Fun fact: Smoking Gun Interactive is the company Relic hired to port CoH 1 over to Steamworks so that it will survive the coming multiplayer server shutdown. This is presumably because the only people who have ever understood how CoH works and how to make it fun left Relic and work at SGI now.
That's actually hilarious. Like asking your ex-wife for the garage door code because you never bothered to learn it.
Well this thread has become massively depressing. But I want to thank everyone here who has messed with it and gave their impressions. The points that were made are pretty much everything I was worried about.
I'm not very informed on Relic's comings and goings, but did a significant number of the COH devs leave after it was released? Because DOW2's MP was pretty awful, and while the SP was pretty good, that game never really lived up to the hype. And now reading your all's opinion of COH2 it sounds like the current devs have no idea what made the first game enjoyable.
Well, they have over two months to balance. I don't think this beta is an idle demo like many betas seem to be these days. I don't know what we'll get on the other side... but there's no reason that some of these issues can't be stepped back. The visuals and audio less so, perhaps.
EDIT: To the guys in the beta, how does the game look in motion?
Worse than CoH, better than most games.
That's a damn shame. A few months ago, back when we didn't think THQ was a fast sinking ship, just a slow one, we were concerned about the engine. Now we're just grateful enough to get the game, and with good reason. We were kind of clinging onto the notion that it'd look better in motion that the technologically-unimpressive screenshots...
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
Tell that to the pile of money they're probably sitting on while they think about how they don't have to work crunch time hours on AAA video games anymore and about how they can just sit around being awesome until Relic comes groveling to them asking them to get CoH onto Steam so that all the people disappointed by how shitty CoH 2 is don't go into a full on revolt and burn down Relic and SEGA.
Anyone want to compstomp in CoH1? Always a good time.
0
Options
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
Oh hey, didn't even know CoH was converted as a Steamworks game. That's pretty cool; I don't have to remember whatever the fuck my Relic account login is anymore.
That Sega logo cinematic... man, what a crazy world.
+2
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
edited April 2013
This is terrible. Don't buy it. COH1 is much better. If you want a strategic RTS get that and Wargame: European Escalation. IF you want something less brainy get DOW2. This definitely has DOW2 all over it, especially in the much more simple map design than what COH1 offered.
Meh, I'm still enjoying it quite abit. I think it has it's problems, and that CoH1's gameplay is overall superior at this time, but it didn't launch that way. There were pacing and balance problems galore. CoH2 could very well improve alot in the beta and beyond release. Or maybe it won't and will end up a shallow mp experience with no real depth, time will tell. I still don't think its currently as horrible as most of you do, but I guess that's just me. For now I think I will just enjoy the beta and mostly keep quiet in this thread. I don't really want to bash CoH2 but I don't want to argue or defend it either, and I can understand why some of you hate it. I just hope it ends up being a fun game, I've had my hopes up for awhile now...
Steam Profile | My Art | NID: DarkMecha (SW-4787-9571-8977) | PSN: DarkMecha
Fun fact: Smoking Gun Interactive is the company Relic hired to port CoH 1 over to Steamworks so that it will survive the coming multiplayer server shutdown. This is presumably because the only people who have ever understood how CoH works and how to make it fun left Relic and work at SGI now.
They might understand the framework better, but I assume it's mainly because Relic has its hands full right now with the yet-again delayed CoH 2.
Fun fact: Smoking Gun Interactive is the company Relic hired to port CoH 1 over to Steamworks so that it will survive the coming multiplayer server shutdown. This is presumably because the only people who have ever understood how CoH works and how to make it fun left Relic and work at SGI now.
They might understand the framework better, but I assume it's mainly because Relic has its hands full right now with the yet-again delayed CoH 2.
That's also possible, although it wouldn't explain why stupid maps kept popping back into the 1v1 ladder after server resets.
I think Russian infantry need better AT options. Something as damaging as the Panzershrecks on the PGs. AT Rifles seem to do absolutely nothing to Panthers or other Tier 4 armor.
At rifles are supposed to shoot out the vision ports so the Tier 4 tanks can't shoot for several seconds.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
So this thread has been pretty depressing and all the negativity IMO has killed off what could be a positive discussion of CoH2. Sure, it's got issues it isn't CoH1 this way or that way - whatever. It is what it is, and if it's fun enough to keep playing or posting about, lets focus on the positive aspects and have fun with it. If it's not, then I'm not sure why you'd be in the thread in the first place, right?
If there is something you don't like about CoH2, talk about it! Let's just talk about it within the bounds of reasonable changes, not "shut up and make it exactly like CoH1" or "it's doomed, i hate this game".
Points of discussion to try to kick things off in the right direction:
- How to play better / guides
- Current balance issues
- Emerging strategies
- Map design and balance
- Bugs you've noticed
- Shout casting / community building / tournaments ect
Steam Profile | My Art | NID: DarkMecha (SW-4787-9571-8977) | PSN: DarkMecha
- How to play better/guides:
I've been using a Soviet strat from Inverse, a dude:
4x conscripts -> Healing -> AT nades or straight to T2 first for an AT gun and/or a mortar -> T3 -> Spam T-34s until you win. I haven't lost yet.
- Current balance issues:
Aside from the many ways the game is fucked up that would be fixed by rebalancing things (redesigning maps, lengthening the early game, fixing infantry combat so it's not all about flamethrowers and explosives, etc) I think it's too early to say anything about balance.
- Emerging Strategies
Dunno
- Map design and balance
The map with the water and the super chokepointy middle that is a 1v1 and a 2v2 is horrible. It's like Beaux Lowlands but larger and worse with a less interesting territory layout. The other map is better but still nothing like Angoville or Semois when it comes to resource layout because, well, they fucked that up because they wanted people who are horrible at the game to not get their shit pushed in.
- Bugs I've noticed
Eh, a bunch. Who cares really? Most of them will be fixed by release.
- Shout casting /community building / tournaments etc
Relic/SEGA in its infinite benevolence is letting 5 YouTube channels cast the game and the rest of us get to sit around with our thumbs up our asses (although that hasn't stopped dozens of NDA-breaking jerks from posting their own shoutcasts on YouTube, about which SEGA apparently hasn't done anything?). Community building is all about coh2.org, the best and only real site for the CoH community. Tournaments: IpKaiFung, the guy who runs more CoH tournaments than everyone else put together, has a $20 prize for a 1v1 tournament he's running soon.
Only 5 select channels are allowed to cast? Why the hell would they do that?
As for my own comments:
Agreed about the short, weak early game. Having played abit more I see what you mean - there just is little reason to stay in T1, and few options. Balance wise I really think flamethrowers are insane right now, they just do far too much damage. Explosives I'm on the fence about so far, but I heavily dislike the seemingly guaranteed engine damage from AT nades. I also don't understand why soviets can't build bunkers or trenches. Further, where are my tank traps? I used them to help funnel armor into my AT traps.
Sadly I love the look of Beaux Lowlands but yeah that map kinda plays sucky. I think I know what map in CoH2 beta you are talking about, but I haven't gotten to play on it much. Since I know balance is kinda fubar atm, I've been enjoying 3v3 / 4v4's for the spectacle of it all. I will get into 1v1 / 2v2s more towards release I think.
DarkMecha on
Steam Profile | My Art | NID: DarkMecha (SW-4787-9571-8977) | PSN: DarkMecha
Too big of a lethality difference between Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers. Panzergrenadiers rip apart every other infantry in the game, have excellent grenades, and scale into late game. Grenadiers are a liability from the word go.
I'm really loving the beta so far. As someone who hates riflemen spam I feel like they found an awesome balance on conscripts; definitely Russian cannon fodder but really strong and versatile if you can get AT grenades and molotov cocktails.
I have no idea how anyone can say this feels drastically different from CoH 1. It's almost exactly the same game with a bit different graphics, some blizzards, and new factions. I could see someone complaining that it doesn't really innovate enough on the first version to be worth $50, but I love CoH and this feels like an awesome redesign without the damn Brits this time around.
I have no idea how anyone can say this feels drastically different from CoH 1. It's almost exactly the same game with a bit different graphics, some blizzards, and new factions. I could see someone complaining that it doesn't really innovate enough on the first version to be worth $50, but I love CoH and this feels like an awesome redesign without the damn Brits this time around.
1) UI is much worse than original CoH.
2) Early game is almost entirely gone compared to original CoH.
3) Map layout is simplified (fewer points, fewer cutoffs) compared to original CoH.
4) Resource system, upkeep system, and pop cap system is fucked up compared to original CoH.
5) Explosive damage vs. infantry is way higher but with less of a radius and less suppression power compared to original CoH.
6) General readability (who is shooting at who? Where is the sniper? Where is the AT gun firing? Is artillery coming in? Off-map or on-map? From where? Is my vehicle damaged? How so? Are my troops suppressed?) much worse than original CoH.
7) Target tables removed and all infantry health standardized at the exact same level (vast departure from original CoH in terms of how fights play out).
8) Vehicle health way down compared to original CoH.
9) Teching choices basically zero compared to original CoH.
10) Doctrines removed and replaced with uninteresting homogeneous largely theme-less commanders
11) Infantry squad vary much less compared to original CoH.
12) Smaller unit variety than original CoH.
13) More symmetrical teams (especially with the newest patch which standardized vehicle health levels per tier across each team) compared to original CoH (vet the same across both teams for instance).
14) Cover less important in infantry fights compared to original CoH.
15) True sight changes flanking mechanic (especially in the early game) compared to original CoH.
16) Infantry combat slowed down except for flamethrowers which own face compared to original CoH, and combined with large Soviet weapon crews = weird dynamic when it comes to getting in close to something like a mortar or AT gun and trying to decrew it.
and so on
This game shares very little with CoH except the name. It's basically Dawn of War 3 in World War II except instead of DoW 2's commanders we have the weird commanders and instead of jump troops we get blizzards.
It's disappointing that Relic has managed to dumb down gameplay mechanics & the UI despite claims that it would be similar to the original.
For us, it’s important to understand and be mindful of the core essence that drove the success of the original. In the case of Company of Heroes it’s a game well known for its pace, tone, attention to detail and tactical depth. We have a game we love and a franchise we love and a diverse and loyal player base that wants a rejuvenated experience. CoH2 is a sequel that gives players more, but it’s not all flash and bigger, more unbelievable scripted moments, it’s fundamentally about improvements in gameplay with our True Sight system, cover enhancements, and making vehicles more impactful. This is a sequel with substance.
No it doesn't because any unit firing on you is revealed in the LOS and on the minimap, plus they get +XP notifications over themselves when they earn XP for the killing, so it's not like it's supposed to be hidden. Relic just fucked up the visibility in this game because they don't understand what made CoH so easy to read at a glance.
Plus, what I'm talking about are units that are definitely not at all hidden - when one large group is firing at another large group it's very hard to see where bullets are going compared to the original CoH. It's just stupid and confusing and not at all clean and clear. Real Time Strategy games shouldn't consist of multiple fast paced rounds of where's Waldo when you try to figure out which unit your enemy is focus firing or what squad the sniper is targeting. CoH became worse for it when the Panzer Grenadiers from PE were bugged and had no tracers (in fact they are still like that I think) and now suddenly the entire game is like that.
Eh the tracer thing isn't that big a deal to me. I just watch health bars and who's dieing in the squad ect. I did like the tracers in CoH1 but I honestly never used them for that purpose, it's always been pretty obvious who's melting under concentrated fire by all the deaths more so than the tracers to me. But everyone is different I guess. I actually really like the lack of tracers for AT guns - makes them alittle bit harder to counter right away, since you have to pan around and look for where they are instead of just tracing the white trail back to the gun. Not a huge game changer I think, but might let the AT gun crew get off a shot or 2 more before they take fire perhaps.
Steam Profile | My Art | NID: DarkMecha (SW-4787-9571-8977) | PSN: DarkMecha
I like realistic tactical combat. A lot. CoH isn't about realistic tactical combat but I still really like it. CoH2 is much harder to read and more confusing than it needs to be. Information is not relayed very well compared to the first game. Your guys can see the enemy, the enemy can see your guys. But because the player can't see the enemy, your guys can't do shit. Its really a pain in the ass.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go
I have no idea how anyone can say this feels drastically different from CoH 1. It's almost exactly the same game with a bit different graphics, some blizzards, and new factions. I could see someone complaining that it doesn't really innovate enough on the first version to be worth $50, but I love CoH and this feels like an awesome redesign without the damn Brits this time around.
1) UI is much worse than original CoH.
2) Early game is almost entirely gone compared to original CoH.
3) Map layout is simplified (fewer points, fewer cutoffs) compared to original CoH.
4) Resource system, upkeep system, and pop cap system is fucked up compared to original CoH.
5) Explosive damage vs. infantry is way higher but with less of a radius and less suppression power compared to original CoH.
6) General readability (who is shooting at who? Where is the sniper? Where is the AT gun firing? Is artillery coming in? Off-map or on-map? From where? Is my vehicle damaged? How so? Are my troops suppressed?) much worse than original CoH.
7) Target tables removed and all infantry health standardized at the exact same level (vast departure from original CoH in terms of how fights play out).
8) Vehicle health way down compared to original CoH.
9) Teching choices basically zero compared to original CoH.
10) Doctrines removed and replaced with uninteresting homogeneous largely theme-less commanders
11) Infantry squad vary much less compared to original CoH.
12) Smaller unit variety than original CoH.
13) More symmetrical teams (especially with the newest patch which standardized vehicle health levels per tier across each team) compared to original CoH (vet the same across both teams for instance).
14) Cover less important in infantry fights compared to original CoH.
15) True sight changes flanking mechanic (especially in the early game) compared to original CoH.
16) Infantry combat slowed down except for flamethrowers which own face compared to original CoH, and combined with large Soviet weapon crews = weird dynamic when it comes to getting in close to something like a mortar or AT gun and trying to decrew it.
and so on
This game shares very little with CoH except the name. It's basically Dawn of War 3 in World War II except instead of DoW 2's commanders we have the weird commanders and instead of jump troops we get blizzards.
Ehhhh it kind of seems to me that you're just nitpicking the hell out of everything. I'm not saying those aren't true, but they're all so minor that even in sum the game doesn't feel like any great departure from the first game. Every person I've played with has commented on the remarkable similarity of the two, and one of my friends managed to beat another friend who had played several matches on his first try just because of how familiar everything felt with him. The unit variety is smaller by like 3 units per faction? The Commanders are almost exactly the same as old doctrines except there's one tree instead of two, oh no! Yeah the trees share some units, but the units themselves are interesting and powerful; I don't see a problem with 5 trees that mix and match abilities instead of 3 trees that are absolutely distinctive. Literally the only thing that makes them similar to the DoW2 commanders is that they have face portraits. I've had no problem with "general readability" after my first two games of learning to process the subtle differences, and I've enjoyed all of the maps (all 5 of them? not a lot you know) that I've played so far. I've noticed a lot of grenade spam but that's mostly because molotovs are super cheap....say that sounds just like the panzer elite's incendiary grenades to me! I obviously can't comment on how this all factors in to higher level balance and gameplay because I've played about 10 matches and people are all in various stages of figuring it out, but I can't see it being half as fucked up as the OF/ToV balance is.
The only thing I don't like about the UI is that your units are in the top right instead of the right side. I can sympathize with the "hugeness!" problem it has, but I've knocked my monitor resolution up to 1080p since playing CoH so it feel about the same to me. There are tons of minor tweaks to the gameplay because it's a sequel and not an expansion pack, but holy shit people claiming this is a DoW2 style departure need to ditch their fanboy pants quick. It stinks a little bit too much of "different=bad" instead of actual criticism.
Tell that to the pile of money they're probably sitting on while they think about how they don't have to work crunch time hours on AAA video games anymore and about how they can just sit around being awesome until Relic comes groveling to them asking them to get CoH onto Steam so that all the people disappointed by how shitty CoH 2 is don't go into a full on revolt and burn down Relic and SEGA.
I have no idea how anyone can say this feels drastically different from CoH 1. It's almost exactly the same game with a bit different graphics, some blizzards, and new factions. I could see someone complaining that it doesn't really innovate enough on the first version to be worth $50, but I love CoH and this feels like an awesome redesign without the damn Brits this time around.
1) UI is much worse than original CoH.
2) Early game is almost entirely gone compared to original CoH.
3) Map layout is simplified (fewer points, fewer cutoffs) compared to original CoH.
4) Resource system, upkeep system, and pop cap system is fucked up compared to original CoH.
5) Explosive damage vs. infantry is way higher but with less of a radius and less suppression power compared to original CoH.
6) General readability (who is shooting at who? Where is the sniper? Where is the AT gun firing? Is artillery coming in? Off-map or on-map? From where? Is my vehicle damaged? How so? Are my troops suppressed?) much worse than original CoH.
7) Target tables removed and all infantry health standardized at the exact same level (vast departure from original CoH in terms of how fights play out).
8) Vehicle health way down compared to original CoH.
9) Teching choices basically zero compared to original CoH.
10) Doctrines removed and replaced with uninteresting homogeneous largely theme-less commanders
11) Infantry squad vary much less compared to original CoH.
12) Smaller unit variety than original CoH.
13) More symmetrical teams (especially with the newest patch which standardized vehicle health levels per tier across each team) compared to original CoH (vet the same across both teams for instance).
14) Cover less important in infantry fights compared to original CoH.
15) True sight changes flanking mechanic (especially in the early game) compared to original CoH.
16) Infantry combat slowed down except for flamethrowers which own face compared to original CoH, and combined with large Soviet weapon crews = weird dynamic when it comes to getting in close to something like a mortar or AT gun and trying to decrew it.
and so on
This game shares very little with CoH except the name. It's basically Dawn of War 3 in World War II except instead of DoW 2's commanders we have the weird commanders and instead of jump troops we get blizzards.
Ehhhh it kind of seems to me that you're just nitpicking the hell out of everything. I'm not saying those aren't true, but they're all so minor that even in sum the game doesn't feel like any great departure from the first game. Every person I've played with has commented on the remarkable similarity of the two, and one of my friends managed to beat another friend who had played several matches on his first try just because of how familiar everything felt with him.
I don't want to sound like a silly goose, but these are not nit picks - they're fundamental to the flow of the game, and if you don't notice the differences between CoH and CoH 2 it's because you're not looking at it the way competitive players tend to look at it. You're not wrong when you say that none of these differences matter to you but you are wrong if you say they don't change the game. The reason you think they don't change the game is that you're not playing at the level where they change things.
To some extent, any game that looks vaguely like Company of Heroes is going to be very similar to Company of Heroes because CoH and Dawn of War are very different from almost every other RTS game. So you're right that CoH 2 and CoH share a lot.
But to take the list of things I have up there and call them "nitpicks" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Company of Heroes and to miss what a lot of people (like me) love about the game. It's to say that Opposing Fronts and Tales of Valor are pretty much the same as CoH just with different sides, but that's not true - those two expansions sucked. They were awful and shit and they broke almost everything good about CoH from a competitive standpoint because they didn't tap into the sorts of things that make CoH great, and the list of changes I have above are similarly departures from the things that make CoH great.
I shoutcasted more than a hundred Company of Heroes matches, watched hundreds of other matches, and played hundreds and hundreds of matches. I think I have a pretty good grasp on what makes CoH uniquely CoH, and on why OF and ToV were shit, and on why I think CoH 2 feels more like DoW 2 than CoH, and although I'm not sure I can say this without sounding rude, I think anyone who doesn't realize how vastly CoH and CoH 2 are different is someone who doesn't really understand what's going on at a deep level in a CoH match and who take any game that looks like CoH on the surface and say that it's basically like CoH.
The unit variety is smaller by like 3 or 4 units per faction?
"3 or 4 units" is pretty huge in a game with a tiny number of units in the first place. Russians also lose a unit when they pick a commander. And really it's not the # of units that matters, it's the number of viable units. When a T-70 can be one shotted by an AT gun from the front and when it comes out later than other light vehicles and at around the same time as tanks, do you really think anyone is going to bother building them?
The Commanders are almost exactly the same as old doctrines except there's one tree instead of two, oh no! Yeah the trees share some units, but the units themselves are interesting and powerful; I don't see a problem with 5 trees that mix and match abilities instead of 3 trees that are absolutely distinctive. Literally the only thing that makes them similar to the DoW2 commanders is that they have face portraits.
There are massive differences between a commander made up of two trees, either of which you can progress down, and a commander with only one tree that is automatically unlocked. With 2 tree commanders, you can read which side of the tree the opponent has invested CPs in and try to guess their strategy from that. You can save CPs and sprint down one side or the other when you need a specific ability (like Strafing Run or AT gun drop). You can leave yourself strategic flexibility even after making the decision to choose a commander. With two trees, each of which has low level CP unlocks, you can start using commander abilities early on to influence the fight, but at the cost of committing to one tree or another and tipping your hat to the side of the doctrine you've chosen, whereas with one tree there are fewer low level abilities to choose from (and thus fewer direct interventions to make the early/mid game more variegated) and you don't get any of that cat and mouse stuff in terms of figuring out what your opponent has chosen, what they've committed to, what they're going for, etc.
I've had no problem with "general readability", and I've enjoyed all of the maps (all 5 of them? not a lot you know) that I've played so far.
Congratulations for not having readability issues but either you're not looking for as much stuff as more competent players are looking for, or you're not trying to look at that stuff fast enough, or you've got much better eyes than most people. As for most players, especially most high level players, the game is a fucking mess compared to CoH. This thread has some high level players and some veteran casters weighing in and it has links to other sources of feedback. What are they all saying? The visibility in this game sucks. As for enjoying the maps, I'm glad you're having fun, but the maps suck. Look at the resource layout compared to CoH or better yet check out this thread about the very same issue
I've noticed a lot of grenade spam but that's mostly because molotovs are super cheap....say that sounds just like the panzer elite's incendiary grenades to me!
I didn't complain about grenade spam so I'm not sure what this is a response to, but molotovs are mostly a waste of munitions - the damage is really low.
I obviously can't comment on how this all factors in to higher level balance and gameplay because I've played about 10 matches and people are all in various stages of figuring it out, but I can't see it being half as fucked up as the OF/ToV balance is.
I also haven't commented on balance so I'm not sure what this is a response to.
The only thing I don't like about the UI is that your units are in the top right instead of the right side, aside from that they're all really minor aesthetic changes. There are tons of minor tweaks because it's a sequel and not an expansion pack, but holy shit people claiming this is a DoW2 style departure need to ditch their fanboy pants quick.
I would submit my "fanboy pants" are actually a pair of "I understand the game at a level deeper than you" pants and I know I sound like a jerk when I say that but it just seems like the best explanation. There are gradations of players in RTS games, from the people who enjoy playing The Scheldt High Resources Annihilation matches to the people on the top of the ladder (well, the people near the top because the people on top are maphackers). All along that gradation exist a wide range of opinions on CoH 2, and I think once you get into the competitive part of the gradation almost everyone agrees with me to a greater or lesser extent that CoH 2 has changed in the ways I say it has changed and that these changes have the results I say they have. You can disagree, and I guess if I get bored enough I'll start linking to the literally dozens of posts on the beta feedback forum that agree with me in an effort to show that there are people who hold my opinions and then I'll start breaking down why we hold these opinions to try to explain why I think it comes from understanding certain things about how CoH and CoH 2 work, but I'm not really there yet.
And if we're playing the "my friends say" card then most of the people I've been talking with have pretty much agreed with me, often before I offer these opinions. If I had kept track of the number of times people have said "this feels like DoW 2" without being prompted by me first it would be a fairly large number.
So I don't want to crash into this discussion that's clearly about much larger things but...
Molotovs no damage? Did you look at a damage table or something? In game they kill units all the time. In fact if you don't dodge it you just lost the squad vs squad fight because it usually crits a member (which for germans is a huge deal).
Edit: This game is much, much more like CoH than DoW2.
Molotovs are super easy to just move away from because their damage is over time. Yes, if you don't dodge it, you've likely lost the squad fight, but if you don't dodge any other thrown explosive in the game, you've probably lost half the squad, at best.
And everything about this game screams DoW 2 to me and lots of other people but we're talking about how the game feels to us, not objective facts or anything, so of course it's always fine for it to feel more like CoH than DoW 2 to any given person. I just think that especially for people really attuned to the things that set CoH apart from DoW 2 and make the games play very differently, there are lots of things in CoH 2 that echo DoW 2 and close the gap between CoH and DoW 2.
Heh, I still haven't posted that mega post I posted a while back. Everytime I go to the Sega forums there's so much noise that I don't really know how to put forward my opinion. That, and I keep thinking to myself "I should update this with my new perspectives/experience!" and never really want to bother.
I had a game last night that seems absolutely silly with explosives/flamethrowers. Infantry units in this game seem to have a very limited scope of effectiveness. Does no infantry unit do good damage at long range aside from snipers? It's absolutely silly. The vast majority of infantry units can only kill things at very close range. Makes dealing with flamethrowers and grenades absolutely silly when it's hard enough trying to spot when someone is throwing a grenade in this game.
I had two Guards Rifle Infantry (with machine gun upgrade) and two Conscripts with PPSH upgrades all trying to focus down a pioneer squad with a flamer backed by a handful of Panzer Grens. Between the flames and the grenades it was impossible to bring them down before they were in range. Even more infuriating was the complete ineptitude of my own troops to kill Panzer Grenaiders with Panzerschreks. Even at optimal ranges they simply don't kill them fast enough before a grenade gets off and wipes the squad. Thanks to a blizzard, the remaining troops did not return home after retreating with 1-2 men each. It's baffling.
Infantry combat is not about cover and positioning. It's about trying to read arm movements on a distracting background and hope that your clicks are interpreted by the game quickly enough for the squad to move away from the grenade. Even though most of the time they consolidate before they move, clumping up for the grenade...
Obviously it's an issue with the lethality of grenades and flamethrowers. I feel it also stems from a complete lack of viable choices in spending your munitions elsewhere. Some old standby munitions dumps, like mines, are not as reliable as they used to be. I had a mine explode in my face from small arms fire recently. God I hope that's a bug. Commanders are terrible. They give powers insanely slowly and often long after the unit/power is actually valuable. The vast majority of call-in artillery and munition based abilities are under powered and overpriced. I've never ever gotten 240 munitions worth out of the Sturmikov Strafing Run. It hits at CP 6: AKA Panther-Tiger-Hellscape when it is a majority anti-infantry strafing run? I know there are rockets but it's no bombing run.
I don't like the direction of the new patch either. Homogenization of tanks seems lazy and uninteresting. The reduction of the fire pit radius was awful. I can click troops near a firepit and they'll freeze to death unless I specifically micro them next to it some some cases. There remain forgotten units like the German Sniper, the Russian Tier 3 M-5 Halftrack and T-70 Light Tank that are just atrociously bad or lack a useful combat role.
I will say that I have been having fun. There are great moments and it's a blast to get on and play with friends still. I cannot say that the design decisions have been completely complicit in my fun though.
Guards infantry even with the DP upgrade are still more about anti tank. Soviet PZ gren killer is the PPSH Shock troop squad. But yeah only long range firepower seems to be MG for stunning and sniper rifles for kills.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
I still don't understand all the tankspam complaints. Yes lategame has tanks, they're still shit compared to CoH. Seriously, panzergrenadiers in this game is the strongest AT I have seen in CoH2 and 1, lategame is so dominated by them it's ridiculous.
If you're playing soviets you have my condolences :P.
Edit: Am I crazy for thinking that molotovs have some crit bonus when they first explode? I'm not slow enough to let molotovs burn my squads but the damage they deal is usually super quick since a guy runs off in flames right away half the time.
I have no idea how anyone can say this feels drastically different from CoH 1. It's almost exactly the same game with a bit different graphics, some blizzards, and new factions. I could see someone complaining that it doesn't really innovate enough on the first version to be worth $50, but I love CoH and this feels like an awesome redesign without the damn Brits this time around.
1) UI is much worse than original CoH.
2) Early game is almost entirely gone compared to original CoH.
3) Map layout is simplified (fewer points, fewer cutoffs) compared to original CoH.
4) Resource system, upkeep system, and pop cap system is fucked up compared to original CoH.
5) Explosive damage vs. infantry is way higher but with less of a radius and less suppression power compared to original CoH.
6) General readability (who is shooting at who? Where is the sniper? Where is the AT gun firing? Is artillery coming in? Off-map or on-map? From where? Is my vehicle damaged? How so? Are my troops suppressed?) much worse than original CoH.
7) Target tables removed and all infantry health standardized at the exact same level (vast departure from original CoH in terms of how fights play out).
8) Vehicle health way down compared to original CoH.
9) Teching choices basically zero compared to original CoH.
10) Doctrines removed and replaced with uninteresting homogeneous largely theme-less commanders
11) Infantry squad vary much less compared to original CoH.
12) Smaller unit variety than original CoH.
13) More symmetrical teams (especially with the newest patch which standardized vehicle health levels per tier across each team) compared to original CoH (vet the same across both teams for instance).
14) Cover less important in infantry fights compared to original CoH.
15) True sight changes flanking mechanic (especially in the early game) compared to original CoH.
16) Infantry combat slowed down except for flamethrowers which own face compared to original CoH, and combined with large Soviet weapon crews = weird dynamic when it comes to getting in close to something like a mortar or AT gun and trying to decrew it.
and so on
This game shares very little with CoH except the name. It's basically Dawn of War 3 in World War II except instead of DoW 2's commanders we have the weird commanders and instead of jump troops we get blizzards.
Ehhhh it kind of seems to me that you're just nitpicking the hell out of everything. I'm not saying those aren't true, but they're all so minor that even in sum the game doesn't feel like any great departure from the first game. Every person I've played with has commented on the remarkable similarity of the two, and one of my friends managed to beat another friend who had played several matches on his first try just because of how familiar everything felt with him.
I don't want to sound like a silly goose, but these are not nit picks - they're fundamental to the flow of the game, and if you don't notice the differences between CoH and CoH 2 it's because you're not looking at it the way competitive players tend to look at it. You're not wrong when you say that none of these differences matter to you but you are wrong if you say they don't change the game. The reason you think they don't change the game is that you're not playing at the level where they change things.
To some extent, any game that looks vaguely like Company of Heroes is going to be very similar to Company of Heroes because CoH and Dawn of War are very different from almost every other RTS game. So you're right that CoH 2 and CoH share a lot.
But to take the list of things I have up there and call them "nitpicks" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Company of Heroes and to miss what a lot of people (like me) love about the game. It's to say that Opposing Fronts and Tales of Valor are pretty much the same as CoH just with different sides, but that's not true - those two expansions sucked. They were awful and shit and they broke almost everything good about CoH from a competitive standpoint because they didn't tap into the sorts of things that make CoH great, and the list of changes I have above are similarly departures from the things that make CoH great.
I shoutcasted more than a hundred Company of Heroes matches, watched hundreds of other matches, and played hundreds and hundreds of matches. I think I have a pretty good grasp on what makes CoH uniquely CoH, and on why OF and ToV were shit, and on why I think CoH 2 feels more like DoW 2 than CoH, and although I'm not sure I can say this without sounding rude, I think anyone who doesn't realize how vastly CoH and CoH 2 are different is someone who doesn't really understand what's going on at a deep level in a CoH match and who take any game that looks like CoH on the surface and say that it's basically like CoH.
The unit variety is smaller by like 3 or 4 units per faction?
"3 or 4 units" is pretty huge in a game with a tiny number of units in the first place. Russians also lose a unit when they pick a commander. And really it's not the # of units that matters, it's the number of viable units. When a T-70 can be one shotted by an AT gun from the front and when it comes out later than other light vehicles and at around the same time as tanks, do you really think anyone is going to bother building them?
The Commanders are almost exactly the same as old doctrines except there's one tree instead of two, oh no! Yeah the trees share some units, but the units themselves are interesting and powerful; I don't see a problem with 5 trees that mix and match abilities instead of 3 trees that are absolutely distinctive. Literally the only thing that makes them similar to the DoW2 commanders is that they have face portraits.
There are massive differences between a commander made up of two trees, either of which you can progress down, and a commander with only one tree that is automatically unlocked. With 2 tree commanders, you can read which side of the tree the opponent has invested CPs in and try to guess their strategy from that. You can save CPs and sprint down one side or the other when you need a specific ability (like Strafing Run or AT gun drop). You can leave yourself strategic flexibility even after making the decision to choose a commander. With two trees, each of which has low level CP unlocks, you can start using commander abilities early on to influence the fight, but at the cost of committing to one tree or another and tipping your hat to the side of the doctrine you've chosen, whereas with one tree there are fewer low level abilities to choose from (and thus fewer direct interventions to make the early/mid game more variegated) and you don't get any of that cat and mouse stuff in terms of figuring out what your opponent has chosen, what they've committed to, what they're going for, etc.
I've had no problem with "general readability", and I've enjoyed all of the maps (all 5 of them? not a lot you know) that I've played so far.
Congratulations for not having readability issues but either you're not looking for as much stuff as more competent players are looking for, or you're not trying to look at that stuff fast enough, or you've got much better eyes than most people. As for most players, especially most high level players, the game is a fucking mess compared to CoH. This thread has some high level players and some veteran casters weighing in and it has links to other sources of feedback. What are they all saying? The visibility in this game sucks. As for enjoying the maps, I'm glad you're having fun, but the maps suck. Look at the resource layout compared to CoH or better yet check out this thread about the very same issue
I've noticed a lot of grenade spam but that's mostly because molotovs are super cheap....say that sounds just like the panzer elite's incendiary grenades to me!
I didn't complain about grenade spam so I'm not sure what this is a response to, but molotovs are mostly a waste of munitions - the damage is really low.
I obviously can't comment on how this all factors in to higher level balance and gameplay because I've played about 10 matches and people are all in various stages of figuring it out, but I can't see it being half as fucked up as the OF/ToV balance is.
I also haven't commented on balance so I'm not sure what this is a response to.
The only thing I don't like about the UI is that your units are in the top right instead of the right side, aside from that they're all really minor aesthetic changes. There are tons of minor tweaks because it's a sequel and not an expansion pack, but holy shit people claiming this is a DoW2 style departure need to ditch their fanboy pants quick.
I would submit my "fanboy pants" are actually a pair of "I understand the game at a level deeper than you" pants and I know I sound like a jerk when I say that but it just seems like the best explanation. There are gradations of players in RTS games, from the people who enjoy playing The Scheldt High Resources Annihilation matches to the people on the top of the ladder (well, the people near the top because the people on top are maphackers). All along that gradation exist a wide range of opinions on CoH 2, and I think once you get into the competitive part of the gradation almost everyone agrees with me to a greater or lesser extent that CoH 2 has changed in the ways I say it has changed and that these changes have the results I say they have. You can disagree, and I guess if I get bored enough I'll start linking to the literally dozens of posts on the beta feedback forum that agree with me in an effort to show that there are people who hold my opinions and then I'll start breaking down why we hold these opinions to try to explain why I think it comes from understanding certain things about how CoH and CoH 2 work, but I'm not really there yet.
And if we're playing the "my friends say" card then most of the people I've been talking with have pretty much agreed with me, often before I offer these opinions. If I had kept track of the number of times people have said "this feels like DoW 2" without being prompted by me first it would be a fairly large number.
Yep, sounds like we just need to agree to disagree here. I'm very familiar with your background and experience with Company of Heroes and took that into account when I made my post. I understand a bunch of small tweaks like that can dramatically change the meta game and piss off people who are intimately familiar with the original, but to me this is like the difference between Starcraft 1 and 2. To 90% of the people who play the games it's "Hey this is just like Starcraft but with new units and prettier graphics!", but when you analyze the meta-game and high level play the games are very different and as a result there's a reason that people still play Brood War. When you go from to Dawn of War to Dawn of War 2 there was an absolutely obvious shift in the focus of the game from big battles to small skirmishes that could alienate anyone from the most casual fan to the most hardcore pro gaming vet. I'm not trying to say the games aren't different, I'm just saying that the level of hyperbole displayed in this thread is ridiculous and misleading. I'm sorry if saying that every person I've known who's played CoH2 (both before and after I tried the beta myself) thinks it's extremely reminiscent of the first game is pulling the "my friends say card", but it is what it is. I know that a hardcore vet is going to see everything that's different, but their entire existence is nitpicking small details in order to gain an advantage playing the game. That doesn't mean the game is a huge departure from its predecessor; I'm sure there are tons of meta game changes from Madden 11 to Madden 12 that the top tier competitors obsess over, but that doesn't mean they're not the same damn game for the most part. I realize the fanboy pants comment was pretty flippant, but your response is exactly what I'm talking about. I know that the top tier pros are going to obsess over minute details because that's sort of their job. To develop that into the notion of the game being a drastic departure is just being a silly goose.
I haven't seen anything in my time with the beta that leads me to believe that this game will be less fun than CoH1. I've had far less frustrating losses than I've had in my time with CoH which I can only see as a plus so far! I worry about long term balance because everyone knows how much Relic sucks at that, but right now I'm happy with having two really fun factions over four factions in various states of broken/boring from CoH1. I'm a little bit biased because I was never a fan of the Americans despite many many tries to love them, and had to shamefully play the Brits at times just because the Germans were so cool and you were often times forced to play Allies just because.
A few of my comments weren't directed directly towards you, they were to the thread as a whole. There's a lot of "Tanks suck!" "Tanks are overpowered why build infantry?" and "Too much grenade spam!" People are complaining about not seeing bullets when there are clearly tracer rounds in the game makes me wonder if I'm actually just playing that CoH fan mod that added the Russians!
50% of your post is saying "yes, I understand that people at a very high level of play will grasp how small changes can drastically alter the game and turn into vast differences between the two games - Starcraft and SC2 are completely different, for example" and 50% of your post is saying "I still think CoH and CoH 2 are pretty similar." Together those don't make a lot of sense. I think the way to reconcile them is to say "I and my friends play at a low enough level that the vast differences between CoH and CoH 2 don't mean anything to us." That way you can stop disagreeing with me and the rest of the people who think CoH 2 is different and just accept that you're not really cognizant of the differences between the two games because of the level you play at.
I haven't seen anything in my time with the beta that leads me to believe that this game will be less fun than CoH1. I've had far less frustrating losses than I've had in my time with CoH which I can only see as a plus so far! I worry about long term balance because everyone knows how much Relic sucks at that, but right now I'm happy with having two really fun factions over four factions in various states of broken/boring from CoH1. I'm a little bit biased because I was never a fan of the Americans despite many many tries to love them, and had to shamefully play the Brits at times just because the Germans were so cool and you were often times forced to play Allies just because.
The reason you haven't seen anything that would make the game less fun than CoH 1 is that you weren't playing CoH 1 at a high enough level to really take advantage of what a lot of people loved about CoH 1 that set it apart from basically every other game that has ever been made. I'm glad for you that your skill level, your engagement with the game mechanics, or a mixture of the two is such that you can disregard a lot about both CoH and CoH 2 and, in doing so, have as much fun with both games, but when you say "this game won't be less fun than CoH 1" just remember that a big part of the reason why this is the case is that the stuff you found fun in CoH 1 can survive in lots of different RTS games (at the very least, it can survive in CoH 1 and CoH 2) whereas the stuff a lot of high level players found fun in CoH 1 appears not to have made the jump to CoH 2. For those high level players, there is other stuff to enjoy in CoH 2 (just like there's other stuff to enjoy in Dawn of War 2, a game CoH 2 shares a lot in common with), but it's not the same stuff as in CoH 1, it's nowhere near as unique as the stuff in CoH 1, and I think most people at a high level tend to enjoy it less than the stuff in CoH 1.
People are complaining about not seeing bullets when there are clearly tracer rounds in the game makes me wonder if I'm actually just playing that CoH fan mod that added the Russians!
There are tracer rounds but they are much fainter and less obvious and some units don't really get them. I just watched a CoH 2 cast by two casters who are far from blind idiots, and there was a point at which they misidentified the source of suppression in a fight because even though two machineguns were in houses firing at stuff, it was basically impossible to know this or to know what they were firing at unless you got out a microscope, because things are far too cluttered to notice where machineguns are shooting most of the time. (Similar things happen in basically every CoH 2 cast I've seen - the casters miss stuff that would never have been missed in CoH because things are so visually busy and important things are less accentuated.) In the original CoH nobody would ever fail to notice a machinegun firing. They spit out almost solid lines of tracers. That's helpful and useful and clear and concise and simple and bold and clean. CoH 2 is none of these things in any of its design and the game suffers greatly for it.
No, you're just being too stubborn to reconcile my points. The press on this game isn't going to be "CoH2 takes drastic departure from predecessor and loses soul of game!". When you're discounting the game as the vast majority of the players play it you're being ridiculous. You're using hyperbole to make minor changes seem like large differences in gameplay when they're minute details that pros are struggling to adapt with because the game is in beta and they've been playing a particular game with its particular quirks and systems for 5 years. I've also been playing CoH1 since it was in beta and I understand that it's hard to change the way you work when you've been playing a game competitively for 5 years, but those minute changes don't suddenly become huge features because they're so engrained in your head.
You don't get to discount everything I'm saying as "Lol you bad stop, let the pros decide what's fun". I'm not a pro, but I hovered around level 13 PE before Tales of Valor came out, which is a lot higher than most people will ever get. I may not be as good as you, and certainly not as good as a pro, but I'm better at this game than most people who play it. If my level of play is too low to make a decision on the game then pretty much everyone but you and your friends don't get to say anything. When you say the things I find interesting can be found in lots of RTS games, you're wrong. The things that attracted me to this game are the things that I believe attracted most people to this game. It has big fuckoff awesome tanks that take positional damage and squads of infantry who (semi)intelligently seek cover, along with fancy machine guns that suppress and victory points instead of base rapes and big explosions with physics and all that stuff. I'm pretty sure not a single current high level player got into the game by saying "Boy look at all the weird quirks this metagame will have once I've mastered it!" The game is a sequel, it is different. As far as game sequels go, they are very very similar. Company of Heroes 1 to Company of Heroes 2 is not a large jump in substance or style. You don't have to be able to write a dissertation on a pro match to be able to realize the games look and play remarkably similar to one another, for better or worse. You're trying to look at a game and criticize it solely on its merits to less than 1% of the population who will play the game, and then projecting your findings to the forum and world at large by saying the game is drastically different. As such, you're being a very silly goose.
Posts
That's actually hilarious. Like asking your ex-wife for the garage door code because you never bothered to learn it.
Well, they have over two months to balance. I don't think this beta is an idle demo like many betas seem to be these days. I don't know what we'll get on the other side... but there's no reason that some of these issues can't be stepped back. The visuals and audio less so, perhaps.
That's a damn shame. A few months ago, back when we didn't think THQ was a fast sinking ship, just a slow one, we were concerned about the engine. Now we're just grateful enough to get the game, and with good reason. We were kind of clinging onto the notion that it'd look better in motion that the technologically-unimpressive screenshots...
That Sega logo cinematic... man, what a crazy world.
And if they do get screwed, then I guess CA can buy the War 40k license.
They might understand the framework better, but I assume it's mainly because Relic has its hands full right now with the yet-again delayed CoH 2.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Wii U - 'Nocero'
XBox ID - therealmasume
PS4 ID - realmasume
If there is something you don't like about CoH2, talk about it! Let's just talk about it within the bounds of reasonable changes, not "shut up and make it exactly like CoH1" or "it's doomed, i hate this game".
Points of discussion to try to kick things off in the right direction:
- How to play better / guides
- Current balance issues
- Emerging strategies
- Map design and balance
- Bugs you've noticed
- Shout casting / community building / tournaments ect
I've been using a Soviet strat from Inverse, a dude:
4x conscripts -> Healing -> AT nades or straight to T2 first for an AT gun and/or a mortar -> T3 -> Spam T-34s until you win. I haven't lost yet.
- Current balance issues:
Aside from the many ways the game is fucked up that would be fixed by rebalancing things (redesigning maps, lengthening the early game, fixing infantry combat so it's not all about flamethrowers and explosives, etc) I think it's too early to say anything about balance.
- Emerging Strategies
Dunno
- Map design and balance
The map with the water and the super chokepointy middle that is a 1v1 and a 2v2 is horrible. It's like Beaux Lowlands but larger and worse with a less interesting territory layout. The other map is better but still nothing like Angoville or Semois when it comes to resource layout because, well, they fucked that up because they wanted people who are horrible at the game to not get their shit pushed in.
- Bugs I've noticed
Eh, a bunch. Who cares really? Most of them will be fixed by release.
- Shout casting /community building / tournaments etc
Relic/SEGA in its infinite benevolence is letting 5 YouTube channels cast the game and the rest of us get to sit around with our thumbs up our asses (although that hasn't stopped dozens of NDA-breaking jerks from posting their own shoutcasts on YouTube, about which SEGA apparently hasn't done anything?). Community building is all about coh2.org, the best and only real site for the CoH community. Tournaments: IpKaiFung, the guy who runs more CoH tournaments than everyone else put together, has a $20 prize for a 1v1 tournament he's running soon.
As for my own comments:
Agreed about the short, weak early game. Having played abit more I see what you mean - there just is little reason to stay in T1, and few options. Balance wise I really think flamethrowers are insane right now, they just do far too much damage. Explosives I'm on the fence about so far, but I heavily dislike the seemingly guaranteed engine damage from AT nades. I also don't understand why soviets can't build bunkers or trenches. Further, where are my tank traps? I used them to help funnel armor into my AT traps.
Sadly I love the look of Beaux Lowlands but yeah that map kinda plays sucky. I think I know what map in CoH2 beta you are talking about, but I haven't gotten to play on it much. Since I know balance is kinda fubar atm, I've been enjoying 3v3 / 4v4's for the spectacle of it all. I will get into 1v1 / 2v2s more towards release I think.
But this seems less like a 'grenadiers suck' (rifle grenades suck) and more like a 'panzergrenadiers are the best unit in the game'.
I have no idea how anyone can say this feels drastically different from CoH 1. It's almost exactly the same game with a bit different graphics, some blizzards, and new factions. I could see someone complaining that it doesn't really innovate enough on the first version to be worth $50, but I love CoH and this feels like an awesome redesign without the damn Brits this time around.
2) Early game is almost entirely gone compared to original CoH.
3) Map layout is simplified (fewer points, fewer cutoffs) compared to original CoH.
4) Resource system, upkeep system, and pop cap system is fucked up compared to original CoH.
5) Explosive damage vs. infantry is way higher but with less of a radius and less suppression power compared to original CoH.
6) General readability (who is shooting at who? Where is the sniper? Where is the AT gun firing? Is artillery coming in? Off-map or on-map? From where? Is my vehicle damaged? How so? Are my troops suppressed?) much worse than original CoH.
7) Target tables removed and all infantry health standardized at the exact same level (vast departure from original CoH in terms of how fights play out).
8) Vehicle health way down compared to original CoH.
9) Teching choices basically zero compared to original CoH.
10) Doctrines removed and replaced with uninteresting homogeneous largely theme-less commanders
11) Infantry squad vary much less compared to original CoH.
12) Smaller unit variety than original CoH.
13) More symmetrical teams (especially with the newest patch which standardized vehicle health levels per tier across each team) compared to original CoH (vet the same across both teams for instance).
14) Cover less important in infantry fights compared to original CoH.
15) True sight changes flanking mechanic (especially in the early game) compared to original CoH.
16) Infantry combat slowed down except for flamethrowers which own face compared to original CoH, and combined with large Soviet weapon crews = weird dynamic when it comes to getting in close to something like a mortar or AT gun and trying to decrew it.
and so on
This game shares very little with CoH except the name. It's basically Dawn of War 3 in World War II except instead of DoW 2's commanders we have the weird commanders and instead of jump troops we get blizzards.
But yeah, the UI is... highly unfortunate! It's fucking gigantic
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Plus, what I'm talking about are units that are definitely not at all hidden - when one large group is firing at another large group it's very hard to see where bullets are going compared to the original CoH. It's just stupid and confusing and not at all clean and clear. Real Time Strategy games shouldn't consist of multiple fast paced rounds of where's Waldo when you try to figure out which unit your enemy is focus firing or what squad the sniper is targeting. CoH became worse for it when the Panzer Grenadiers from PE were bugged and had no tracers (in fact they are still like that I think) and now suddenly the entire game is like that.
Steam - Partizanka | Live - Partizanka
Ehhhh it kind of seems to me that you're just nitpicking the hell out of everything. I'm not saying those aren't true, but they're all so minor that even in sum the game doesn't feel like any great departure from the first game. Every person I've played with has commented on the remarkable similarity of the two, and one of my friends managed to beat another friend who had played several matches on his first try just because of how familiar everything felt with him. The unit variety is smaller by like 3 units per faction? The Commanders are almost exactly the same as old doctrines except there's one tree instead of two, oh no! Yeah the trees share some units, but the units themselves are interesting and powerful; I don't see a problem with 5 trees that mix and match abilities instead of 3 trees that are absolutely distinctive. Literally the only thing that makes them similar to the DoW2 commanders is that they have face portraits. I've had no problem with "general readability" after my first two games of learning to process the subtle differences, and I've enjoyed all of the maps (all 5 of them? not a lot you know) that I've played so far. I've noticed a lot of grenade spam but that's mostly because molotovs are super cheap....say that sounds just like the panzer elite's incendiary grenades to me! I obviously can't comment on how this all factors in to higher level balance and gameplay because I've played about 10 matches and people are all in various stages of figuring it out, but I can't see it being half as fucked up as the OF/ToV balance is.
The only thing I don't like about the UI is that your units are in the top right instead of the right side. I can sympathize with the "hugeness!" problem it has, but I've knocked my monitor resolution up to 1080p since playing CoH so it feel about the same to me. There are tons of minor tweaks to the gameplay because it's a sequel and not an expansion pack, but holy shit people claiming this is a DoW2 style departure need to ditch their fanboy pants quick. It stinks a little bit too much of "different=bad" instead of actual criticism.
To some extent, any game that looks vaguely like Company of Heroes is going to be very similar to Company of Heroes because CoH and Dawn of War are very different from almost every other RTS game. So you're right that CoH 2 and CoH share a lot.
But to take the list of things I have up there and call them "nitpicks" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Company of Heroes and to miss what a lot of people (like me) love about the game. It's to say that Opposing Fronts and Tales of Valor are pretty much the same as CoH just with different sides, but that's not true - those two expansions sucked. They were awful and shit and they broke almost everything good about CoH from a competitive standpoint because they didn't tap into the sorts of things that make CoH great, and the list of changes I have above are similarly departures from the things that make CoH great.
I shoutcasted more than a hundred Company of Heroes matches, watched hundreds of other matches, and played hundreds and hundreds of matches. I think I have a pretty good grasp on what makes CoH uniquely CoH, and on why OF and ToV were shit, and on why I think CoH 2 feels more like DoW 2 than CoH, and although I'm not sure I can say this without sounding rude, I think anyone who doesn't realize how vastly CoH and CoH 2 are different is someone who doesn't really understand what's going on at a deep level in a CoH match and who take any game that looks like CoH on the surface and say that it's basically like CoH.
"3 or 4 units" is pretty huge in a game with a tiny number of units in the first place. Russians also lose a unit when they pick a commander. And really it's not the # of units that matters, it's the number of viable units. When a T-70 can be one shotted by an AT gun from the front and when it comes out later than other light vehicles and at around the same time as tanks, do you really think anyone is going to bother building them?
There are massive differences between a commander made up of two trees, either of which you can progress down, and a commander with only one tree that is automatically unlocked. With 2 tree commanders, you can read which side of the tree the opponent has invested CPs in and try to guess their strategy from that. You can save CPs and sprint down one side or the other when you need a specific ability (like Strafing Run or AT gun drop). You can leave yourself strategic flexibility even after making the decision to choose a commander. With two trees, each of which has low level CP unlocks, you can start using commander abilities early on to influence the fight, but at the cost of committing to one tree or another and tipping your hat to the side of the doctrine you've chosen, whereas with one tree there are fewer low level abilities to choose from (and thus fewer direct interventions to make the early/mid game more variegated) and you don't get any of that cat and mouse stuff in terms of figuring out what your opponent has chosen, what they've committed to, what they're going for, etc.
Congratulations for not having readability issues but either you're not looking for as much stuff as more competent players are looking for, or you're not trying to look at that stuff fast enough, or you've got much better eyes than most people. As for most players, especially most high level players, the game is a fucking mess compared to CoH. This thread has some high level players and some veteran casters weighing in and it has links to other sources of feedback. What are they all saying? The visibility in this game sucks. As for enjoying the maps, I'm glad you're having fun, but the maps suck. Look at the resource layout compared to CoH or better yet check out this thread about the very same issue
I didn't complain about grenade spam so I'm not sure what this is a response to, but molotovs are mostly a waste of munitions - the damage is really low.
I also haven't commented on balance so I'm not sure what this is a response to.
I would submit my "fanboy pants" are actually a pair of "I understand the game at a level deeper than you" pants and I know I sound like a jerk when I say that but it just seems like the best explanation. There are gradations of players in RTS games, from the people who enjoy playing The Scheldt High Resources Annihilation matches to the people on the top of the ladder (well, the people near the top because the people on top are maphackers). All along that gradation exist a wide range of opinions on CoH 2, and I think once you get into the competitive part of the gradation almost everyone agrees with me to a greater or lesser extent that CoH 2 has changed in the ways I say it has changed and that these changes have the results I say they have. You can disagree, and I guess if I get bored enough I'll start linking to the literally dozens of posts on the beta feedback forum that agree with me in an effort to show that there are people who hold my opinions and then I'll start breaking down why we hold these opinions to try to explain why I think it comes from understanding certain things about how CoH and CoH 2 work, but I'm not really there yet.
And if we're playing the "my friends say" card then most of the people I've been talking with have pretty much agreed with me, often before I offer these opinions. If I had kept track of the number of times people have said "this feels like DoW 2" without being prompted by me first it would be a fairly large number.
Molotovs no damage? Did you look at a damage table or something? In game they kill units all the time. In fact if you don't dodge it you just lost the squad vs squad fight because it usually crits a member (which for germans is a huge deal).
Edit: This game is much, much more like CoH than DoW2.
And everything about this game screams DoW 2 to me and lots of other people but we're talking about how the game feels to us, not objective facts or anything, so of course it's always fine for it to feel more like CoH than DoW 2 to any given person. I just think that especially for people really attuned to the things that set CoH apart from DoW 2 and make the games play very differently, there are lots of things in CoH 2 that echo DoW 2 and close the gap between CoH and DoW 2.
I had a game last night that seems absolutely silly with explosives/flamethrowers. Infantry units in this game seem to have a very limited scope of effectiveness. Does no infantry unit do good damage at long range aside from snipers? It's absolutely silly. The vast majority of infantry units can only kill things at very close range. Makes dealing with flamethrowers and grenades absolutely silly when it's hard enough trying to spot when someone is throwing a grenade in this game.
I had two Guards Rifle Infantry (with machine gun upgrade) and two Conscripts with PPSH upgrades all trying to focus down a pioneer squad with a flamer backed by a handful of Panzer Grens. Between the flames and the grenades it was impossible to bring them down before they were in range. Even more infuriating was the complete ineptitude of my own troops to kill Panzer Grenaiders with Panzerschreks. Even at optimal ranges they simply don't kill them fast enough before a grenade gets off and wipes the squad. Thanks to a blizzard, the remaining troops did not return home after retreating with 1-2 men each. It's baffling.
Infantry combat is not about cover and positioning. It's about trying to read arm movements on a distracting background and hope that your clicks are interpreted by the game quickly enough for the squad to move away from the grenade. Even though most of the time they consolidate before they move, clumping up for the grenade...
Obviously it's an issue with the lethality of grenades and flamethrowers. I feel it also stems from a complete lack of viable choices in spending your munitions elsewhere. Some old standby munitions dumps, like mines, are not as reliable as they used to be. I had a mine explode in my face from small arms fire recently. God I hope that's a bug. Commanders are terrible. They give powers insanely slowly and often long after the unit/power is actually valuable. The vast majority of call-in artillery and munition based abilities are under powered and overpriced. I've never ever gotten 240 munitions worth out of the Sturmikov Strafing Run. It hits at CP 6: AKA Panther-Tiger-Hellscape when it is a majority anti-infantry strafing run? I know there are rockets but it's no bombing run.
I don't like the direction of the new patch either. Homogenization of tanks seems lazy and uninteresting. The reduction of the fire pit radius was awful. I can click troops near a firepit and they'll freeze to death unless I specifically micro them next to it some some cases. There remain forgotten units like the German Sniper, the Russian Tier 3 M-5 Halftrack and T-70 Light Tank that are just atrociously bad or lack a useful combat role.
I will say that I have been having fun. There are great moments and it's a blast to get on and play with friends still. I cannot say that the design decisions have been completely complicit in my fun though.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
If you're playing soviets you have my condolences :P.
Edit: Am I crazy for thinking that molotovs have some crit bonus when they first explode? I'm not slow enough to let molotovs burn my squads but the damage they deal is usually super quick since a guy runs off in flames right away half the time.
Yep, sounds like we just need to agree to disagree here. I'm very familiar with your background and experience with Company of Heroes and took that into account when I made my post. I understand a bunch of small tweaks like that can dramatically change the meta game and piss off people who are intimately familiar with the original, but to me this is like the difference between Starcraft 1 and 2. To 90% of the people who play the games it's "Hey this is just like Starcraft but with new units and prettier graphics!", but when you analyze the meta-game and high level play the games are very different and as a result there's a reason that people still play Brood War. When you go from to Dawn of War to Dawn of War 2 there was an absolutely obvious shift in the focus of the game from big battles to small skirmishes that could alienate anyone from the most casual fan to the most hardcore pro gaming vet. I'm not trying to say the games aren't different, I'm just saying that the level of hyperbole displayed in this thread is ridiculous and misleading. I'm sorry if saying that every person I've known who's played CoH2 (both before and after I tried the beta myself) thinks it's extremely reminiscent of the first game is pulling the "my friends say card", but it is what it is. I know that a hardcore vet is going to see everything that's different, but their entire existence is nitpicking small details in order to gain an advantage playing the game. That doesn't mean the game is a huge departure from its predecessor; I'm sure there are tons of meta game changes from Madden 11 to Madden 12 that the top tier competitors obsess over, but that doesn't mean they're not the same damn game for the most part. I realize the fanboy pants comment was pretty flippant, but your response is exactly what I'm talking about. I know that the top tier pros are going to obsess over minute details because that's sort of their job. To develop that into the notion of the game being a drastic departure is just being a silly goose.
I haven't seen anything in my time with the beta that leads me to believe that this game will be less fun than CoH1. I've had far less frustrating losses than I've had in my time with CoH which I can only see as a plus so far! I worry about long term balance because everyone knows how much Relic sucks at that, but right now I'm happy with having two really fun factions over four factions in various states of broken/boring from CoH1. I'm a little bit biased because I was never a fan of the Americans despite many many tries to love them, and had to shamefully play the Brits at times just because the Germans were so cool and you were often times forced to play Allies just because.
A few of my comments weren't directed directly towards you, they were to the thread as a whole. There's a lot of "Tanks suck!" "Tanks are overpowered why build infantry?" and "Too much grenade spam!" People are complaining about not seeing bullets when there are clearly tracer rounds in the game makes me wonder if I'm actually just playing that CoH fan mod that added the Russians!
The reason you haven't seen anything that would make the game less fun than CoH 1 is that you weren't playing CoH 1 at a high enough level to really take advantage of what a lot of people loved about CoH 1 that set it apart from basically every other game that has ever been made. I'm glad for you that your skill level, your engagement with the game mechanics, or a mixture of the two is such that you can disregard a lot about both CoH and CoH 2 and, in doing so, have as much fun with both games, but when you say "this game won't be less fun than CoH 1" just remember that a big part of the reason why this is the case is that the stuff you found fun in CoH 1 can survive in lots of different RTS games (at the very least, it can survive in CoH 1 and CoH 2) whereas the stuff a lot of high level players found fun in CoH 1 appears not to have made the jump to CoH 2. For those high level players, there is other stuff to enjoy in CoH 2 (just like there's other stuff to enjoy in Dawn of War 2, a game CoH 2 shares a lot in common with), but it's not the same stuff as in CoH 1, it's nowhere near as unique as the stuff in CoH 1, and I think most people at a high level tend to enjoy it less than the stuff in CoH 1.
There are tracer rounds but they are much fainter and less obvious and some units don't really get them. I just watched a CoH 2 cast by two casters who are far from blind idiots, and there was a point at which they misidentified the source of suppression in a fight because even though two machineguns were in houses firing at stuff, it was basically impossible to know this or to know what they were firing at unless you got out a microscope, because things are far too cluttered to notice where machineguns are shooting most of the time. (Similar things happen in basically every CoH 2 cast I've seen - the casters miss stuff that would never have been missed in CoH because things are so visually busy and important things are less accentuated.) In the original CoH nobody would ever fail to notice a machinegun firing. They spit out almost solid lines of tracers. That's helpful and useful and clear and concise and simple and bold and clean. CoH 2 is none of these things in any of its design and the game suffers greatly for it.
You don't get to discount everything I'm saying as "Lol you bad stop, let the pros decide what's fun". I'm not a pro, but I hovered around level 13 PE before Tales of Valor came out, which is a lot higher than most people will ever get. I may not be as good as you, and certainly not as good as a pro, but I'm better at this game than most people who play it. If my level of play is too low to make a decision on the game then pretty much everyone but you and your friends don't get to say anything. When you say the things I find interesting can be found in lots of RTS games, you're wrong. The things that attracted me to this game are the things that I believe attracted most people to this game. It has big fuckoff awesome tanks that take positional damage and squads of infantry who (semi)intelligently seek cover, along with fancy machine guns that suppress and victory points instead of base rapes and big explosions with physics and all that stuff. I'm pretty sure not a single current high level player got into the game by saying "Boy look at all the weird quirks this metagame will have once I've mastered it!" The game is a sequel, it is different. As far as game sequels go, they are very very similar. Company of Heroes 1 to Company of Heroes 2 is not a large jump in substance or style. You don't have to be able to write a dissertation on a pro match to be able to realize the games look and play remarkably similar to one another, for better or worse. You're trying to look at a game and criticize it solely on its merits to less than 1% of the population who will play the game, and then projecting your findings to the forum and world at large by saying the game is drastically different. As such, you're being a very silly goose.