Company of Heroes 2 is Confusing [Video]

So I made a video about the game and how it not only feels unpolished but has several confusing ideas/design choices.



Sorry in advance for the inconsistent mic quality. I need to improve my voice delivery (and distance from the mic)

Keen on hearing others' thoughts.

I most agree with the point on Staff and budget limitations for the game you get to near the end, Definitely didn't have the resources and expertise devoted like previous titles.

On Penals which you mentioned, they removed flamers because they are a problematic mechanic when put on regular infantry. The early game is about using cover and flamers totally counter cover, did the same for rifleman flamers. The PTRS was to make up for the loss rather than the goal end state.

Well, the campaign really sucks. and she sucks in all respects:
- stupid, stereotyped and frankly antihistorical (especially incredibly stupid mission in Poland)
- And rather boring missions, which are much worse than the first part and do not fit in style to the "Company of Heroes", the only mission that is really successful and in the "Company of Heroes" style is "Tiger hunting".

And I don’t understand why this happened, the developers visited the museum in St. Petersburg, it was enough to follow the history and a really interesting campaign would turn out, because the history itself wrote everything that was needed.
Take the Mtsensk mission as an example: this is a boring and not reliable mission based on a real date: October 7. We see a bunch conscripts in the snow (although there was no snow) and in vain try to stop the German troops, there are a lot of troops and we are forced to retreat, continue the defense and wait for tank reinforcements. And this could be done much better simply by taking the real history:

On October 7, more than 6,140 paratroopers of the 201st and 10th brigades of the 5th airborne corps with 8th T-37 light tank, 6th mountain guns, 10th 45mm AT guns, 8th 82mm mortars and the 33rd 50-mm mortars were delivered with 80 planes to the aerodromes of Orel and Mtsensk, some aircraft had to land under arlery and AA fire. Paratroopers held German troops until the 4th Tank Brigade.
Just taking a real history could make a very interesting and “Company of Heroes” style mission.

On October 7, more than 6,140 paratroopers of the 201st and 10th brigades of the 5th airborne corps with 8th T-37 light tank, 6th mountain guns, 10th 45mm AT guns, 8th 82mm mortars and the 33rd 50-mm mortars were delivered with 80 planes to the aerodromes of Orel and Mtsensk, some aircraft had to land under arlery and AA fire. Paratroopers held German troops until the 4th Tank Brigade.
Just taking a real history could make a very interesting and “Company of Heroes” style mission.

That would mean relic would have to present the real history, not the americanized version stemming from distorted German views. A quick look at intel bulletin descriptions tells you all you need to know.

Proper video effort, demands proper response. Note that i had been writing on and off on the post so some things might not be coherent or follow the same line of thought.

-Campaign:
Talking about it, is like beating a dead horse at this point.
The meta score comes from a boicot from the Russian market. Whenever you have those kinds of heavy polars results, it's more than likely some kind of drama is behind it.
Vanilla campaign is unispiring (unfortunately the norm not the exception for RTS) and feels more like old propaganda movies even if the message behind it is different.

-Theater of War:
Untapped potential. MAYBE. It's unfortunate to have the limitations we have in the modding tools. If you check the success of the late stage life of SC2, it has been the CooP modes with "Commanders" which have kept the franchise relevant, at least in the greedy eyes of Acti-Blizz. More on this later.

-THQ/Relic/Sega
You can probably see how they intended the game to be, by how the game was 2 years into release. It's not fair to compare RTS from before 2010, cause the market suffer a completely different shift. Just check each RTS (not strategy, cause those in the Total War or turn based are different beasts) games from that point onward and how there are less iconic/success/offer atm.
Bleeding talent has been an issue as well. You can see the results on a giant like Blizzard. It's both, talented people and those who have a real vision IN CHARGE which lead to great titles.
I could be wrong on this, but the people who design the initial factions of VCOH, USF and WM, were no longer part of Relic for CoH2, or at least, the ones who were in charge of it were the ones who designed PE and Brits.

Multiplayer:
The way you describe SU/WM seems to be root on how the game launched and not how the faction evolved. WM is no longer "easier" to get into outside of 1v1 as it used to be, none SU are considered a Zerg faction. While there are certain iconic things such as 6 man squads or cheaper medium tanks.

Penals INITIAL design was not even what you described. They were 360mp Panzergrenadier equivalent unit with each SVT having the performance of G43. They were basically 6 man grens with semi autos (with semi autos been good at all ranges but better mid to close range). The satchel been the only suicide tool, as it would wipe any squad which was in heavy snow (you couldn't retreat in time), including the penals. The flamer was anecdotally, the only flamer in the game which wouldn't randomly explode.
Yes, on one hand you have the bulletins description with skewed historic facts of bunch of random dudes sent to clear minefields. On the other hand they were code to be officers or soldiers with experienced sent high risk missions. And while i never liked the PTRS upgrade (i did prefer the sticky satchel + 45mm AT gun) it's not like it out of the case for them to have some sort of AT.

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3igu17/on_the_concept_of_soviet_barrier_troops_as/
Reference 34

USF/UKF: you have to take into account with which timeframe the factions were designed and that then certain elements are added mostly through commanders for flavour ("no heavy tank faction"...receives pseudo heavy Pershing).
All 3 factions had been a mess on release (and UKF is still a mess nowadays) because the whole concept of each faction was to remove key elements of gameplay and provide them with OP ones to compensate. This destroyed teamgames for years with the release of OKW and UKF later on. USF would proceed to destroy 1v1 instead.

-Blizzard:
Please correct the fact that you can no longer play with Blizzard "offline" or in custom games. It's called Cold tech and you can enable or disable it. Not all maps which are snowy had it, but i just launched Oka River and all those "decent in theory, horrible implemented" features are still present. I would had opt for so many alternatives before removing it completely, but at the end of the days, with the limited crew they had, i prefer not to play on blizzard maps and had other features been worked on.

-Gameplay:
Disagree. There are plenty of different opinions regarding DoW 1 vs DoW 2. Making the game more like Steel Division or Men of War would had been the complete death of the franchise.
There is place for evolution on less iconic titles. You can add features or improve certain mechanics like True vision.
It's a matter of taking a look at which RTS franchises are still alive nowadays and what they had done or haven't.

Check the evolution from C&C, on either Tiberium Wars, Red Alert or Generals. See what a travesty C&C4 was. Even old WestWood developers were unable to draw from nostalgia with their latest title Greygoo.
.
Blizzard and their transition between SC:BW and SC2 and each expansion. Talking bout blizz, they also made a revolution and completely new game (WC2 were closer to first C&C) which would end up "killing" the genre couple of years later with the release of DOTA. (Talking about WC3)
Check the evolution of AoE. Take AoE II/Conquerors/Remaster/DE and how it compares to Mythology or AoE III

Developer: Age of Empires 3 Was a “Huge Mistake”

Bruce Shelley, founder of series creator Ensemble Studios, explained that the developer had tried too hard to reinvent the series and broken the game in the process.

"With Age of Empires 3 we tried all of these new ideas," he said. "I think it was a huge mistake."

"We wanted to create something that was 30 per cent the same, 30 per cent borrowed and 30 per cent innovative. I think we tried to do too much."

As it seems you want to talk about multiplayer later, i would just mention this.

INITIAL RELEASE of CoH2 had this design in mind: RNG for the sake of RNG and have as many annoying tools as possible to make your opponent uninstall instead of a playing a STRATEGY game. Remember, "every crashing plane and ramming tank, tells a story".

I'm surprised that, in the end, when you were talking about thematic failure and the portrayal of the Soviets, that you didn't bring up the campaign mission where a bunch of conscripts rescue the main character, and then are executed for it. It was the single most upsetting part of the whole game for me, suddenly I was feeling exactly what I assume all those Russian players felt.

Here you have a bunch of the titular, nameless "Heroes" of the game killed in cold blood by their own officers for rescuing one of their own. Soviet doctrine certainly discouraged initiative, sure, but I doubt extremely highly that the Soviet leadership at any tactical or even strategic level would have demanded the execution of a group of soldiers for such an act of heroism - if anything it would have made great Red Army propaganda. It was the single most disgusting moment of the campaign for me, and to this day I have not finished it. Simply cartoonish villainy.

Proper video effort, demands proper response. Note that i had been writing on and off on the post so some things might not be coherent or follow the same line of thought.

-Campaign:

Yeah, there's a lot of backlash from Russian players. I didn't intend to make the User Score a big factor, more from the critics who thought it didn't surpass the first game.


-Theater of War:

A lot of the ToW missions I played with my friend and some were novel or really well made like the Partisan-bridge mission. Finite units, unique abilities not found in SP or MP. But the ToW still suffers from quantity over quality, and poor AI.

-THQ/Relic/Sega

Yeah, the market was changing, Console Wars, more focus on RPG elements i.e. Dawn of War 2. And I also still think THQ wanted a CoH2 ASAP because of its financial situation.

I checked but didn't make it a big point but yes, most of the early Relic staff who worked on HomeWorld left (some returning for the upcoming HomeWorld 3). The director of DoW1 went to work on Diablo 3, as did the director of DoW2. As for CoH1, I forgot about how the main leads ALSO went on to work on Blizzard. At least 2 of the 4 (the other 2 have no bios).

Multiplayer:

Yeah. I understand balance and such but a part of me also does wish they tried to make things more interesting. The Soviets aren't a reskin of the Americans but I still feel like they could have gone bigger with the Eastern Front. I mean, I still love (and sometimes) hate the Multiplayer, haha.

Yes, I read about how Penals were arguably experienced soldiers and officers, sometimes well equipped too as their purpose was to lead risky assaults. I know the game tries to portray them as convicts and 'thugs'. PTRS rifles still seem outta place and I think they just better fit with the flamethrowers intended for CQC combat, not long range AT (the magnetic satchels are nice tho).


-Blizzard:

I tested the Skirmish mode with COLD TECH ON and... 50 minutes in and not a single blizzard :<

I had footage of that long skirmish battle but I deleted it because nothing happened


-Gameplay:

I'm a bit mixed on evolutionary vs revolutionary changes. There's also a middleground. You could argue CoH2 become more micro focused than macro. I love truesight but I also miss stuff like infantry being able to get into their own cover. There's tradeoffs to that ofc. Sometimes you'd want more control. Sometimes you'd like it to think for itself.

I have Grey Goo still needing to be played but I thought people complained it didn't feel 'splashy' enough like C&C Generals, Red Alert 2, or C&C3. That it had a more slower pace to it. Also the factions didn't appeal as much unlike a C&C game.

-Multiplayer

Yeah, a friend told me that before an AT grenade could either damage, cripple, or leave little to no damage on a tank. And yes, I recall playing early CoH2 and having planes wipe out a whole platoon and stuff

Thanks for the response!



As it seems you want to talk about multiplayer later, i would just mention this.

INITIAL RELEASE of CoH2 had this design in mind: RNG for the sake of RNG and have as many annoying tools as possible to make your opponent uninstall instead of a playing a STRATEGY game. Remember, "every crashing plane and ramming tank, tells a story".

Well, the campaign really sucks. and she sucks in all respects:
- stupid, stereotyped and frankly antihistorical (especially incredibly stupid mission in Poland)
- And rather boring missions, which are much worse than the first part and do not fit in style to the "Company of Heroes", the only mission that is really successful and in the "Company of Heroes" style is "Tiger hunting".

And I don’t understand why this happened, the developers visited the museum in St. Petersburg, it was enough to follow the history and a really interesting campaign would turn out, because the history itself wrote everything that was needed.
Take the Mtsensk mission as an example: this is a boring and not reliable mission based on a real date: October 7. We see a bunch conscripts in the snow (although there was no snow) and in vain try to stop the German troops, there are a lot of troops and we are forced to retreat, continue the defense and wait for tank reinforcements. And this could be done much better simply by taking the real history:

On October 7, more than 6,140 paratroopers of the 201st and 10th brigades of the 5th airborne corps with 8th T-37 light tank, 6th mountain guns, 10th 45mm AT guns, 8th 82mm mortars and the 33rd 50-mm mortars were delivered with 80 planes to the aerodromes of Orel and Mtsensk, some aircraft had to land under arlery and AA fire. Paratroopers held German troops until the 4th Tank Brigade.
Just taking a real history could make a very interesting and “Company of Heroes” style mission.

Interesting. Thanks!

I've been reading a book: "When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler" and- yeah... there are several battles and engagements I think they could have done (and y'know, as a war correspondent, covered). Like jesus, the Soviet Airborne were butchered early in the war. Interestingly they they not only were well trained, but they "had a high proportion of motivated Communists."

Their biggest role was to either infiltrate and cause havoc behind enemy lines or relieve encircled Soviet pockets. But poor navigation, command, and transports being shot down (there was one incident where ~40% or more of the Commanding Staff were lost from being shot down.

Stuff like this could have been missions. Trying to save an encircled Soviet force, sacrificing your men, and all that under a time limit or limited units would have been really thrilling.

But yeah, the best CoH missions I feel are the ones that have you run against the clock. I'd argue sadly a lot of CoH1 missions fall into: No Time Limit, Build Units, Attack, Rebuild Units, Attack. Rinse and Repeat.

I recall liking the Mortain mountain mission quite a lot. Seizing and Holding the VPs while the enemy attacked you from all sides. The D-Day mission was pretty mind blowing.

Oh, CoH1 missions also went a bit too long? And I mainly blame the build/repair times. Holy crap they take foreeeeever to arrive on the battlefield D:

-Blizzard:

I tested the Skirmish mode with COLD TECH ON and... 50 minutes in and not a single blizzard :<

I had footage of that long skirmish battle but I deleted it because nothing happened

Not all winter maps had Blizzard activated. As i said, i made sure to test it on a map i remember it had it by default (Oka River) and it proc 10 mins into the game.
You can also see units freezing without blizzard been on the map.

The problem with the Blizzard mechanic is that it was a campaign gimmicky implemented into the multiplayer, without any thought behind regarding gameplay nor balance. It also didn't interact well with both ice nor heavy snow.

Things which could improve the mechanic for multiplayer:

-Firepits: remove mp cost, add a longer cd and remove the xp gained they provided by destroying them.
-Freezing: units no longer die to freezing (nothing more annoying that playing a big map, and having your units die on retreat because of pathing). Instead they just receive hefty performance penalties.
-Heavy snow: can be cleared with flame based weapons, explosives or vehicles. "Recovers" after a Blizzard. No longer "bad" retreat paths, if you can actually clear them.
-Ice: recovers faster during blizz. It has increased HP during it.
-Blizzard: it blocks ALL offmaps during the duration (it is already cheese to call in a recon plane just before it starts and it still working). Blizzard procs at FIXED intervals (every 10 mins after the last one) and the duration is the same.

PD: something i didn't mentioned. Performance/Optimization. The game is old and people still suffer from bugsplats. The game was not finely optimized and there were several complains about the performance on Blizzard maps.

Interesting. Thanks!

I've been reading a book: "When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler" and- yeah... there are several battles and engagements I think they could have done (and y'know, as a war correspondent, covered). Like jesus, the Soviet Airborne were butchered early in the war. Interestingly they they not only were well trained, but they "had a high proportion of motivated Communists."

Their biggest role was to either infiltrate and cause havoc behind enemy lines or relieve encircled Soviet pockets. But poor navigation, command, and transports being shot down (there was one incident where ~40% or more of the Commanding Staff were lost from being shot down.

Stuff like this could have been missions. Trying to save an encircled Soviet force, sacrificing your men, and all that under a time limit or limited units would have been really thrilling.

But yeah, the best CoH missions I feel are the ones that have you run against the clock. I'd argue sadly a lot of CoH1 missions fall into: No Time Limit, Build Units, Attack, Rebuild Units, Attack. Rinse and Repeat.

I recall liking the Mortain mountain mission quite a lot. Seizing and Holding the VPs while the enemy attacked you from all sides. The D-Day mission was pretty mind blowing.

Oh, CoH1 missions also went a bit too long? And I mainly blame the build/repair times. Holy crap they take foreeeeever to arrive on the battlefield D:

OMG I bought it a few days ago! Is it good?