Company of Heroes 3 with WhiteFlash

if lelic makes something like a merge of good things from coh 1 and 2, and abandon these shitty DLC policy (talking on commanders, skins are fine) then coh 3 can get a potential

if lelic makes something like a merge of good things from coh 1 and 2, and abandon these shitty DLC policy (talking on commanders, skins are fine) then coh 3 can get a potential

That I should evah agree with the non-soap gobbler...so help me!

Great Artikel, agreed with everthing :-)
But I dont think relic do good Job since the DOW3 Desaster

Great article, well done it's not easy to write pieces. I agree with all of the points.

However my expectations are going to be very low (like negative numbers) after the piece of rubbish they released called Dawn of War 3.

Really thoughtfully written article with a hell of a lot i feel the vast majority of the coh community (coh 1 and/or 2) would agree with.

This is very good work +1

Some good points, some weird/pointless points but nice article overall.

Some things I disagree with though:

I love the coh2 tact map and use it extensively. It provides a wealth of information at a quick glance, not sure what you dislike about it. Maybe just a preference thing.

The more valuable resource points in coh2 already take longer to cap, I think the foot in the circle capping system is better (it is less binary), but again, maybe personal preference.

Demo charges are visible to all units now, at this point if you lose a squad to one - you goofed hard. They did used to be a problem, but not so much anymore.

Pop cap should not be tied to territory control. Being cutoff is still brutal in COH2 and you still see major pushes/fights over cutoff points on maps like Kharkov, Kholodny, Langres, Crossroads, Crossing, etc. Comebacks are fun and exciting, reducing the comeback potential makes the game worse in my opinion.

Strat points providing resources gives more options for cap orders throughout the game. You have to decide if it's better to rush an important major point or connect as many strat points as possible because those strat points will give you resources while you're connecting the important points. I could see the addition of minor/major fuel/muni points if balanced but I think the overall capping/resource system in coh2 is fine - it adds more options than you give it credit for.

Commanders in coh2 were bad, but my reasoning is that some commanders essentially require another commander to counter them - not a fun system. Commanders should be completely supplemental and never contain anything so threatening that you (basically) MUST pick another commander or lose (ISU requires JT/Ele for example).

Other than that, some nice points. Hopefully Relic takes the best of coh1 + the best of coh2 and makes coh3 great.

Make CoH great again and build a wall to keep these CoH2 immigrants out Kappa

While this is a good article, and a lot of the points are pretty accruate, only two things matter:

1. Fundamentally good faction design
2. Frequent patching

CoH3's success, or really any MP-focused game, is based entirely on its ability to keep an active player base; and that's something you can't rebuild after a few years (unless you're incredible lucky). That means the game needs to be released in a good state, and maintained with quick, iterative patches

If/When a new game comes out, the factions need to be fundamentally well designed, so they don't require a rework (or rely entirely on gimmicks). That means all the factions need access to basic tools (snares, suppression, mobile indirect fire,etc. ) and simultaneously can't rely on units with "make-or-break" abilities that take them from being awful to insanely OP (launch 'brace' ability). A large portion of the community latches on to a single faction, so if that faction is fundamentally broken OR continuously faces broken (overpowered) factions, they'll leave. This doesn't mean the game needs to be absolutely perfect on launch, but it does mean that they need to be within 5-10% of each other in terms of 'power', across most skill levels.

The second point is equally as important, since problem areas need to be addressed quickly in order to prevent people from leaving because "the game is broken". If players encounter something overpowered, gimmicky, or frustrating, they'll generally accept it for a bit - but it can't stay like that for long; this is especially important for game breaking stuff (i.e. full-auto sherman, etc.).


Those two points are critical; miss both, and we're just back in CoH2's situation where it took years for it to be "good" and even longer to get it to the current status.

While this is a good article, and a lot of the points are pretty accruate, only two things matter:

1. Fundamentally good faction design
2. Frequent patching

CoH3's success, or really any MP-focused game, is based entirely on its ability to keep an active player base; and that's something you can't rebuild after a few years (unless you're incredible lucky). That means the game needs to be released in a good state, and maintained with quick, iterative patches

If/When a new game comes out, the factions need to be fundamentally well designed, so they don't require a rework (or rely entirely on gimmicks). That means all the factions need access to basic tools (snares, suppression, mobile indirect fire,etc. ) and simultaneously can't rely on units with "make-or-break" abilities that take them from being awful to insanely OP (launch 'brace' ability). A large portion of the community latches on to a single faction, so if that faction is fundamentally broken OR continuously faces broken (overpowered) factions, they'll leave. This doesn't mean the game needs to be absolutely perfect on launch, but it does mean that they need to be within 5-10% of each other in terms of 'power', across most skill levels.

The second point is equally as important, since problem areas need to be addressed quickly in order to prevent people from leaving because "the game is broken". If players encounter something overpowered, gimmicky, or frustrating, they'll generally accept it for a bit - but it can't stay like that for long; this is especially important for game breaking stuff (i.e. full-auto sherman, etc.).


Those two points are critical; miss both, and we're just back in CoH2's situation where it took years for it to be "good" and even longer to get it to the current status.

And dont forget maps, like WhiteFlash already said maps are as important if not more important as faction design!
Generally i'm speaking for 2v2 maps but before last 2 patches the map pool was really terrible! Right now it's getting better also if there's still some maps where if u start on certain point u're totally in advantage ( thinking about cha'rkov south, Moskow's south) ..or some maps that there shoudn't be like Ettelbruck.
You can make the best factions design ever but without a decent map u'll not enjoy playing them

COH2 resource system is better

Well done, WhiteFlash! Since ive played the series from 2007, I can pretty much agree to it all. A+ dudeh!

Pop cap should not be tied to territory control. Being cutoff is still brutal in COH2 and you still see major pushes/fights over cutoff points on maps like Kharkov, Kholodny, Langres, Crossroads, Crossing, etc. Comebacks are fun and exciting, reducing the comeback potential makes the game worse in my opinion.

Strat points providing resources gives more options for cap orders throughout the game. You have to decide if it's better to rush an important major point or connect as many strat points as possible because those strat points will give you resources while you're connecting the important points. I could see the addition of minor/major fuel/muni points if balanced but I think the overall capping/resource system in coh2 is fine - it adds more options than you give it credit for.
Other than that, some nice points. Hopefully Relic takes the best of coh1 + the best of coh2 and makes coh3 great.

COH2 resource system is better

This!

And dont forget maps, like WhiteFlash already said maps are as important if not more important as faction design!
Generally i'm speaking for 2v2 maps but before last 2 patches the map pool was really terrible! Right now it's getting better also if there's still some maps where if u start on certain point u're totally in advantage ( thinking about cha'rkov south, Moskow's south) ..or some maps that there shoudn't be like Ettelbruck.
You can make the best factions design ever but without a decent map u'll not enjoy playing them

Very true. Bad maps still hold COH2 back to this day. Map makers need to keep the game mechanics of COH in mind when designing a map. You can´t just make a cool looking map and think that´s enough.

Just look at a map like Ettelbrück, it´s basically not possible to play it properly. You can´t even use your Kübel to cap southern fuel because the stairs are too small for it. You also can´t cap the northern VP because again not enough space. It´s completly retarded. Then you have a 1000000000 HP stone building in the middle of it all. Plus all these stupid lanes that don´t allow any use of cover or positioning. Basic game mechanics that basically get rendered irrelevant by a horrible map.

DevM's quote:

Faction design in CoH1 was in many ways superior to CoH2's , many of the basic tools were already there without the need for a commander and the original factions played out in interesting ways due to the high costs associated with any major teching decision. What CoH2 factions have going for it is a more noob friendly approach,[...]

I am sorry but where exactly is the difference to CoH2 here? Can someone explain this to me? Where exactly do Wehr and Soviets in CoH2 lack a basic tool you need to pick a commander for instead?

And DLC factions lacking basic tools and going for a noob friendly approach is exactly the same in vCoH. Brits have terrible design (just like CoH2 brits) and are easy to abuse, and Panzerelite is very similar to OKW's release state... No HMG (OKW HMG34 used to be a commander call-in), no snipers, means the majority of your army consists of frontline infantry and vehicles. No flamers.
The craziest part about vCoH DLC factions is that they do not have ANY mobile team weapons AT ALL. ( I do not count the commando vickers/mortar from the HQ glider).

About the points in the text that are kinda objective (and not personal preference) I agree, especially with the complaints about CoH2 DLC commanders. But oh well, unfortunately this is what nearly all videogames these days developed into.

A few things I would like to add are:

- as mentioned before, the complaint about demos is out-dated since demos in CoH2 already got changed and are the exact same like vCoH demos now
- not a single criticism about vehicle call-ins in vCoH not costing any fuel

Btw I REALLY hope they bring back the "Operations" from vCoH or something similar in CoH3.

Assault and Panzerkrieg were just amazing. And Stonewall was really remarkable and exciting as well cuz it was a PvE match that was actually NOT boring af, even if you are used to PvP-only.

Nice article, although I can't say I agree with everything. One thing that is easy to forget is just how revolutionary CoH1 was when it came out, but that was 12 years ago and we haven't actually had anything revolutionary in the RTS world since. So it gets a pretty intense rose-tinted glasses treatment.

Keywords for success of CoH series are: squad control, flanking, anti-blob deterrents, suppression, territory control, medium tank play, and frontal armour. And yet, every single goddamn time they manage to fuck it up and introduce new factions / commanders / game mechanics that shit all over these factors and break the intended meta. Enjoy your green cover tactical battles? Haha nvm we have snipers. You like how frontal armour works and makes tanks really tanky? Lul nvm we introduced a buttload of heavy tanks so now everyone must have ultra powerful tank destroyers that penetrate EVERYTHING and thus mediums get fucked in the process. That oughta increase tactics!!1

On a less cynical note, if I really had to make a checklist of guidelines for an ideal CoH3 game, it would be:

• have separate balancing or even completely different game modes for team games. There are people who obviously love hardcore 1v1 action, and there are people who enjoy massive 8 player battles over large maps, and never the twain shall meet. Nor should they. There is place for both. Relic should admit that they have a huge player base for team games and maybe take a look at the market and realize that only a studio allergic to money and high player counts would stick stubbornly to focusing solely on 1v1 support. By all means keep the 1v1 as-is, keep the nailbiters and tourneys, but don't treat 80% of your playerbase as second class citizens.
  
  
• esports meme needs to die. It didn't work when Relic tried it, esports CoH will never succeed in the world of fortnites and starcrafts and MOBAs, and most importantly, it greatly affects game design. Esports leads to sanitized games and boring game mechanics.
  
  
• never ever experiment with these again: global purchasable veterancy, blob-encouraging veterancy / modifiers, Romulan cloaking device snipers, factions without mobile weapon crews, easy access to heavy and ultraheavy tanks.

Announce it already, Relic!

Well put! Signed.

Well written

Okay write up but why the obsession with esports? Remember DoW3 and how it was turned into a generic MOBA for the espurts crowd?

No thank you