopers is their smg profile. It should be better in some way like:

    1. Against units in cover at close range

    When in close range against units in cover the "point blank"(at least that is what i call it) mechanic is used which ignores cover completely.

  • #282
    9 months ago

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    @SpajN34 Then don't build as many bunkers? If they had a popcost of 1 you would need to spam them for it to be drastically affecting your army size. The ambulance doesn't receive experience either, and it can't fight anything, yet it costs population.

    Choosing how much of your pop you want locked up in stationary bunkers should be a part of the decision making. In 1v1 it's a non issue cause committing the resources hurts you more. As usual, this changes completely in team games, where bunkers and FPs are spammed far more frequently.

    Then the decision would be ZERO bunkers everytime... why would i pay popcap for a stationary "unit" when a mg42 team does the same thing but i can move it anywhere on the map at any time? Already only noobs build bunkers, concrete bunkers would mean that MAYBE they would be worth it for the first time to build bunkers... add pop cap to them would make them worthless again.

  • #283
    9 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    > @SpajN34 said:
    > @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @SpajN34 Then don't build as many bunkers? If they had a popcost of 1 you would need to spam them for it to be drastically affecting your army size. The ambulance doesn't receive experience either, and it can't fight anything, yet it costs population.
    >
    > Choosing how much of your pop you want locked up in stationary bunkers should be a part of the decision making. In 1v1 it's a non issue cause committing the resources hurts you more. As usual, this changes completely in team games, where bunkers and FPs are spammed far more frequently.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Then the decision would be ZERO bunkers everytime... why would i pay popcap for a stationary "unit" when a mg42 team does the same thing but i can move it anywhere on the map at any time? Already only noobs build bunkers, concrete bunkers would mean that MAYBE they would be worth it for the first time to build bunkers... add pop cap to them would make them worthless again.

    Well, the MG 42 takes more than 1 pop... So there's a reason. The mg42 doesn't spot further than it can shoot, so there is another reason. You can't garrison an mg42 in a pinch, nor can you throw up an mg42 with your grens or pios-you have to build from hq. An MG42 is also almost 2x the MP, so if you have been bleeding over the fuel but secured the munitions there is plenty reason to employ mp saving decisions to help yuu flank. If you think 1 pop is going to crush the use of sensible use of Bunkers, your sadly mistaken.
  • #284
    9 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    > @SpajN34 said:
    > Already only noobs build bunkers, concrete bunkers would mean that MAYBE they would be worth it for the first time to build bunkers...

    Bunkers and FPs are very common in 2v2s where it's easier to defend the investment. You really aren't considering the idea at all, bunkers costing 1 popcap would only prevent a spam. They would hardly make having 1 or 2 of them at a time difficult to afford.

    Why would you want a stationary structure rather than units? Because that stationary structure is still cheaper in every way, and it allows you more flexibility with the units you already have.
  • #285
    9 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 398

    There are things that only Allies complain on Ost bunker, not Axis complain on US fight position, for:
    -bunker is immune to small fire
    -bunker upgrade MG is more than twice faster than fight position
    -bunker has a ridiculous sight that can spot for ATguns nearby

    all of these for 25manpower more
    "worthless"

    I mentioned once that both bunker & fightposition should not have all around sight but only its firing cone like SU85 focus sight, and add their popcap to 1.

  • #286
    9 months ago
    KiethSomataw99KiethSoma… Posts: 58
    edited October 2018

    A few thoughts and ideas:

    Caches: munitions or fuel caches cost 200 manpwer if there are no owned caches on the field, else 250 manpower. This is a compromise between before and after a certain patch and improves counterplay against harrasment and early raids and gives players a slightly better chance to recover.

    Royal Engineers HEAT Grenade: Requires the squad to be equipped with at least one PIAT.

    USF Riflemen: can construct sandbags without defensive operations. Sandbag construction is replaced with barbed wire laying for defensive operations.

    Paratroopers and Fallshrimjaeger: paradrops when outside command territory. When in command territory, arrives by entry point.

    M36 Jackson: cost decreased to 380 manpower, 130 fuel, and 15 pop, health decreased to 560. Returns it to anti-armor support function but only nerfs it to a point between normal and certain patch, a middle ground.

    Unit call ins:
    The cooldown from Osttruppen now applies to all called in units from the beginning or match, not when first available. Mainly affects the 1cp and 2cp units from high resources setting.

    T-34-76 and T-34/85 Ramming:
    Veterancy 1: no longer immobilized, instead suffers heavy engine damage.
    Veterancy 3: chance the main gun destroyed is replaced with crew stunned.
    Makes ramming slightly more appealing for higher level vehicles, because the consequences for the tank are less severe.

    AI changes:
    Volksgrenadiers will use incendiary grenades on clumped up infantry.
    British Infantry sections will construct caches when not actively attacking or capturing.
    Obesoldaten and Jaeger Infantry will booby trap territory points.
    Soviets now call in snipers again.

  • #287
    9 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810

    @KiethSomataw99 said:
    A few thoughts and ideas:

    Caches: munitions or fuel caches cost 200 manpwer if there are no owned caches on the field, else 250 manpower. This is a compromise between before and after a certain patch and improves counterplay against harrasment and early raids and gives players a slightly better chance to recover.

    in the AA Campaign there was an upgrade that mad caches cheaper but allowed them to upgrade to medical stations, which means there is a mechanic to upgrade them in place for a cost... perhaps making a 200mp means to lock down territory and then a 50 (or more idk) upgrade that refines them into resource caches...

    M26 Pershing: Veterancy 1: Improved Acceleration is replaced with vehicle self-repair ability borrowed from the T-70 light tank in the campaign. Cost 60 munitions. For 15 seconds, the Pershing automatically repairs itself over time. Weapons are disabled but movement is not. This increases the unit's survivability as it lacks a crew to disembark.

    pls no...

  • #288
    9 months ago
    pablonanopablonano YesterdayPosts: 2,549

    On my opinion stormtroopers got a more defined job as an unit than overexpensive panzergrenadiers, as now are on my eyes a clear infintration units, and actually not a bad one, for the following reasons:

    Pros:
    -Strong first strike agains support teams, allowing the unit to spawn and whipe out enemy mortars and other support weapons at a good speed thanks for its good cqc dps.
    -There is a reason to spawn them on the backlines appart of supporting an assault, that is hunting and destroying caches.
    -Usable even after the first strike has ended as a flanking unit, ambusher and allow deeper thrust on enemy territory thanks that they can handle the job of capping better than other units.
    -Its flame grenade its a powerfull addition to osthern arsenal.
    Cons:
    -Expensive
    -relying on buildings/ trench construction (something that can not be made on its doctrine and so relying on teammates/enemy mistakes)
    -Apart of disrupting lines, it doesnt really has much to do after spawning on a "non-combat" situation.
    -Lackluster agains garrisoned enemies on first strike.

    Even if i see several pros/cons, the 2 first cons weight a lot on infiltration units, and its cons dont really interfere on what the unit is supposed to do and/or make the unit have limitations in terms of balance.

    The changues made to them means that right now the only infiltration unit that is "problematic" for not say pretty much worthless would be Jagers, that struggle on do any job done besides being glorified grenadiers that, even if they have outstanding veterancy, you are pretty much better with fallschirmjaegers, though on my opinion that doctrine needs an overhaul to the point nobody can even remember of what it was before.

  • #289
    9 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268

    @C3Tooth +1 to everything in that post. I think FPs and Bunkers should only get full sight if units are garrisoned within them.

  • #290
    9 months ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    @C3Tooth +1 to everything in that post. I think FPs and Bunkers should only get full sight if units are garrisoned within them.

    FPs and Bunkers should not be treated the same. When Rear echelon untis garrison FPs, they get FREE infinite nades on top of the mg upgrade. So, werhm bunkers compensates this with full sight. Simple as that.

  • #291
    9 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268

    @vsr said:
    FPs and Bunkers should not be treated the same. When Rear echelon untis garrison FPs, they get FREE infinite nades on top of the mg upgrade. So, werhm bunkers compensates this with full sight. Simple as that.

    That makes no sense at all. Any unit garrisoning a structure should get full sight. You're bringing up rear echelon nades, but not the fact that bunkers are immune to small arms, have 3 different upgrade options, AND they can be built by mainline infantry? Ost "compensates" with plenty of other advantages.

    It's a structure. If you get in the structure, you should get full sight. Simple as that.

  • #292
    9 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 398
    edited October 2018
    • 2 squad of Panzergren or Sturmpion can destroy a fightp without spending ammo, but Allies have to upgrade bazooka, or demolition/sachel to destroy a bunker
    • Alot of time I wasted 125 manpower because fightp upgrade MG is too slow (45sec, compare to bunker 20sec), and destroyed by a pair of Sturmpion before MG upgrade is done

    I dont request bunker/fightp should get full sight when garrisoned, the sight can be as the length as they're now, but only the direction where bunker/fightp shoot, not all around. Do u think its funny that infantry moves far behind a bunker/fightp and they spot the flanking infantry behind them? And talk about bunker's sight make Allies unable to surprise flanking

    My idea on bunker/fightp sight:

  • #293
    9 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    > @vsr said:
    > @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @C3Tooth +1 to everything in that post. I think FPs and Bunkers should only get full sight if units are garrisoned within them.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > FPs and Bunkers should not be treated the same. When Rear echelon untis garrison FPs, they get FREE infinite nades on top of the mg upgrade. So, werhm bunkers compensates this with full sight. Simple as that.

    The nades are not free, they require a 200mp squad bringing the total up to 325mp and 60mu, for nades sure but less Los and isn't bullet proof like the bunker. The nades are criminally underrated but don't pretend pop free scouting and lock down isn't a massive boon
  • #294
    9 months ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @vsr said:
    FPs and Bunkers should not be treated the same. When Rear echelon untis garrison FPs, they get FREE infinite nades on top of the mg upgrade. So, werhm bunkers compensates this with full sight. Simple as that.

    That makes no sense at all. Any unit garrisoning a structure should get full sight. You're bringing up rear echelon nades, but not the fact that bunkers are immune to small arms, have 3 different upgrade options, AND they can be built by mainline infantry? Ost "compensates" with plenty of other advantages.

    It's a structure. If you get in the structure, you should get full sight. Simple as that.

    Well, Ost is a very defensive doc unlike usf and you mentioned the 3 upgrade options, okay they are pretty good (excluding the fact that you need 3 bunkers to fully utilize all the upgrades) but you are forgetting about the usf ambulance! Which has non-AI heal radius, can reinforce and is highly MOBILE. See why ost bunkers are bulletproof? cuz they need to fulfill this non-mobile def role. So it is not wise to compare FPs (more offensive) and bunkers (more defensive), they are designed to fulfill different objectives.

    However, I do agree with your full sight should be available for garrisoned units thought process, yea wouldn't make FPs too much OP but def shouldnt be removed from Ost bunkers.

  • #295
    9 months ago
    Lnk003Lnk003 Posts: 417
    edited October 2018

    Field Recovery Sappers:
    i think the salvage could be copy paste from the okw salvage. I get the limitation because ukf has access to caches while using this commander but unlike okw it's not widely avalaible on most of your squads and to me it feels a bit too restrictive
    currently since you can't salvage abandonned vehicule nor support weapons.

    Valentine:
    In my very personal view, in the short term i think valentine should be an alternative to aec (until aec and bofor aren't exclusive anymore). It comes a bit too late in that perspective.
    It could be worth trying it as buildable instead of call-in and require one tech (aec tech or bofor tech) to delay it a bit.
    Maybe recon sight could get a bit better with vet 2&3

    Concrete bunker:
    As reported by others it's quite tanky and because of that it need a limitation somehow.

    You coud bring pop cap free repair station(s) to Ost by implementing a cheaper version of the okw mechanized truck (passive ability that would allow you to build the truck from hq > cheaper to deploy, obviously no units to build kappa > either repair station already upgraded or cheaper upgrade).

    That would let you free to put a pop cap on the concrete that would only have the mg upgrade then.

    M20/221 balance
    i hope you'll be able to put in scope the m20 cost and perfs because of the 221 and thus the balance between those two units; the 221 is pretty similar but much much accessible.

  • #296
    9 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 398
    edited October 2018

    Are you talking about 'defensive role' on bunkers?
    Total time for FP to complete from building to MGupgrade: 60sec
    Total time for bunker to complete from building to MGupgrade: 35sec
    We can see sometime Ost build bunker right outside Allies base because how fast bunker are setup, but never see USF build FP outside Axis base because USF can not hold 60sec outside OST base, but OST can hold 35sec outside USF base
    This makes bunkers can be used in both defensive & offensive role

    Are you talking about FPs OP?
    FPs do Zero damage on bunkers (at med-long range), yet bunkers can do damage on FPs, this shows how FPs easily to be destroyed
    FPs is too fragile to be a defensive structure, and setup time is too slow to be an offensive structure

    I know you like FPs Rear infinity riflenade, but you said it like every FPs has a Rear squad inside it, how weak 10 bunkers 1500manpower compared to 10 FPs with 10 Rear 3250manpower

    Im an Allies player but im not that Allies bias, Im asking to nerf both FPs & bunkers in los (focus sight) & popcap (1pop)

  • #297
    9 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    > @vsr said:
    > but you are forgetting about the usf ambulance! Which has non-AI heal radius, can reinforce and is highly MOBILE.

    "Highly mobile"? When was the last time you played USF? That thing is slow as shit, dies to small arms so it's not worth using it on the field, and it's ironic that you brought it up because guess what?

    It has a popcost.

    > @vsr said:
    > See why ost bunkers are bulletproof? cuz they need to fulfill this non-mobile def role. So it is not wise to compare FPs (more offensive) and bunkers (more defensive), they are designed to fulfill different objectives.

    What are you talking about? This again, makes zero sense. Bunkers can be built by Grenadiers, FPs only by Rear Echelon. Bunkers are immune to small arms, FPs arent. Ostheer has the best defensive MG in their fucking headquarters, and you are actually asserting they need the bunker more for defense?

    What the hell is offensive about a fighting position? Nothing. I am here saying that both sides should need spotters, with perfectly good reasons. You're here saying it should be different for Ostheer because they need it more, and your reasons are....the US ambulance? Gimme a break
  • #298
    9 months ago

    @thedarkarmadillo said:

    @KiethSomataw99 said:
    A few thoughts and ideas:

    Caches: munitions or fuel caches cost 200 manpwer if there are no owned caches on the field, else 250 manpower. This is a compromise between before and after a certain patch and improves counterplay against harrasment and early raids and gives players a slightly better chance to recover.

    in the AA Campaign there was an upgrade that mad caches cheaper but allowed them to upgrade to medical stations, which means there is a mechanic to upgrade them in place for a cost... perhaps making a 200mp means to lock down territory and then a 50 (or more idk) upgrade that refines them into resource caches...

    M26 Pershing: Veterancy 1: Improved Acceleration is replaced with vehicle self-repair ability borrowed from the T-70 light tank in the campaign. Cost 60 munitions. For 15 seconds, the Pershing automatically repairs itself over time. Weapons are disabled but movement is not. This increases the unit's survivability as it lacks a crew to disembark.

    pls no...

    modified my post, no more pershing change.

  • #299
    9 months ago
    pablonanopablonano YesterdayPosts: 2,549
    edited October 2018

    well, i certainly never understood why FP could be killed with bullets when they are bunchs of dirt, just for the fact it allows 360º shooting on garrisoned units, perhaps was a way of balancing the fact rackettenwerfers couldnt shoot them from safety or that OKW lacked smoke and anykind of anti-structure unit outside of simply go for the stuka or a ineficient leig, but that was back on the days, nowadays they got both smoke and a flamenade that almost oneshots it, so perhaps the FP should get a buff towards its own resilence.

    In fact, and on my opinion, it should allow both .50 and mortars to use it and be able to give the riflenade to all garrisoned units (unless mortars because feels somewhat gimick), lower its price to 100 and add a 50 manpower cost to the mg upgrade or even go mad and lower its price to 75~50 and put a 75~100 manpower cost on the mg, making this positions more used outside of "mg nest in progress".
    And I am not saying this with sarcasm, i do believe it would be nice if all units make use of that riflenade that is just lying around there, so its not as much dependent on rear echelons, which are unreliable on the fight even from such positions, making the structure also see more action for its cheaper building outside just being upgraded.

    Also it would need the trench skill that, upon destruction, all units get out instead of simply banish into the earth.

  • #300
    9 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 398
    edited October 2018

    My new suggestion as:
    Bunker:
    - 150mp to build: time 30sec
    - upgrade time: 30sec (total takes 60sec to finish an MG bunker)
    - 60ammo to MGupgrade
    - health 600 (take 4ATgun shot)
    - immune to small fire
    - far but focus sight
    - popcap 1
    => slow to setup defense but tough, bunker can stay alone on its own

    FPs:
    - 80mp to build: time 15sec
    - upgrade time: 15sec (total takes 30sec to finish setting up FPs)
    - 60ammo to heavy armed-upgrade: add 2 bars & a rifle-nade to garrioned Rear/ or add a rifle-nade to rifleman, remove MG (this make FPs no more ability to pin infantry, which is no more used as a defensive structure. 60ammo without any infantry will make FPs do nothing but like a trench. Beside only vet3 Rear with 5men can access the possibility of 2 picked bars, 2 FPs bars & a rifle-nade)
    - health 340 (take 3ATgun shot)
    - get damaged from small fire
    - no sight
    - popcap 1
    => fast to setup but fragile, Rear need FPs, and FPs need Rear to work.

  • #301
    9 months ago
    Any word on a new update its been 2 weeks since the last one?
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.