What the PRO's think of COH2

"Units =/= depth. They can add all the new units and commanders and funny abilites they like, but it doesn't create depth.

For depth, you need multiple strategic options. Because all the strategic options in CoH2 are locked behind commanders, there's a huge wealth of options that are denied to the player at any one time. "


That's true, and it would be nice if there were more in-game tech options. I don't think that means there's a problem with adding content in commanders though, if they can continue to be balanced with the rest of the game, and if nothing ever becomes a crap-shoot of who brought the right commanders to deal with the other guy's selection of commanders. I do feel that we've hit the limit on how many commanders we can keep track of.

And while coh may have had a whole lot of options,the viable strategies in what was considered to be the most balanced incarnation of the game didn't seem that varied when I watched the tournaments. Most of the units got left out, or were used in-spite of being less optimal than other options. There were a lot of m8's and snipers and rifles with bars, some nade play, jeeps?, at guns, m10s(or the hellcat) and Shermans.

Granted, germans seemed to have a hundred different ways to play.

I say like the rest, I'm no pro but...

Most of you guys have made valid points but Tommy nailed it. I was hoping for a spectator mode more than World Builder since it would help SNF and the few remaining big names who are still streaming to market the game. I think they should "transfer" the best and most popular maps in vCoH and leave the rest of the map making to the community now since we got the World Builder.

A lot of people complain and shout "STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING RELIC" but very few come up with alternatives. It's obvious that Relic need money to keep the business going and they probably have a financial commitment to Sega after they purchased them. How can we in the community provide ideas for Relic to make money in a "clean" way, a way that won't destroy the game in the long run and upset the player base like they have done now?

I want CoH2 to be the game and for it to grow big it needs spectator mode, a very advanced replay mode, reconnecting option when disconnected, proper game lobbies, world builder and so on. Those things should be expected to be a part of the game when you buy it but it was not in this case, we didn't even have chat rooms. Relic need money to develop those features, question is how they are going to get them.

You guys really need to post some of this stuff over on the community forums. Or tie Noun and Breaking Brad up and force them to read it, then have them play COH1 for about 40 hours.

Inverse's analysis is particularly insightful. Put another way, Wehrmacht was given strategic depth through vet, while the US was given tactical depth through mobility and global upgrades.

Theoretically, multitudes of commanders with different abilities could give the game depth - the problem is one of balance and fairness. The vetting strategies and use of fuel upgrades is what gave COH1 an additional layer of depth beyond the limited doctrines.

Here's an idea - how about a way to use fuel to open up additional commander slots? Let's say you really need an artillery piece, but you didn't load with one of those commanders. Spend 50 fuel to get another commander slot and select it. This would help standardize the early game too. Who picked a doctrine super early in COH? No one except Defensive players, because there was no benefit, and all the better to let your opponent pick first so could pick a good counter (infantry vs defensive being the strongest example.)

But again, they should make commanders that have a tendency to counter one another, or are at least perpendicular to one another, if you catch my drift. This takes a degree of design knowledge I feel Relic's current team lacks.

I think we sorta knew this was going to be how it would go - I remember reading they wanted COH2 to be more vehicle-centric, and they certainly have done that. With no global fuel upgrades, there's nothing else to spend it on, and so of course everyone techs quicker and races for vehicles, sacrificing strategic depth and the "beautiful dance" along the way.

Basically CoH2 is a completely different game from CoH1, it has it's strong points, but also it's weak points, as CoH1 does. You either love it or hate it. Complaining all the time will accomplish nothing, however trying to communicate your thoughts and opinions in a manner which will focus on weakening the problems the game currently has will help more than trying to get rid of them.

Basically CoH2 is a completely different game from CoH1, it has it's strong points, but also it's weak points, as CoH1 does. You either love it or hate it. Complaining all the time will accomplish nothing, however trying to communicate your thoughts and opinions in a manner which will focus on weakening the problems the game currently has will help more than trying to get rid of them.

After watching you and OMGPOP! blatantly exploit the broken aspects of this game against Hans and Lucky I can see that 1. you're a douche and 2. your comments are nothing but self-serving. I don't even like Hans but the way you two just act like complete dicks and double spam 5 minute T70s all over the map tells me everything I need to know about how much credibility anyone should give you. It also tells me everything I need to know about the state of this game. It's just purely awful (again, as I predicted).

Don't sit here and try to preach from some high horse about strong points and weak points of both games. This game fucking sucks. That's indisputable. Complaining all the time might not help anything, but it sure does make me feel better to vent my frustration and read that others are suffering too. As a collective group, it's only hopeful that the frustration can bring change. That also assumes there's a company in command that actually cares about the consumers of their product...You'd rather sit there and pad your stats while adding to others frustration and misery.

I wouldn't say the game is garbage, it's a solid follow up to the original and with patches, most things will get even better. Big problems are the DLC, bulletin and online system and the idea of marketing/producing CoH2 towards the comp stomping/casual community. There are plenty more problems that have made the game unfun to play to the point where I just don't feel like playing any more and likely won't.

If eventually there are patches in future that improve CoH2 to the point where it's fun enough then I'll play it again, but I don't have to force myself to play it, I'll just wait until that time.

very well said..

As much as i agree on vcoh had more strategic depth and it really needs to be added to coh2, coh imo was never a strategic game but a tactical one. Coming from starcraft coh was pretty shallow game when it came to build orders. I feel if relic fixes the input lag and make thightening up the controlling of units and make the readability better (as in seeing grenades coming and where they land) I really think this game has a bright future. Problem right now is soviet is swimming in munitions and molotovs costs 15 muni.. wtf?

Does no one else see it? The problem is the game engine - vcoh was a 3D gqme in all sense of the word. At guns shot actual projecticles which were goverened by the games physics.. i saw them hit armoured akirts and blow them off, different parts of vehicles did dkfferent damage, the tracers you saw actually hit and killed models. Giving the game such an advanced engine means it opened up so many different avenues to use in a fight - just like in real life you could cpmbine things amd it would give you some sort of effecr.

Coh2 on the other hand is 2d.. the games rules are so simplistic that the stratedgy of tje game is simiar to something like red alrert 2 , theres tactics but usually invovle spamming a unit and using "secondary abilities" they need to build in the advanced elements that made coh so good back into the engine over tje next few months or the game will just be a spam copy of coh.

The game is so basic they cant even give vehicles a different reverse speed or make one unit good againts amother unit but that unit only. The at nade faust is a joke theres no skill involved and the adding of tje rng has made the game a mockery.. random evwnts were incredible in coh in coh2 its a pathetic and overused gimmick to try to trick people into believing coh2 has the same element of depth that coh had.

I only worry about relic seeing the competative scene as "1% of all players" while it may be true, casual players also enjoy good controls, no lag, good readablity, ladders and intresting techtrees. Also esport events like SNF is huge free advertisment for relic so the competative scene is a lot bigger than that 1%. Im pretty sure its because the competative scene in one way or an other that kept vcoh growing many years after release.

I do still play this, and very much enjoy it. So can't really agree with all of the messages here.

However, xHoLyHammerx had some good points.

Now, two things here are wondering me. There could be these points in a bit more constructive post (not so angry ) and as said in previous page: WHY DOESN'T RELIC ANSWER ANYTHING in these posts regarding DLC or something.

I know there must be hundreds of them, also in official forums, but as far as I have read these through, no comments what so ever. I have even seen few times that Noun (or someone from Relic) has been reading some of these threads. And still 0 responses.

Maybe some petition could be made by COH2.org ppl and someone from staff would give this to Relic or something?

As said before, I really enjoy the game still and play around 3-5 matches per day. However I am concerned about the dropping player rates.

Basically CoH2 is a completely different game from CoH1, it has it's strong points, but also it's weak points, as CoH1 does. You either love it or hate it. Complaining all the time will accomplish nothing, however trying to communicate your thoughts and opinions in a manner which will focus on weakening the problems the game currently has will help more than trying to get rid of them.

von you are an intelligent individual , you cant have not seen that "we are talking to a brick wall " relic has their ideas about the game and the restrictions put in by Sega , the opinion of the players doesnt really concern them otherwise they wo9uld have done major gameplay changes ( that werent really difficult to implement ) to the game a long time ago .

Honestly , coh2 has so many problems each of which could spell the death for a game in todays dwindling RTS market and the devs arent doing much to solve them . Lets watch relic stuff be the final 100 ppl that will play the game by february or march that ll be a proper funerall for the RTS that had practically unlimited pottential and 7yrs of experience to draw upon but didnt .

relic just that

As much as i agree on vcoh had more strategic depth and it really needs to be added to coh2, coh imo was never a strategic game but a tactical one. Coming from starcraft coh was pretty shallow game when it came to build orders. I feel if relic fixes the input lag and make thightening up the controlling of units and make the readability better (as in seeing grenades coming and where they land) I really think this game has a bright future. Problem right now is soviet is swimming in munitions and molotovs costs 15 muni.. wtf?

While I agree with this to a point, once you got to higher levels of play in vCoH, the game was far more strategic than it was tactical. You can't really outmicro your opponents in high-level vCoH play because everybody has more or less comparable micro skills. You had to succeed strategically.

In CoH2, that really doesn't feel like it's the case. In all the games I've watched, casted, and played, it was always the player with better unit control that won the game. When you have such a basic tech structure, and no trade-off between tech investments and unit investments, you'll eventually reach a point where there is one agreed-upon ideal unit composition for both sides, and high-level matches become a contest of who can execute that composition better.

Vanilla CoH had, in my opinion, the ideal combination of tactical difficulty and strategic depth. From the start, CoH2 has leaned more toward tactics, which I believe takes away from the depth and longevity of the game.

And regarding commanders, I agree with Tommy; they create artificial depth. Even if the commanders were free, I don't think it would really solve anything. They limit a player's options to those that were selected prior to the game's start, rather than allowing a player to adapt seamlessly to his opponent's play on the fly.

All very true, but let's be realistic for a moment: all these commanders are not going to be removed again. Presumably even more will be arriving.

So what on earth could anyone from the player community actually do to reverse the situation? It's like the indians trying to stop settlers from Europe.

I can't see it making a difference if we post our concern here, on the official forum or on the kitchen suppliers' forum.

Well because of the 3vs3 and 4vs4 gameplay always becoming a boring spamfest of tanks, we will return playing vcoh.

It is us the community that are to blame,cause we bought the game and dlcs.

I did play the beta and i was feeling deep inside that the game was on the wrong track, but i still bought it and i bought all the dlc...

We all know that vcoh even without truesight is a vastly superior game.

I sincerely hope that Relic/Sega take the time needed to redesign coh2 so it become the great game it should have been. We will play the beta iterations, but stop selling cmdrs...

While I agree with this to a point, once you got to higher levels of play in vCoH, the game was far more strategic than it was tactical. You can't really outmicro your opponents in high-level vCoH play because everybody has more or less comparable micro skills. You had to succeed strategically.

In CoH2, that really doesn't feel like it's the case. In all the games I've watched, casted, and played, it was always the player with better unit control that won the game. When you have such a basic tech structure, and no trade-off between tech investments and unit investments, you'll eventually reach a point where there is one agreed-upon ideal unit composition for both sides, and high-level matches become a contest of who can execute that composition better.

Vanilla CoH had, in my opinion, the ideal combination of tactical difficulty and strategic depth. From the start, CoH2 has leaned more toward tactics, which I believe takes away from the depth and longevity of the game.

And regarding commanders, I agree with Tommy; they create artificial depth. Even if the commanders were free, I don't think it would really solve anything. They limit a player's options to those that were selected prior to the game's start, rather than allowing a player to adapt seamlessly to his opponent's play on the fly.

I think you're under-estimating the amount of strategy that goes into CoH2. Yes unit control is important, but guess what... it is important in every RTS I can think of and certainly every RTS I have played. It is one of the fundamental pillars on which the RTS genre has been built and I don't see a single problem with it. If you want to only overcome opposition with some grand over-arching strategy you can play things like Europa Universalis or some other game along those lines. In CoH2 you still have to micro well, but you also have to play strategically. There are constant decisions on what unit to purchase, how to spend munitions, where to lay mines, grenade pump-fake mindgames, pushing for cutoffs, which resources to deny your opponents based on the map layout, etc I could go on for a long time. I'm not saying that these things were non-existent in vCoH but to say that CoH2 is not strategically deep is simply ignorant.

You're throwing around the word "artificial depth" too loosely and simply trying to use it as some fancy buzzword. The truth of the matter is that commanders add real and relevant depth to the game. They have the potential to define how you are going to play in that specific game, on that specific map, or in reaction to what your opponent is doing. You do not have to pick a commander at the beginning of the game - it is entirely feasible to wait until you have seen what your opponent is doing to pick a commander. I fail to see how this system lacks seamless adaptation in response to what your opponent it doing... It also allows for players who prefer to take the initiative to choose doctrines with units like Assault Grenadiers/Ostruppen/Partisans/etc to force the enemy to react to them. Both of these are valid ways of playing and both certainly add depth to the game. Any time a commander can have such a large impact on how the game progresses adds real depth. I will say that I dislike the paid DLC way in which some of these commanders are implemented but that's just life in today's gaming world and it is ultimately probably outside of Relic's hands.

I also find it *very* hard to believe that everyone had comparable micro skills in vCoH... even in games as large as SC2 there are professional players who have untouchable micro that is miles better than other pros. There are also professional players who have god-like macro ability that compensates for their lack of micro. Unless every vCoH player was simply THAT good at every aspect of the game... I feel like you're just trying to pull excuses out of thin air.

Vanilla CoH wasn't a micro-intensive game. Micro was important, but you didn't have to be fast to be successful. Being fast helped, of course, but strategy was far more important. That's why you'd see players like SayNoToStim who dominated with 30-50 APM. Their micro wasn't great, but they were so far ahead of the curve strategically that it just didn't matter. Sepha was the same way, though his micro improved markedly in the later years of the game. Micro didn't separate good players from tournament winners; strategic decision-making did.

And when I talk about strategy and tactics, I'm talking about deciding what to spend your money on (strategy) versus deciding what to do with the units that your money bought (tactics). In my mind, unit positioning and decisions like knowing when to cut off your opponent or tricking them with grenades are all tactical decisions, even if they might have strategic importance in terms of achieving the overall goal of winning the game. They're all things you do with your units once you've decided to spend money on them.

Strategy in the traditional sense of deciding what to spend your money on is incredibly limited in CoH2. Your only decision is which unit to build; upgrades and investments in existing units are few and far too cheap to be noteworthy. So you ultimately have a game that eventually trends to one or two powerful unit compositions, simply because that's all you can spend your money on. This started happening near the end of vCoH before CoH2 was released; imagine how much worse it would be in a game with even less options.

Of course, commanders can mitigate this somewhat. Personally, one of the most interesting things about vCoH was the fact that you could beat pretty much anything without ever picking a doctrine or company; they were there to augment your existing options, not necessarily create new ones. That's why I feel that regardless of the pricing of commanders, using them to add depth is the wrong way to go. They should augment the game's inherent depth, not create it themselves.

Of course, locking commanders behind paywalls completely ruins the argument that they create depth, because that depth is not available to players who choose not to spend extra. And even if you do spend extra, you are forced to select three commanders before the game begins, which is limiting in its own right, though not nearly as much and the limitations imposed by the core game.

The thing is, I got hooked on vCoH because of the tactical, unit-centric play, but I stayed for the strategic depth that took so much longer to master. In its current state, I just don't see how that strategic depth could ever develop in the core game unless changes are made that don't involve being forced to pay for commanders. It's all tactics, and that just doesn't interest me.

I think you're under-estimating the amount of strategy that goes into CoH2. Yes unit control is important, but guess what... it is important in every RTS I can think of and certainly every RTS I have played. It is one of the fundamental pillars on which the RTS genre has been built and I don't see a single problem with it. If you want to only overcome opposition with some grand over-arching strategy you can play things like Europa Universalis or some other game along those lines. In CoH2 you still have to micro well, but you also have to play strategically. There are constant decisions on what unit to purchase, how to spend munitions, where to lay mines, grenade pump-fake mindgames, pushing for cutoffs, which resources to deny your opponents based on the map layout, etc I could go on for a long time. I'm not saying that these things were non-existent in vCoH but to say that CoH2 is not strategically deep is simply ignorant.

I'm going to disagree with you. CoH2 is in no ways as deep as vcoh, it's a very simplified game. Yea, coh2 is built on a similar engine, and has similar mechanics but in the end its too straightforward. Why do you think all of these people are complaining? Because of their "Ignorance" or misunderstanding the game? Everything you stated here in this paragraph existed in the first game, the main difference is that vcoh had layers and layers of teching / strategy on TOP of these things. That's why there are so many people and competitive players upset. It's a very simple step 1,2,3 process game where you build units, build counter units, and use your commanders abilities as munitions to win. There's no global upgrades, no pop cap system to punish poor positioning or being outplayed if you're cut off, there's no economic upgrades, the capping system is simplified immensely in terms of resource distribution. And you know what, you're entitled to like the game but if you go out saying that people don't understand this "immense amount of depth" in coh2 and then you don't even understand what's been stripped from this game and why people are mad, it makes you a tiny bit ignorant yourself don't you think?

You're throwing around the word "artificial depth" too loosely and simply trying to use it as some fancy buzzword. The truth of the matter is that commanders add real and relevant depth to the game. They have the potential to define how you are going to play in that specific game, on that specific map, or in reaction to what your opponent is doing. You do not have to pick a commander at the beginning of the game - it is entirely feasible to wait until you have seen what your opponent is doing to pick a commander. I fail to see how this system lacks seamless adaptation in response to what your opponent it doing... It also allows for players who prefer to take the initiative to choose doctrines with units like Assault Grenadiers/Ostruppen/Partisans/etc to force the enemy to react to them. Both of these are valid ways of playing and both certainly add depth to the game. Any time a commander can have such a large impact on how the game progresses adds real depth. I will say that I dislike the paid DLC way in which some of these commanders are implemented but that's just life in today's gaming world and it is ultimately probably outside of Relic's hands.

How is that even a fancy buzzword. Artificial depth is a pretty damn good way to explain the strategies that revolve around the current system and the DLC paywall. You can only have 3 commanders, and you have to choose a commander to get a few new units. The first game had a greater diversity in units fielded in just the basic army minus having to chose a doctrine. Then, the doctrine would dictate how you use those units, not just grant you "here is your super tank" and an elite infantry. There were also trees in the doctrines in vcoh, meaning, if you chose to go down one tree, you were rewarded wiht 1 very good ability, and if you decided to go down another tree you were rewarded with a second very good ability. Therefore, you sometimes couldn't have your cake and get to eat it too. Right now coh2 is simply here is your commander and you get all the things. Enjoy.

I also find it *very* hard to believe that everyone had comparable micro skills in vCoH... even in games as large as SC2 there are professional players who have untouchable micro that is miles better than other pros. There are also professional players who have god-like macro ability that compensates for their lack of micro. Unless every vCoH player was simply THAT good at every aspect of the game... I feel like you're just trying to pull excuses out of thin air.

I'm putting 10 bucks on the fact you have hardly touched vcoh. Anyway, vcoh was a lowish apm game, because it wasn't about dodging nades left and right but positioning and good use of tactics and flanking etc. You probably didn't need more than 30 apm to play this game well but obviously having more never hurt. The reason being is that you could outmaneuver your opponent or outplay him through intelligent decisions. That does still exist, but it ends up being a munitions spamming fest. Why outmaneuver when you can shoot a rifle nade or throw a molotov and the input lag makes it relatively undodgeable?

The unfortunate reality is the players like you who want a more simplified game and say "no no no everything is ok don't touch it" are going to be the ones who kill this game. The competitive community kept vcoh active and if you don't at least respect that at least acknowledge that there was a reason it ran for about 6-7 years with a steady player base. Do you REALLY see that happening with this game? Because I don't.

I remember playing vCoH without having any build in mind.

Just reacting to my enemy units. I remember winnig pretty high level games just building barracks and motor pool as US because I delayed my doctrine waiting to see what doctrine picked my enemy beforehand.

In CoH2 it doesn't matter whatever my enemy throws against me, my build is stablished the moment I pick a commander.
As soviet the issue is even worse, has you are forced to chose path the very moment you build T1 or T2.

No strategy at all in CoH2, only micro and tactics.

Not to mention that part of the game was the strategic decision which of the 3 doctrines to take to counter what the opponent is doing (if necessary). In CoH2, it is more or less luck, whether you have a commander with you that counters the opponents playstyle or commander, since you have to pick 3 out of all available, without knowing what your opponent picked before.

So in all honesty, I don't think commanders add any depth to the game. I would rather have much more options available without commanders.

Btw, the best example for the lack of diversity, is that nearly all of the games that I was watching (mostly SNF) were having very similar courses. I don't see a big difference in playstyle by any player. Why? Because we are getting close to find the one best way to play the game.