COH1 VS COH2 - Feedback Wanted

13»

Comments

  • #62
    2 weeks ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,364
    edited July 5

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    The "Wow" factor. Coh1 delivered stunning graphics for its time combined with great mechanics (cover, suppresion,..) yet remained easy to learn to play.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    What was improved from cheese mechanics of pushing and crushing AT infantry so that they will not fire.

    Tanks fight where not improved in COH2. Things like side armor, different speed for forward and reverse, different ammunition,.... This is a real issue since Tank are far more common than they used to be in COH1

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    The pace. The game was progressing from infantry to vehicles fights much better and the strategical decision of buying tech or making units was far better designed.

    CP abilities and choices where more important and better paced.

    Balance was far better and campaigns where all interesting.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.)
    True sight. Original faction design Soviet and Ostheer.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    The blobs. The game is better when has do deal with smaller number of units.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    The unique design of each faction

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    COH1 suffered allot from units like the kangaroo and from pushing crushing infantry.
    COH2 suffered allot from create allot of contained with fix existing content, many balances where creating OP and UP units while lingering issues where not fixed. For instances the Tellar mine bug took year to fix or EFA units still have almost identical vet bonuses for years

  • #63
    2 weeks ago
    mrpeedmrpeed Posts: 1
    edited July 6

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on:
    1. The faction design (wher & soviets) are very uninspired compared to COH1. This includes mechanics and appearance of units and buildings.

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

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    1. Commander design. I actually like the linear commanders of COH2, but they should have all offered unique units/abilities with no overlap (like COH1). Additionally, they should have all been VERY focused on a particularly strategy. Also, there should not be commanders that offer multiple killer abilities/units. A commander should have at most one strong ability/unit, one to two medium strength abilities/units, and two to three lesser strength ability/units. Soviet Guard Motor commander is an example of bad design: good at everything, no focus, too many killer units/abilities.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    1. True sight, it added a lot more tactical depth.
    2. Infantry vaulting.
    3. Cold tech was cool but misused.
    4. Basically whatever added more tactical depth.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    1. Bulletins, I would like to see something more like DOW3 doctrines. Bulletins fell useless in most cases.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    1. Everything. COH3 should build on and make stronger what COH2 did.

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    1. Balance.
    2. Faction design.
    3. Viability of all commanders.
    4. Blob control.
    5. 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 balance.
    6. Both games need to do a better job at capturing the intensity and grittiness of the battle field. Units in COH look to clean and cartoony... I want to feel the mud, dirt, rust, and blood. The look and feel of both games is still not quite right and much to tame. I believe this can be achieved with better unit animations, a more gritty art style (think Saving Private Ryan), better sound effects, less rag doll physics, etc...
    7. More tactical options - I'd look cover to be reworked to be based on the distance between the attacker and the person being attacked in relation to the actual cover. So you no longer have to be right up against a wall to benefit from it. You can advance smg units for example from cover to cover without taking much damage.
    8. Both games have lacking single player campaigns in my opinion. They seemed secondary to the multiplayer experience. I want something epic and fleshed out with lots of variety like in SC2.
    9. I would like to see more intelligent and challenging enemy AI.
    10. Polish! This is a big one for me. I want the game to look a feel polished. No weird animation bugs, pop in glitches, missing models, sound bugs, etc.
    11. More reactive infantry - I want the infantry in this game to appear as if they are aware of whats going on around them. For example, if a squad is getting shot in front of them but they are out of range to fire, they sit there as if nothing is happening. I want them to look like they know their buddies are being shot. If an artillery shell blows up around an infantry squad I want the squad to react. etc...

  • #64
    2 weeks ago
    luvnestluvnest Posts: 280
    edited July 5

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

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

    Voice Acting, gritty look and feel, campaign

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

    True sight, unit shields in the top right corner, obs mode

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

    commander design way better, DLC business model, campaign, performance

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

    let's just go to the next one because I like everything apart from...

    • If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    the DLC business model, Bulletins, CALLINS way more efficient vs Teching, bad design like Tiger ace (balance?), noob friendly abilities like demo charges and 1click abilities that wipe stuff and vet 5 system. Lack of variety for the Western Front Armies, bad faction design (reused stuff in OKW from OST), bad RNG (abandon feature), penetration & bounces up close

    • What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

    everything apart from ^

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

    Esports, Specmode and Lan from the get go, build for a competitive enviroment while still keeping the the core fun gameplay, factions being able to deal with every sort of situation (anti garrison, indirect fire) -> no faction should be at a disatvantage because of a certain map or a certain timestamp in the middle of a game (e.g. vet 5 vs maxed out vet 3 squads).

    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.?

    campaign and teamgames + compstomps to get into the right mood and athmosphere, and then competitive 1v1 und 2v2 mainly

  • #65
    2 weeks ago
    omar_empomar_emp United Arab EmiratesPosts: 474

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

    the balancing in factions for both automatch and annihilation (specially high resources)

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

    as in gameplay of factions, now factions i feel are much bigger than before they were ,
    as what COH2 didnt deliver the details of every unit, the attention to both annihilation and automatch

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel
    hosting a server layout and server browsing
    unique factions , enjoyable in both automatch and annihilation , campaign

    What you love about COH2 - its best features

    i really liked the arrdennes assault campaign,true sight, vault over cover,smoke.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    1. the kind of pay to win thing.

    1. the not caring of some units exp.( greyhound, recon combat group, the whole recon company,valentine tank).

    3.making a whole faction depend on one or two doctrines only, due to other useless or under performing .

    4.the workshop items that making to start a hosted game takes year which some custom stuff doesn't allow the start of the game or even may crash the host game .

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

    balancing (but its considered more for COH2)
    votekick option would be fantastic for team killers and AFKs

    making a check if host is not AFK for every 15mins

  • #66
    2 weeks ago
    InverseInverse Posts: 1
    edited July 9

    Originally posted January 14, 2014, still relevant three and a half years later...

    I get asked this a lot when I stream, and recent shoutbox conversations have prompted me to sit down and flesh out what exactly I find lacking in the game, and why. I don't bash CoH2 for the sake of bashing it; I've played Company of Heroes for over 5 years, I participated in the CoH2 alpha, beta, and two playtests at Relic's offices. I've talked to developers, engaged in discussions with other top players. I've put a hell of a lot of time into CoH and CoH2 because I want the game to be amazing. But despite all that, I still find it lacking. This is why.

    The biggest thing missing for me in CoH2 is the potential for strategic depth. If you compare vCoH to CoH2 strategically, a lot of it is extremely similar. Both games have factions with four tiers and similar progression through those tiers. The Soviets have to build T1 or T2 before they can build T3/T4, just like the Americans. The Ostheer need to upgrade their HQ in order to build subsequent tiers, just like Wehrmacht. In terms of straight tech progression, both games are extremely alike.

    The big difference, however, comes from global upgrades. Upgrades are interesting because they provide another entirely different layer of strategic depth to a game. When your game has upgrades, you give your players a lot of choices to make.

    Let's generalize things and say you have two infantry units on the field right now. Each infantry unit costs as much as an upgrade for those infantry units that can greatly increase the strength of all infantry units on the field. Therefore, when you have enough money to build another infantry unit, you also have enough money to upgrade your infantry. However, the upgrade takes a long time to complete, and it means you sacrifice an infantry unit in order to complete it.

    In this situation, you as the player have to make a decision. In this instance, it's rather simplistic; it's a binary decision between building a unit and purchasing an upgrade. If you build the unit, your on-field presence will be greater now but diminished in the future. Why? Because you've invested in a unit that gives you function and utility now, at the expense of investing in future tech (the upgrade) that will make your infantry stronger as the game progresses. Alternatively, if you purchase the upgrade, your on-field presence will be weaker now but stronger in the future, because while the upgrade is completing you will have less actual units on the field to do stuff with.

    When you apply this scenario to an actual game, you can fairly clearly see how each decision can have serious implications. If you build the unit and your opponent attacks you right away, that unit pays off immensely because it gives you additional firepower against the attack that you would not have had otherwise. If you build the unit and your opponent techs instead, however, you need to get some use out of the unit (by gaining map control or attacking your opponent yourself) because your opponent is going to be ahead in tech. Conversely, if you purchase the upgrade and your opponent attacks, you will have less units available to defend and could be overrun. If your opponent doesn't attack, however, you've managed to get away with your tech unpunished, and will have superior infantry later on in the game.

    Furthermore, you're never presented with a simple binary choice. There are numerous upgrades that you have to prioritize, balancing those against building units and making sure you have what you need to fend off your enemy's aggression. The more upgrades that are available, the more choices you have to make, and the more difficult it becomes to successfully balance the two facets of the game. It becomes exponentially more difficult to execute successfully, and it gives players a far wider array of viable options.

    You can also base timing attacks on upgrades, since the strongest you as a player are at any point in the game is the moment right after a major upgrade or tech advancement completes. That is the moment you want to attack, because it gives your opponent the least amount of time possible to complete his own tech or field additional units.

    This is the main difference between vCoH and CoH2 in my mind, and the main reason why I don't find CoH2 to be all that interesting a strategy game. In CoH2, you still have to make these decisions to a certain extent. You have to decide between building units out of your current tier or investing time and money into another tier in the hopes that your opponent either won't attack you until that next tier is built or won't have the units necessary to overrun you before the next tier comes online. But that's pretty much where the similarities end. There is a distinct lack of global upgrades in CoH2, and global upgrades are the real catalysts of this important strategic decision-making. There's no purchasable veterancy, no expensive rifle upgrades (only extremely cheap and quick conscript upgrades), no supply yard upgrades, nothing significant and expensive that can be purchased over more units or another tech building. It makes the game feel extremely linear to me. You build a tech building, then build a certain amount of units from that building, then build the next tech building, and so on.

    Relic seems interested in mitigating this to a certain extent with purchasable commanders. The recently added commander that allows for a version of purchasable veterancy is one that comes to mind immediately. This is, in my opinion, a poor way to fix problems that exist in the core game. I shouldn't have to pay money in order to have access to general strategic options, or in order to fix deficiencies in the game I already paid full price for.

    This is my biggest issue with CoH2. Again, it is my opinion, and I am hopeful that future expansions and content releases will be able to fix the issues I described above. But in its current state, this is what I mean when I say CoH2 lacks elements of strategy that were present in vCoH. I'm not saying CoH2 has no strategy, or takes no skill, or any nonsense like that. I just think it is a simplified take on a game that did a remarkable job of striking a balance between the importance of strategic decision-making and the impact of tactical plays. That balance, I feel, does not exist in CoH2.

    https://www.coh2.org/topic/12973/strategy-in-company-of-heroes-2

  • #67
    1 week ago
    IridiumIridium Posts: 1

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

    • I loved the simplicity of the three commanders per faction. In CoH2 you had to much commanders, and some are way to strong.
    • Voice acting was great, on time with great sence of humor! ('Hellooo mister commandooo!')

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

    • Pathing could be much better (CoH2)
    • Something against blobbing (CoH1 &2)
    • Populationcap not locked to owned territory (CoH2)

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

    • The impact of artillery (Explosions, visuals, brutality)
    • The sounds of Nebelwerfers

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

    • TrueSight!
    • The destruction of a lot
    • Skins
    • Bulletins (eventhough they don't make a unit a superhero, i.e.: only a slight buff in % (like -5% supression, +5% accuracy))

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    • The ease of blobbing
    • >20 commanders
    • Blizzards
    • Tanks moving through other tanks
    • Can we cut pathfinding? LOL

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2

    • Placements of individual troops in a squad (smart search for cover, don't stand on top of eachother)

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

    • Standard historical uniforms, symbols, skins
  • #68
    1 week ago
    Kyle_REKyle_RE Posts: 358 admin

    Thank you everyone for your incredible feedback. It was very interesting to read and there are a lot of common themes that we will definitely take note of for the future.

  • #69
    1 week ago
    WarbloodWarblood Posts: 1
    edited July 14

    eliw00d pretty much summed up what I had in mind. I'm more of a mod player in both CoHs, as I really despise the inaccurate skins and models, unit sizes, and the arcade damage mechanics of them: whether its tank boxing matches or MGs that can't hit a darn thing... But with the mods, CoH1 is one of my all-time favorite games, and I jumped on CoH2 when it came out. Needless to say, for a player like me, it was disappointing, even though the damage system and the skins were slightly improved.

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

    -Better modding tools: a good part of what made CoH1 so long-lived was the mods, whether it was the new game modes or the beautiful models that were created by the community. I was extremely disappointed with the way CoH2 handled modding.

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

    -The combat system, in my opinion, was quite lacking.

    -Vehicle and character model inaccuracies: CoH1 had the community fix it. CoH2 didn't (still have the Pz IV J with the H model).

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

    -I really liked the campaigns of CoH1, all of them. I loved the visuals and sounds (especially with what Battle of the Bulge, Blitzkrieg Mod, and Normandy 44 did), I loved the interactions with the different units and the comments they made, I loved the atmosphere of the game.

    -The freedom to create one's own content. I

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

    -The weather feature is nice, and I also like TrueSight.

    -Leaving and recrewing vehicles. I thought this was a nifty addition, especially being able to capture knocked out tanks. Too bad it was used as an exploit in some mods to call in/build additional capped units.

    -Vaulting over obstacles. This is amazing for infantry.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2.

    -The Intel Bulletins: It was extremely irritating to get the same things over and over and over (while waiting for skins)... And they didn't make too much difference to be useful.

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2?

    -I think that, for the most part, the implementation of skins in CoH2 was quite OK - especially with the ability to use the community-made skins.

    -Dynamic weather, TrueSight, vaulting, customizability of skins.

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

    -The rewards system in CoH1 was interesting, but poorly implemented. It could have been utilized for a far more customizable company with different trade-offs - even if only providing choices between the different variants of tanks (e.g. earlier models for faster output for less cost vs. later, improved versions for higher costs and slower output/later access - ofc without anachronisms).

    -Historically correct and models and unit sizes: I really get bummed out when I see a Panther G with an A model and a PzIV H that's actually a J and vice versa. The StuGIV StuH in CoH1 also irritated me, as did the anti-infantry PzIV (could've very easily had a PzIII N to fill in the same role). I'm talking about the Germans, since it's most visible in their units. I know aesthetics don't mean good game-play, but it's the attention to little details as such that really make games shine. And you know what would be amazing and unique (to the extent of my knowledge)? -Vehicle numbers that differ (e.g. no 2 Tiger 101s on the same map).

    -Hit boxes. For a strategy game, I don't think many expect extremely detailed hit boxes; however, some side armor, at the least, would be great - especially for a game like the CoH series, with its emphasis on tactics. Its absence was also what diminished the role of the manual aim feature in Tales of Valor so much.

    -The balance and the constant changes and tweaks that really weren't able to balance out the factions in the end. I used to play mostly 2v2 and 3v3 (with 2 friends) in VCoH1. This was especially prevalent in 1v1 matches, which I did not take part in, but my friends did, and were complaining quite a bit. This, and the aesthetics of the un-modded game put me off PvP in CoH2 - I exclusively play compstomp Spearhead with a friend.

    -As stated above, the god-awful vanilla game mechanics. I know it's about balance and game-play and realism, but I don't think CoH1 or CoH2 managed that balance. Perhaps it could be possible to have a "hardcore" mode like in modern FPSs.

    -Perhaps different periods could be implemented, allowing players to choose during matchmaking (which would radically alter play style).

  • #70
    5 days ago
    RussbucketRussbucket Posts: 1

    Take this post/ response with a bit forgiveness, I am an amateur and this could be shit or gold. I have a little experience with COH1 vs COH2, so here are my thoughts regarding those games. For me I really liked how COH2 made it easier to get into with some gameplay features and especially the UI. I feel like COH2 made it easier for me and friends I convinced to try Company of heroes to get into the game. I really like trueline of sight and vaulting and especially veterancy. I even like the weather and map effects in campaign and custom games, not auto match or competitive. However, like many others, I enjoyed some of the modding content and community from COH1. I also liked the way doctrines were utilized in COH1, though a bit on this later. I have absolutely loved COH2, though there are some areas that I and many others feel need improving.
    The first is the imbalances in team games. 2v2 isn’t bad, but things like rocket artillery make 3v3 and 4v4 make some games ridiculous. Future iterations I feel need to be able to buff/ nerf or restrict units in team games. The abandon mechanic is awful, and I believe should be removed in future iterations. Many people are split on the issue of commanders/ doctrines, but I believe the people that support do so for increased diversity in units and abilities. For this I have an idea, you can decide if it is any good or not. COH3 should be its own game and shouldn’t try and change the formula or suffer the fate of DOW3. That said, it should take notes from other games, specifically Steel Division Normandy 44. I think all units should come from buildings inside the base are, no call-ins, however allow players the diversity to change what units are in those structures before game. In a since create a deck or possible army/ units to be played during a match. I will use Ostheer as an example, keep the HQ, T1, T2,T3, and T4 as usual. In an army-building screen each tier has a possible points available, and specific units have a cost to put into the tier structures. So for example T3 could have the current options of Stug, Ostwind, Panzer 4. However to increase diversity, we could add Stug E, Wespe, Marder, or Hetzer/ flame Hetzer. I can only put a few in my army build, which would be the only ones available in a match. It is up to me the player to make a balanced list, but allows for more diversity and additional content to be made/ sold later. I generally don’t believe in dlc or microtransactions, especially to be competitive (pay-2-win) but think that making these additional units unlockable and paid for would be great. That way people could complete missions, say do 15K damage to enemy vehicles using tank destroyers to unlock the Elefant tank destroyer, or be like me and not have the patience and pay the $2-$5 to get it. This would then change how commanders work, so that you could have few commanders focused more on abilities and off-map support than actual units and hopefully have an easier time balancing the game.
    I also feel every faction should have some of the features, such as all factions should have the ability to snare vehicles, engine crit, build forward operating bases, and emplacements as all did so in real life. These could be implemented through special engineers that are tied to the army building that would build such structures. So that if I am a British player, I can choose to take engineers in my T1 structure that are better at building emplacements, or at mobile warfare and repairing tanks and placing mines. Maybe some would complain that would make the factions similar, and they may have a point. However, with the diversity of vehicles and equipment I think you could still make each faction feel unique while giving more strategic diversity within factions.
    Again, maybe I am an idiot and this is all hogwash………. But maybe it isn’t.

  • #71
    2 days ago

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    -The art direction of CoH 1 was really immersive and realistic.
    -Also Coh 1 had a lot of hidden details like each race had a different system to level their units or that you got command points, that you could assign to a tree rather then unlock them automatically through points.
    -You had requisition points you could capture and provide at least a bit of regain
    -The 4v4 maps in CoH1 were really good in scale as for CoH 2´s are a bit small still.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    -Nice ,dirty feeling about the ostfront with all those unit quotes aka the dark side of the war.
    -An bigger variety of total stuff then Coh1.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    -Had really,really, good campaign story telling in all of them ( Germans, Britons, Americans) (seriously I´m reminded of Band of Brothers every time, when I listen CoH1 soundtrack!!!)
    -Balance was set quiet good.
    - Commanders were, albeit not massively big, really enhancing with their focus.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    -I loved the influence of weather upon the fight. The mud at the eastern front and the sadly gone blizzards gave another feeling to the game
    - The campaign story telling was also really good. Dark side of the war etc.
    - Commanders are an good system, yet some of their abilities and combinations are a bit useless sometimes.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2
    -Nothing actually. An game needs content and not cuts ;)

    What would you want to carry forward from COH2
    -The variety of units, both buildable on-map and off-map.
    - The dynamic cover system
    - The veterancy system with an slight balance factor. If you lose an soldier, your veterancy gets diminished. So you cannot have vet 3 squads bashing like godlike endgame.
    - The commander system to choose with tree s like in coh 1

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

    • Both could have used more units and upgrades into variants of units to increase the variety e.g panzer III with 5cm +upgrade into skirts and 7,5 cm.
    • bigger maps, at least in CoH2
    • more buildable defenses. I´d love to have concrete trenches and bunkers again, alongside 8,8 flak, 2 cm 4x, and diggable trenches like brits in CoH1.
    • CoH2´s commanders with only 5 lots rather then 6 split many commanders in different parts. E.g OKW Luftwaffen doktrin.
      You had Fallschirmjägers and their drop, but also defenses. Unnecessary split.

    I play mostly 4v4 multiplayer with team, albeit some 2v2´s or 3v3 with friends of competitive nature. 1441 h atm

  • #72
    1 day ago
    varunaxvarunax Posts: 8
    edited July 22

    Been playing Company of Heroes off and on since 2006. As a game design and software engineer major here is my 2 cents. The days of this game being a 1v1 game should be thrown out the window completely. It doesn't work and CoH1 and CoH2 has shown that. This is 2017 and CoH has always been about team battles. We don't need to watch esports with 1v1's we need to see 4v4 esport matches. That or create a 1v1/2v2 mode and 3v3/4v4 separately to balance resources accordingly.

    What **CoH1 **did right:

    • It kept the game relatively simple. Units and abilities were easy enough to understand for players.
    • The two main factions US and Wehrmact were relatively balanced with UK and Panzer Elite supporting them.
    • The game was about timing and resource management and not just baseless unit spam.
    • Doctrines were easy to use and understand and they supplemented the factions.
    • Units in the game had a shock factor. Of course this being tied down to the timings again.
    • Great base building and emplacements.
    • Maintained historical accuracy with units and vehicles with how they performed.

    What **CoH2 **did wrong:

    • Based the game around the main factions Red Army vs Osteer. While Oberkommando supported Osteer and vice-versa... the Red Army had little or nothing to work in conjunction with the UKF or USF.
    • Tried to achieve too much with intel bulletins, armies and units. There are too many unnecessary units in the game.
    • Intel bulletins gave variety, but complicated the balance with some strategies being too overpowered.
    • Way too many commanders that are redundant or too similar.
    • Commanders no longer supplemented factions, instead players are completely reliant on commanders for a particular strategy.
    • Some units just had way too many abilities or units tried to fill in multiple roles. Example: Sturm Pioneers are early game harassing, anti-infantry, anti-tank, repair units that construct defensive positions.
    • Dual equipping weapons and having upgrades being different across factions really made no sense. Example, Rifles picking up weapons at base but grenadiers receiving them as upgrades.
    • Preset bases that blocked retreat paths. This was just a terrible idea. Players need to be able to build their own structures.
    • Territory loss is more forgiving compared to CoH1. This allowed players to make huge comebacks despite resource losses.
    • Did not maintain historical accuracy with some units or vehicles. For example, King Tigers, Jadg Tigers and Elephants were almost never seen yet they're commonly used in CoH2.
    • Some unit veterancy was too powerful, especially with Oberkommando.

    Summary:

    CoH1 kept it simple and easy to understand. While there were many things improved in CoH2, it introduced a plethora of design changes that tried to achieve way too much. Too many commanders that lost their uses as the meta game changed and rewarded bad players for spamming. Every faction did not need artillery units and that should have been tied down to commanders like in CoH1.

  • #73
    1 day ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 353
    edited July 22

    @varunax said:

    • Did not maintain historical accuracy with some units or vehicles. For example, King Tigers, Jadg Tigers and Elephants were almost never seen yet they're commonly used in CoH2.

    I don't really like this mindset. Those tanks were seen, participated in big battles and had big impacts per tank in the battles they took place in. I'm not sure how they were divided between companies/battalions etc but they weren't completely rare. Somewhere between Uncommon (infrequent) and Rare. I don't agree having easy access (like in teching or something) to them but...

    The game does a good job making them feel 'uncommon' with the commander system, which is a clever way of doing it. I understand team games are different but it still applies relatively. Just everyone wants them, for good reason. No idea why you included the KT in that list of yours though. They were built in impressive numbers under the conditions present.

    Why not include Pershings (20... were sent and engaged in combat before VE day, the other 290 arrived after) Comets (did see combat but did not participate in any big battles at all. Spent all its time cruising the autobahn) then?

    They were more rare than the aforementioned above. The odd choice that where there's easy access to is the Ostwind. But if you imagine it's just a Wirbelwind it's slightly more believable. I wonder how many Centaur varients of the Cromwell tank existed. I doubt it was anymore.

    p.s The Hetzer as a flamerthrower tank does baffle the mind.

  • #74
    17 hours ago
    varunaxvarunax Posts: 8
    edited July 22

    >

    The game does a good job making them feel 'uncommon' with the commander system, which is a clever way of doing it. I understand team games are different but it still applies relatively. Just everyone wants them, for good reason. No idea why you included the KT in that list of yours though. They were built in impressive numbers under the conditions present.

    Why not include Pershings (20... were sent and engaged in combat before VE day, the other 290 arrived after) Comets (did see combat but did not participate in any big battles at all. Spent all its time cruising the autobahn) then?

    CoH1 did it right. They tied down heavy tanks to super late game. The King Tiger and Pershing in CoH1 were barely seen in the metagame because of how late they came out. Even if you did see them, people just quit the game because it was an auto loss if your opponents got them out unless you were in team games.

    In CoH2, tanks like the Jadg Tiger and Elephant are standard play to counter Allied tanks. If you want to keep the game relatively balanced around historical accuracy (which they stated) then this should be changed. I wouldn't have a problem if they weren't going for "historical" accuracy. Also, you're wrong about the KT being built in impressive numbers. About 500 were built. Compare that with 1,300 Tigers, 6,000 Panthers or 8,000 Panzer IV's. Total it up and KT's made up only 3% of the tank force.

    The Pershing and Comet are understandable in why they're in the game. US and Brits have no heavy tanks in the first place, but the most important part is that tanks like the Pershing have famous footage of knocking out Panthers. You seriously can't leave this tank out considering it is a huge part of American history despite being built rarely. Other tanks don't have the same kind of stories. The M24 Chaffee was also introduced around the same time the M26 was, but you don't see that in the game because there's no reason for it.

    Flaming Hetzer was just bad design choice.

    Anyway, not here to argue about historical accuracy, balance or whatever. This is an opinion thread.

  • #75
    5 hours ago
    A_EA_E Posts: 63

    My views in video form:

13»
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.