COH1 VS COH2 - Feedback Wanted

13»

Comments

  • #62
    2 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,404
    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 months 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 months ago
    luvnestluvnest Posts: 282
    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 months ago
    omar_empomar_emp United Arab EmiratesPosts: 475

    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 months 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
    2 months 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
    2 months ago
    Kyle_REKyle_RE Posts: 393 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
    2 months 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
    2 months 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 months 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
    2 months 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
    2 months ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 369
    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
    2 months 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
    2 months ago
    A_EA_E Posts: 66

    My views in video form:

  • #76
    2 months ago
    mcmaha1mcmaha1 Posts: 1

    Before I start, I mainly played campaigns and comp-stomp, but I did so extensively for several hundred hours both games. My comments will therefore not address in any way the game balance with the exception of the changes to game balance and my perception of them. I usually pay a lot of attention to presentation, so I will comment heavily on it.

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    To begin with, Company of Heroes 1 had three outstanding campaigns which were the Invasion of Normandy, Liberation of Caen and Operation Market Garden. The Tales of Valor ones, in my opinion, were not challenging and too brief although their stories were interesting. Company of Heroes 2 campaign, much like Dawn of War 3 campaign suffers from scripting actually. Very little actually happens in most missions and they often boil down to "clear the map". Each CoH1 mission felt like a unique struggle with its own challenges, adversaries and tools. I would like to highlight the Sottevast and Carentan missions. Each mission had a story to tell. CoH2 failed in two ways, the missions were very samey, particularly towards the end, and the storytelling fell flat, which is a huge shame since the Eastern Front has a story well worth telling. I take issue with the delivery and the 2D characters than the actual setting. Company of Heroes 1 missions in a way made you feel like a part of a bigger picture, where Company of Heroes 2 made me feel like I was playing a reduced version of a real life event. For example, in Red Ball Express mission, when the Panzer IVs arrive, it felt like a new and unpredictable development in what appeared to be a pretty straightforward mission. Company of Heroes 2 doesn't surprise much after the initial goal is given. I remember reaching the end of some missions and thinking "that's it?". Likewise, the scripting, when it does happen, feels artificial and forced, like in the last mission when the Tiger tanks spawn and while they could've been a bigger event earlier in the mission, at the end it just feels like an artificial prolongation of a mission about to end.

    So to recap; in CoH1, better pacing, scripting and delivery result in missions which are each unique, challenging and evolving, whereas in CoH2 the missions are often reduced to clear the map. I think the exceptions are the Moscow defense mission (which I think could've lasted longer and actually ended very abruptly) and the partisan snipers mission. For example, in CoH1, even the Vierville mission which seems like a simple "clear the map mission" spawns units in inconvenient places and ends with a pretty cool bang.

    What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver
    I think CoH1 obviously lacked the other fronts. CoH2 did the right thing by adding the Eastern Front. However, I feel that the Red Army never had a real feel of its own. I felt like it was a bizzare reskin of the US from Company of Heroes 1. To an extent, I feel like all the unit dialogues could've been more imaginative to immerse the player more into their faction. As a matter of fact, I feel like the only faction in CoH2 which got real justice for unit dialogue were the British. For the others, it really varies depending on the unit. "We ate the horse, remember." stands out as a very cool line. So, I think Company of Heroes 2 went in the right direction, but didn't quite give something different enough.

    Actually, on a sidenote, I feel like there is a huge missed opportunity in dealing with factions from the early war. A glimpse of that is seen in the 1941 missions with different rosters, but I feel like focusing a game on the earlier war would allow addition of French, Polish, Italian and Japanese factions which would be more toe-to-toe with one another.

    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)
    Actually, CoH1 is a game which was evidently made with a lot of love for the source material. The attention to detail, each unit has a role (in COH2 sometimes they overlap or are left unfilled for some factions), the soundtrack which creates a powerful atmosphere, the unit lines, the wonderful maps and environment destruction, the intense campaigns. In short, everything.

    What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be
    I play CoH2 more often that CoH1 nowadays simply because I love the roster of factions. I like the 5 factions. I like that this game is almost Age of Empires for WW2. TrueSight and winter mechanics are both additions which make it difficult to play CoH1 again. Particularly the ice. I think that all the factions except the Red Army feel quite unique. Red Army, again, feels like there was a lot of untapped potential, particularly with regards to NKVD commissars and retreat mechanics.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2 and what would you wnat to carry forward from COH2?
    I think the intel bulletins, skins and commanders are some of the biggest missed features of CoH2. I like elements of them, but I think they don't go far enough in terms of imagination. Therefore they come across as useless or unfinished. For example, the intel bulletins should be one per unit. Rather than have 10 bulletins for grenadiers, why not just have 1? It can give them boost to accuracy and reload rate for example, or spawn them with rank 1 or something. I leave the balancing to others. The commanders actually felt like a step backwards from the CoH1 doctrines. While the abilities were cool and varied, I found that many didn't define my playstyle drastically as compared to CoH1 doctrines. I noticed that with newer expansions that changed, but the Soviet and Wehrmacht commanders are definitely not varied enough. I would also recommend that all abilities be unique to a single commander. In that sense, each commander offers a unique set of tools. The abilities should also be more than 5, and they should complement each other like the US paratrooper doctrine in CoH1. Therefore, these things I feel ended up not living up their potential whilst also not really improving on the predecessor.

    Next, Theater of War missions. I think the best missions were the coop ones and I would only recommend keeping them to develop new and wild coop scenarios. I didn't like the whole specialized skirmish idea, but the Voronezh and Stalin encirclement missions were a line of thinking that should be continued. Giving players asymmetric roles and forcing them to cooperate created some of my most memorable CoH2 moments.

    I need to complement Relic however on their amazing campaign maps. I always love just looking at the maps. Each feels very unique. However, I think Relic should keep some of the more asymmetric maps for comp stomp. I understand they can't be used for multiplayer, but I do think skirmish is very inviting for such maps.

    Oh also, even though both games had excellent soundtracks, the second game sometimes almost hides its amazing soundtrack. I had to put the Music louder to anything else to actually notice it. I think this is a shame simply because the soundtrack for both Western and Eastern Front is great, but in the noise of battle just doesn't come through on default settings. It's a shame since CoH1 was a lot more out there with its soundtracks, particularly since each FACTION had its own tunes written by Jeremy Soule, Inon Zur and Ian Livingstone (who did a spectacular job for the British).

    Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?
    I think CoH2 has had a very challenging existence and here I need to both compliment and criticize Relic. I think CoH2 has come a long way since the launch and is a really fun game to play, but the constant changes to the unit roles and abilities has also made it a game which can be inconsistent and changing overnight. Can you call in more than one Tiger II? Should Penals have PTRS rifles or flamethrowers? These questions need to be answered in design phase before launch, not afterwards. I like the game, but the changes have sometimes been frustrating. I think a lot of the concepts never fully matures, like the bulletins, commanders and skins (why do we have to buy separate winter and summer skins now that all of them are available in both summer and winter????). This shows in the game because a lot of elements struggle to explain their existence.

    I think Relic needs to work hard on its campaigns. Dawn of War 3 also had the "clear the map" syndrome. I recently revisited CoH1 and was reminded how exhilarating each mission feels. I like the Ardennes Assault approach, but while it makes for a fun set of missions, it is harder to tell a story in such a way. It partially succeeds however with the after-mission debriefs. However, even there some missions suffer from clear the map, like the one with IR searchlights.

    Finally, as mentioned earlier, I think early war offers a possibility for a wider inclusion of factions. I think the Pacific Theater ('41-'41 Philippines, Malaya, even China maybe) offers a reasonable challenge for environment interaction such as monsoons, jungles, maybe even close quarters combat, camouflage, etc. It goes without saying that North Africa and deserts are also a possibility. There is plenty of room for new possibilities, however, it needs to be done the way CoH1 was done. Attention to detail and passion seeping from every element. CoH2 often doesn't feel like that. CoH2 often feels like a near-great game, but one which doesn't quite have the bold brash confidence of CoH1. It feels like a game which was made after launch, rather than before it.

    Thank you for reading, hope this helps.

  • #77
    1 month ago
    FanaticFanatic Posts: 12

    What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
    What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)

    I will answer these two questions in the same section since my answers to both would be similar.

    In CoH1 the players population cap was tied to the number of sectors the player had captured and connected to his base. I consider this a way more interesting, dynamic and rewarding approach then simply giving a player always 100 regardless of the situation.

    CoH1´s factions do distinct from each other way more than CoH2 faction do. Each faction is different. As an example, i will compare two factions: US (Army) and WH (Wehrmacht). US has a high potential and a need for playing an aggressive early game since this faction has access to a powerful and very mobile infantry unit, which does the most damage in close combat. Going to close combat means playing mobile and aggressive. US must earn it´s veteran status by killing stuff, US hast to pay more upkeep for it´s units and has their fore a lesser income. Usually the US player dictates the mid game by his tech choice. The late game units, especially the tanks, aren´t that powerful compared to it´s counterparts. In this game phase, it´s more about your elite units and superior numbers. Earning veterancy, collection resources and dominating the early and mid-game is crucial for this faction because the longer the games last, the stronger other factions tend to get. WH is more defensive. It´s default infantry unit is cheaper but does less damage while moving to due the type of weapon they use. Additionally, you can use an MG, which has a set up time and a limited fire angle but can effectively pin units. The unit composition alone forces you to pay more attention regarding your unit positioning. You will never be as mobile as the US player is. You must pay less income and will have a higher upkeep which allows you to compensate loses more easily. Their fore you tend to play more passive and defensive in the early game. You will most likely play more reactive when it comes to a teching up in the mid game. But the longer the game lasts the stronger you get: You can simply purchase your veterancy. You chose whatever you need. But this comes with a price. You will have to infest fuel, your main tech resource. So, there is decision to make. Do you want more effective units or more advanced ones? These are simply examples. There is way more diversity in CoH1. And this is brilliant. CoH2 comes no way near this.

    CoH1 feels like you got control over the game. Yes, there is RNG involved and this is important because a 100% deterministic game is boring and due to this RNG you will from time to time you lose a whole unit because of RNG but in 99% of all cases you can totally say in beforehand how certain situations will turn out. And this is crucial. A player needs to have an influence in about all situations, a chance to turn the tides to his favor based on these actions. There is nothing more frustrating than getting punished without being able to do something about it. I am not talking about situation where you got out played by a better player. I am talking about situations like unit A is shooting at unit B and killing it with one shot. Mines and demo charges killing whole squads. If unit A just kills 3 out of 4 men from unit B at best (but not always) so you got a chance to retreat you as player have a chance, it feels fair. Same goes for the mines, let at least one man survive in 99% of the cases and the 1% is okay, yes you will be mad in the situation but it´s so rare and you know this and it is okay at the end of the day. And this is the feeling you got in CoH1 but not in CoH2.

    The base buildings in CoH1 do look better than the CoH2 one´s and the feature more and better animations. Especially Ostheer and Soviet buildings simply do look terrible and got about no animation. The look like some sort of log cabin in muddy hole or trench. CoH1´s base buildings on the other hand got some animations and this animation change while the building is productioning a new unit. Take the Storm armory as an example: There is curtain fluttering at the entrance and sparks flying around, it really looks and feels like someone is doing some serious work in there. That’s beautiful and offers a direct visual feedback about the buildings status as well.

    Some things are better visually displayed in CoH1 then in CoH2. Take firefights as an example. It´s way more obvious which units are shooting at each other in CoH1 then it is in CoH2. Same goes for artillery barrages, their visual effect in CoH2 is very subtle. Too subtle. Also mines. It is so hard to spot them even if you have exposed them. The reasons are the missing health bar when selecting them (CoH1 shows one, CoH2 doesn´t) and the map ground textures.

    Talking about the visual appearance. I do prefer CoH1´s art style over CoH2´s. CoH2 looks very color full and comic like while CoH1´s colors are "colder", darker and the whole art style is more realistic. This fits the setting more and i like this style more.

    Modding. CoH1 is infinitely ahead of CoH2 when it comes to modding the game. You can not only alter tank skins but about all skins in the game. You can add new models. Total conversion mods can be created. Mods do extend a games life cycle. Take a look at CoH1´s rich mod portfolio, the Bethesda games or Warcraft, which ultimately created new genre of games.

    I like CoH1s mine play more than the one CoH2 implemented. The idea is that mines don´t kill (infantry) units. They slow them down by pinning the to the ground and they do deal a certain amount of damage. And this is interesting. It allows you to defend your territory and prevent flanking. As for tanks, they usually receive a critical so that one module (Tracks or the Motor) gets damaged. This is both realistic and interesting gameplaywise. In CoH2 mines simply kill units. That’s it. Effective, no doubt about that, but also sort of frustrating. Also in CoH1 you can destroy a mine by shooting at it with about every weapon if you know its position. That’s cool. You can´t do this in CoH2.

    I consider the Essence 1.0 engine superior to the Essence 3.0 engine. Sure, CoH1 also had a lot of issue when it was released, it was very demanding in matters of the hardware required in relation to the time the game came out and it took years to stabilize the game but at all CoH 1 runs more smoothly then CoH2 does. Also, the relation between hardware requirements and the graphic is way better in CoH1 then it is in CoH2. And CoH2 still has serious performance issues So optimization and performance is very important. CoH1 was better in this perspective.

    Apart from CoH2 being more RNG based, the tendency of infantry models to cluster together and the impression, that the game is sort of not as responsive as CoH1 was there is one other very important thing: Retreat modifiers. At the end of the day retreat does not protect a unity as much in CoH2 then it did in CoH1. And this is important. If units receive a reasonable protection by a modifier on retreat this has a huge impact on the game. You will have the chance to play more aggressive, try to flank the enemy and take risk. In the retrospective i do agree: It was bit too much in CoH1. But In CoH2 the retreat modification totally insufficient. This leads to a more passive gameplay, because flaking is too risky and general speaking you try to avoid every risk. Give the players the opportunity to play aggressive and reward them for it.

    CoH1s doctrine > CoH2s commander. CoH1s doctrine are a tree with two branches. So, you must make decisions. Which abilities on which side do you choose one after another? Such a decision does not exist in CoH2. You chose a commander and that’s it. Furthermore, CoH1s doctrine did feature six abilities’ while CoH2s commander just have five. So, doctrines are superior in every aspect. Bring them back please. You even want to and more like a third branch or more ability’s.

    Then there is the resource system and call-in problematic in CoH2: People tend to go for the call-in and ignore the regular tech. This reduces the amount of potential strategies drastically. This was pretty much never an issue in CoH1 (and this while call-ins don´t cost any tech-resource (fuel) in CoH1!). Recently there were attempts to fix this by tying the call-in to a certain tech level. While this might work it´s still a crude fix, not a proper tech system. The reasons for this being an issue are complex. It´s the whole tech tree, unit cost, the pop cap system, the resource system and the way the units work. Due to the more random focused CoH2 battle system you want versatile and hard to kill units which allow you to gain some sort of control of what’s happening. All this leads to a call-in focus game. Call-ins are supposed to be an extension of you regular army brought to you by your doctrine. This works in CoH1, more or less at least. But it does work better in CoH1 then it is working in CoH2.

    Resource system, that is another thing. Again, I prefer the CoH1 system. The core resources are manpower, ammunition and fuel. You need manpower for about everything you do, be it building a new unit or teching up. The more units you got the less manpower income you will have. The more valuably and advantage (in matters of capability’s) a unit is the more it does reduce the manpower income. Each model has an upkeep cost (yes, each model, this includes infantry model, not the whole unit), but there is an allowance. As long as you don´t reach a certain pop cap level you don’t have to play upkeep. There is basic manpower income which you can increase by capturing more sectors. Ammunition is the resource for all kind of unit specific upgrades and special ability’s while fuel is, in combination with manpower, the main tech resource. This system is very robust and there are so many chances to interfere with global upgrades and stuff. But sadly, CoH2 did not make use of this possibility’s. It took the CoH1 system and made and simpler. Make the sectors as distinct as possible. In CoH2 about every sector offers an income for all kind if resources. That’s bad because what we want is more decisions and more options: Should I cap ammunition focuses to use more ability’s or more fuel heavy so I can tech up faster? These decisions are there in CoH2 as well but they are way more present in CoH1 because the resource points more diverse.

    Then there is the barbwire and sand back thing. The CoH1 mechanic was easy to use and worked well. I don’t understand why it was chanced in CoH2. Just to distinct the factions on this point as well? My point is barbwire and sand back are a constant source of problems in CoH2. Like the ghost sand back or ghost wire. Not every unit needs the ability to build these things. Even if these objects do look a bit different from faction to faction. Sand backs promote a passive gameplay because you must sit behind them to make use of them. Relics trend to unify things did not made CoH2 a better game in general but when it comes to mines, sand backs and wire you can walk this way and the game will benefit from it. Keep in mind: Give the ability to construct such objects to specialist units like pioneers and to the defensive orientated faction.

    Also important is how much damage units deal while moving, especially while moving away from the enemy. When a unit moves away from another unit in CoH2 it deals about no damage to the other unit. This makes chancing your position an unpopular decision and it promotes, once again, static gameplay. At least the more aggressive faction should have the ability to deal some damage even when moving away.

    Please bring back the target table and unit type system from CoH2. This system allows are very fine balance by giving the chance to define a weapons damage versus each type of unit and each unit in the game. This is a balance designer’s heaven. CoH2 sacrificed this system to make the implementation of DLCs easier. Please, please bring it back in CoH3.

    I like to see the CoH1 Lobby in the state before the game moved to steam in a future CoH Title. You can name the lobby however you want, you can close slots, you can play annihilation or with tickets, you can choose fixed or random positions, you can set a password for your game, you can play versus other players, versus the AI or mix both up.

    About building units in the base, I prefer the CoH1 way. Better animated buildings and producing the units in the base and let them spawn next to the base buildings. I just like it more this way. Otherwise the base building feel kind of useless.

    The Interface / hud, CoH1 one´s is way better. Please make a tap orientated again. Create a clear visual boundary between two sectors (Each sector has a line, which represents the sector border. So, when to borders meet there are two lines next to each other, that’s it. Simple, clean and clear. CoH2´s System is so confusing). Please just display the necessary information’s. In CoH2 there is constantly something blinking or flashing on the map. That’s so confusing, sometimes you can’t even see our unit’s due to this. The mini map is something which shows Relic competence. There is a constant advancement and there is no other game or company I know which is so progressive in this matter but please, slow down a bit. Less is more sometimes, you know. Take the unit badges as an example. The take so much space on the mini map but there is no benefit. The information I need is that one of my units is next to an enemy unit. This means I must jump there and check the situation. The only thing I need to know additionally is what type of unit I and the enemy got. For example: A tank is represented as triangle (the tip shows where it is facing), a building (a square) or infantry (a dot). Keep it simple.

    CoH1s voice acting was better. There were more iconic speech lines, some very funny. I remember a lot of them. There is nothing like this in CoH2, sadly.

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

    There is one thing I like about CoH2´s mini map. You can issue orders for unit’s whiteout opening the maxi map by using the mini map. That’s create and a nice improvement.

    Some explosions and smoke does look a little bit better than similar effects in CoH2.

    I like the capture zone idea, which allows more unit to capture points (for example anti-Tank guns).

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

    Everything mentioned under the point “What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver”.

    The replay function is better in CoH2 then it was in CoH1. I like the clear display of resources, units and the players ability’s.

    I like the World War 2 setting. Please don’t chance this.

    Vaulting is nice. But units should do it automatically as a part of finding the optimal way to their destination.

    The balance is made based on 1v1, keep this at it is.

    TrueSight. Took me a while but keep it.

    If you could, what you would cut from COH2

    Basically, everything mentioned below the points “What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on” and “What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)”.

    Odd animations and strange Ragdoll effects. Take a closer look how dead bodies or weapons react when the hit another object. They are spinning around, moving for no reason. This really destroys the atmosphere.

    Cold tech and mud. Both add nothing positive but a lot of negative aspects to the gameplay and the game performance. Let’s say there is winter map with a frozen river. Soon after explosive weapons hit the field this river becomes a prohibited area. You simply can’t risk losing a unit due to a random explosion which causes the ice to crack and will kill your units. Deep snow is also a bad thing. It slows your unit down, they freeze, sometimes they even sort of get stuck. I once had this with a retreating unit. It got stuck but was still on retreat so i could do nothing but watching the units dying. And when one of these Blizzards hit the battlefield you will experience a drastic frame rate drop and a slowing down of the gameplay to a point where you don nothing more but waiting for the storm to and. It´s just contra productive. Slowly removing these mechanics from ranked games was on of the best decisions Relic ever made regarding CoH2. Please don’t bring it back.

    No more mixed up queue for 2 v 2 with random mate and 2 v 2 with arranged teams. I loved both mode in CoH1, i played them a lot and successful. One-day people in CoH1 learned that it is possible to play as a team in 2v2 random. This was pretty much the dead of 2 v 2 random. And then CoH2 came up with the idea to do this on purpose. When to players who know each other, who maybe use a voice chat, who talk about their strategy before the match face two random guys who never talk to each other, one maybe not being able to speak English it’s obvious how this will turn out. I prefer to wait 5 minutes over being forced to play 2 v 2 or any other mode like this. This is one of the reasons why I stop playing CoH2.

    Cut War spoils and intelligence Bulletins form the game. intelligence Bulletins offer such little boni, especially since they don’t stack anymore, that they are irrelevant anyway.

    Cut the current veterancy system. I consider the fact that a unit earns veterancy just be receiving damage a mistake. A unit should have to earn her veterancy by killing stuff. Plus CoH1´s veterancy system was way more complex than the CoH2 system is. Every faction had it´s very own veterancy system. So, it was more different and this is a good thing.

    The combination of explosive weapons and close together standing infantry.

    The call-in mechanic. Not general but in their current form.

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

    Map design. This was always a weak spot in every Relic game I know. You got brilliant ideas and game mechanics but the maps just don´t fit to this mechanics. When it comes to completive play I would like to see symmetric maps which offer identical options and chances for both players.

    I would like to see and improved path-finding. This is also an issue in about every Relic game, sadly. In CoH2 some units (like the PE Panther) had an excellent pathing. Others had a terrible one. In CoH2 all are about even but not good. I consider things like the brake a workaround. Please fix this workaround in the next Relic game.

    The campaigns are, again, a thing Relic struggles with. None of the campaigns in any Relic game where remarkable and rememberable. No idea, maybe try to find other writers? A German single player campaign would be a nice thing.

    More Player versus Environment / Coop would be cool. I did enjoy the Last Stand arena Hero fights in Dawn of War II. It does not fit that well in a franchise like CoH but who cares, it’s fun. There are maps / mods for CoH2 (maps mod) which implement different PvE Scenarios. Something like that would be cool.

    An anti-blobbing mechanic would be nice. Something like an increased incoming accuracy which gets more and more the more units stand next to each other.

    Please involve the very best 1v1 players right from the start when it comes to the balance. No offense but these guys often no better how the game is played then a developer does. This makes their input extremely valuable. Mix it up with well-known persons from the community like people who organize tournaments, streamer, YouTuber and so on and you will get a valid balance feedback.

    To see snipers in a future CoH would be cool. I think the add a lot to the game but they need to be handled carefully so that they don’t become to strong and dominant like they were in CoH1.

    A Problem both CoH games, and many other RTS games as well, have is the late game. Due to the very uncompromising rock-scissor-stone mechanic, who leaves Infantry without a special equipment without a chance to deal damage to a tank, tanks become one of the dominating units in the late game while infantry, at least without experience, has about not chance to do anything but dying. This sort of limits the options in the late game and i like to see more diversity regarding this. It's a way bigger issue for CoH2 then it is for CoH1, though. Most likely because CoH2 seems to have a bigger RNG part then CoH1 has.

    I already mentioned it. I would like to see more macro management / tech options or general speaking more decisions on this level. CoH2 is way more micro focused. Each unit has some sort of ability. But only the very best players can make use of all this ability’s because you need a very good micro management to do so and not many people have that. Macro management is another thing, though. A upgrade is just one click, that’s easy. But the impact is huge and the more different strategies I can make use of the better. The game mechanics offer a lot of different ways for global upgrades like weapon upgrades, veteran upgrades, upgrades that influence the resource income / upkeep and so on.

    Integrate a CoH1 style ladder right from the begin. This ladder should be accessible in-game and on a website.

  • #78
    1 month ago
    GrenadierIT19Grenadier… ItalyPosts: 566

    @Kyle_RE ha detto:
    Hey everyone,
    Thanks!

    To me there's no question, CoH2 is better than CoH1, not in every field but in most, I believe that CoH2 is CoH1's son that is getting mature and still has to learn something from his father:
    1) CoH1 was better than CoH2 in "moddability" (don't know if it can be called this way but I guess it's easy to understand) and also some features like Medics rescuing wounded soldiers on the battlefield and the other skirmish conditions and not only a Victory Points or Annihilation.

    2) Don't know really because I believe that CoH1 has made history and should remain how it is today, I don't think that changing something is necessary, it's ok as it is now because it was meant that way and it was successful. Instead, CoH2 that is relatively new, still in development (I suppose), is the guy which needs to learn something from its predecessor to become even better.

    3) What made CoH1 great was that big difference there was between it and the other games, I believe that most of its success was due to that and also its great features such as awesome campaigns, well designed factions and a very enjoyable gameplay.

    4) CoH2 for me is better than CoH1 in many ways: factions design, a nice campaign but the story could have been better made, maybe not so dramatic even though the eastern front was everything but not a very happy place to be. The TrueSight works well and the idea of the Commanders is great, honestly I prefer the Commanders than CoH1's doctrines, or at least because CoH1 doctrines were few compared to the great amount of commanders, it just added more variety.
    I love its skins, HUD, UIs, music and sounds.

    5) I wouldn't cut anything, just remove some useless soviet and ostheer commanders that more or less are the same or a nerfed version of another, WFA and British Forces commanders are ok: few but very different from each other than EFA's commanders.

    6) a british campaign surely; also new factions like Italy/Japan/Commonwealth Nations/whatever you want to bring CoH2, new fronts such as the Mediterranean, East Africa, Balkans and Pacific theater. I strongly believe that factions, campaigns and ToW are what really make a game better.

    Yeah, ToW do you still remember that very nice thing you made? That is fantastic for any kind of player, both singleplayer and multiplayer players that makes you cover parts of the war that haven't been focused in the campaign, for example the Battle of France and Kursk.

    I believe that those things not only could improve CoH2 but also appeal new players who only want to play singleplayer and/or multiplayer

    7) I believe that both had few factions, CoH1 only had 4 factions while CoH2 only 5, which are not so many (balance aside)

    I primarily play teamgames (2v2, 3v3, 4v4) both ranked or comp stomps, I'm really a noob at fighting alone :smile: , I prefer to have a mate, in Italy we say "Strenght in Unity", jokes aside, yeah I suck when I play 1vs1 usually.

    I'm not that really interested in tournaments, I just want to play when I want, just for having fun.

    And about balance, the game now is way better than before, I remember those months after WFA when OKW meant victory, a game with factions having a different design of course means some problems balancing each one and adding new factions might cause new problems but really, would you prefer having 6 different or identical factions that only change in skins, voices and name of the units? It surely would make it easier to add factions but I'm sure it wouldn't be so funny to play.

  • #79
    3 weeks ago
    NiftyNifty Posts: 1

    Forum appeared to eat my original post?

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

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

      • comparing COH1 and COH2 I'd say that COH1 combat was a bit less lethal which I preferred. I'm not an amazing player but I do have hundreds of hours played and it still frustrates me that I can look away from a full health squad to micro something else and in that second I lose the squad. I'm trying to do the right thing by having units spread out and managing multiple engagements but I don't have top 1,000 micro so I feel like I would be better off by blobbing so that I can keep an eye on all my units.
    3. What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)

      • COH1 is the best campaign of any RTS I have played, combat was more forgiving of mistakes while still rewarding good positioning, composition, and flanks.
      • balance felt better, maybe not for brit or PE though
    4. What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be

      • Area capping, truesight, and vaulting. Plus all the other little QoL stuff like better UI, reverse, handbrake etc.
    5. If you could, what you would cut from COH2

      • vehicle abandon. It just causes too much of a 100% random massive swing.
      • bulletins, I think there might only be a couple which make an actual perceivable difference, most players just stack three infantry bulletins and call it a day, making them more meaningful would be to make them more powerful which would add more balancing headaches which the series does not need
      • doctrinal call in units, especially heavies
      • coldtech, deep snow
      • The case blue missions etc which restricted your tech. Custom co-op scenarios are cool, but when they don't use the normal tech tree they seem a bit off.
      • one hit squad wipes. Nobody should be punished for micromanaging multiple engagements. A squad should not be able to go from 100% to dead in a second, I'm looking at demo charges, various OP nades, mortars and arty. Knock a squad down to one model by all means but you should only get the wipe if you follow up your one-click with another element.
      • vehicle crushes are cheesy. Vehicles should not be able to crush units unless they are suppressed.
    6. What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

      • Everything it did well obviously, it is a shame I feel like I need to say it but RETREAT/REINFORCE MECHANIC - based on what happened with DOW3 let's make sure the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater. If this is a survey for COH3 or something similar then do not make the mistake of starting from COH1 and ignoring everything COH2 did so well.
    7. Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

      • Vaulting could be a bit more intelligent and work automatically, especially if a squad needs to move to the other side of a wall to be in cover, this should just happen unless overridden
      • The tactical map could be more useful, Ashes of the Singularity does this quite well
    8. We'd also love to hear what your favorite way to play either game is. Do you play mainly team games, competitive 1v1, competitively or casually, comp stomps, modded games, etc.?

      • I play the campaign when I first get the game and then team games exclusively after that
  • #80
    2 weeks ago

    COH1 was like bottled lightning - a near perfect combination of graphics, sound design and gameplay.

    A German campaign in the vanilla game would have been nice but there's not much more I can add.

    COH2 was more of the same, so was always going to struggle a bit. I One improvement I did like was the ability to capture a zone by just being in it rather than having to interact with a capture point.

    I preferred the more extensive doctrines of COH1 to the Commanders in CoH2. Also the microtransactional nature of purchasing new commanders sucked. War Spoils was an interesting idea but you had to play a lot for rewards that were usually pretty minor. It would be better f you were earning currency which you could then spend to buy what you liked if we have to have a microtransaction model - that way a player can earn any piece of DLC in game of their choice or buy it with real money if they really can't wait.

  • #81
    2 days ago

    Just saw this thread today. Don't know if anyone at Relic's still looking at it, but if you are:

    Think you guys have done a fantastic job improving COH2 since release. It's gone from a downgrade from the original game to an ALMOST uniform upgrade IMHO. Biggest issues compared to the original:

    Convoluted commander design. Despite the small number of faction sin COH1, each tree in each faction was so unique that it felt like you had a bunch of really distinctive play styles to use. COH2 almost feels LESS diverse, because in spite of the swath of available commanders, many of them are so offbeat or poorly balanced that they're rendered useless.

    Pacing. This has gotten a bit better with time, but Coh1 had three distinct and lengthy phases: Early game/infantry, mid game/light vehicles, late game/tanks. Infantry feel so brittle in coh2 compared to the first game that you lose some of that early slow paced gameplay that I loved.

    Maps. Again, gotten a bit better as the game's gone on, but most of the available maps are totally unplayable for drawn out comp-stomps. The current map designs and pacing produces shorter games that are often less satisfying, win or lose. More intricate maps with turtling/comp stompers in mind would be a welcome addition, either to coh2 or a future coh3.

    Bridges. Okay, so this very specific, but 90% of my play time is spent in comp-stomps with my friends. Playing matches where bridge destruction or control was key to victory was utterly exhilarating in the original game, and it's never been matched in coh2. The last time I tested for this, bridges in the coh2 all had different hit points, and couldn't be destroyed by any useful intentional strategy. Instead, you have to resort to pounding the bridge with PIAT troops, or simply parking an AT gun at it and attacking ground. It feels clunky and unbefitting of the rest of the game.

    TL;DR if you make another COH, please keep the comp stompers in mind. Slow down the pacing, include more maps with choke points, and otherwise keep up the great work!

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.