What the PRO's think of COH2

thumps up Ami, would be great!!
@DevM: I already saw that news in the morning will try it later with the mod. but i hope the smokin gun guys do a good job and will release a good patch for the original game in the near future!

I like the idea of deep snow being an additional environmental element to the existing vcoh mechanics. Its like water, which slows down infantry movement and gives red cover. Vehicles can cross it and creates a breach, where infantry now can follow without limitations. Also a artillery strike can remove this kind of obstacle.

This deep snow can be a nice tool for creating new maps in world builder by using it as removal obstacle similar to hedges, trees and other stuff.

If its placed at flanks to a important map object, such as VP or high ressource point, you have the choice to either go for full frontal attack and loose alot of units or use artillery to remove the deep snow for flanking.

Blizzards should readd removed deep snow. Maybe decrease line of sight and weaken the combat performance of infantry (taking more damage, creating less damage because of cold), but never kill infantry.

Environmental mechanics such as water, cover or streets just change modifiers for the guns by gaining or loosing an advantage, but never kill something.
Thats what the players weapons are for.

new tread because its offtopic.
http://www.coh2.org/topic/10918/deep-snow-and-frozen-water

thumps up Ami, would be great!!
@DevM: I already saw that news in the morning will try it later with the mod. but i hope the smokin gun guys do a good job and will release a good patch for the original game in the near future!

didnt vcoh support was officially stopped?

nope check this thread:
http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes/company-of-heroes-general-discussion/121-how-is-the-progress-going-with-fix-coh1-as-i-was-befor-server-changes

Noun (11-08-2013, 07:27 PM):
We're continuing work and should have some news later this month.

People compare early vCoH to early CoH2 all the time, but the comparison doesn't really make sense when you think about it.

When vCoH was being patched in its early years, the core game never changed. Sure, there were some pretty drastic changes to how units functioned and how mechanics worked, but the actual units themselves and the dynamic of the gameplay was exactly the same. Things like Strafing Run and Calliopes and infantry upgrades were heavily modified, but nothing was really added or removed. Tweaks were made purely to improve balance and encourage quality gameplay, not to add content or artificially create diversity.

Compare that to CoH2. No matter how brilliant Peter and the balance devs are, I don't see how it's possible to successfully balance a game when completely gamechanging content is being added on a monthly basis. The early stages of vCoH never had to worry about half a dozen new commanders every month, and balancing the need to make those commanders strong enough to encourage purchases with not screwing over the players that refuse to play.

And it's not even the balance that's my greatest concern. The core gameplay of CoH2 is incredibly simplistic when compared to vCoH, in my opinion at least. That's doubly upsetting when you realize that, strategically speaking, vCoH is technically a very simple game. Yet when you look back at early vCoH replays and walk through the history of the game, you quickly notice striking changes in gameplay and strategy. These changes didn't rely on the addition of new content, but rather the inherent depth of the original game.

Take, for example, the Americans vs. Wehrmacht matchup. Gameplay in the early years of vCoH revolved around heavy low-tier play with rushes to high-tier tanks. Veterancy was rarely touched, certain tiers were rarely used, and gameplay was fairly simplistic. Fast forward a few years and you have the emergence of T2 Terror with heavy veterancy and doctrine dependance for late-game strength. This change in strategy and gameplay was purely the result of players understanding the game better; no new content was needed.

I can't see a similar situation occurring in CoH2, and I don't think Relic can either, which is why they're attempting to artificially create this innovation by adding commanders that drastically change how the game is played.

Wehrmacht veterancy, for example, was bitched about by many players in the vCoH days. However, at the highest level of play, you rarely heard players complaining about it. Purchasable veterancy was one of the most interesting and strategically challenging aspects of vCoH play, and one of the main reasons why Wehrmacht was such a diverse faction strategically. It gave you something other than units to spend your money on, forced you to prioritize and manage your economy more intelligently, and opened up strategic opportunities for your opponents.

The problem I have with CoH2 is the fact that the base game is so painfully dull and simplistic, and the attempts by Relic to diversify that base game by releasing paywall-blocked commanders is needlessly segregating the community and making any well-intentioned attempts at balance completely futile.

People compare early vCoH to early CoH2 all the time, but the comparison doesn't really make sense when you think about it.

When vCoH was being patched in its early years, the core game never changed. Sure, there were some pretty drastic changes to how units functioned and how mechanics worked, but the actual units themselves and the dynamic of the gameplay was exactly the same. Things like Strafing Run and Calliopes and infantry upgrades were heavily modified, but nothing was really added or removed. Tweaks were made purely to improve balance and encourage quality gameplay, not to add content or artificially create diversity.

Compare that to CoH2. No matter how brilliant Peter and the balance devs are, I don't see how it's possible to successfully balance a game when completely gamechanging content is being added on a monthly basis. The early stages of vCoH never had to worry about half a dozen new commanders every month, and balancing the need to make those commanders strong enough to encourage purchases with not screwing over the players that refuse to play.

And it's not even the balance that's my greatest concern. The core gameplay of CoH2 is incredibly simplistic when compared to vCoH, in my opinion at least. That's doubly upsetting when you realize that, strategically speaking, vCoH is technically a very simple game. Yet when you look back at early vCoH replays and walk through the history of the game, you quickly notice striking changes in gameplay and strategy. These changes didn't rely on the addition of new content, but rather the inherent depth of the original game.

Take, for example, the Americans vs. Wehrmacht matchup. Gameplay in the early years of vCoH revolved around heavy low-tier play with rushes to high-tier tanks. Veterancy was rarely touched, certain tiers were rarely used, and gameplay was fairly simplistic. Fast forward a few years and you have the emergence of T2 Terror with heavy veterancy and doctrine dependance for late-game strength. This change in strategy and gameplay was purely the result of players understanding the game better; no new content was needed.

I can't see a similar situation occurring in CoH2, and I don't think Relic can either, which is why they're attempting to artificially create this innovation by adding commanders that drastically change how the game is played.

Wehrmacht veterancy, for example, was bitched about by many players in the vCoH days. However, at the highest level of play, you rarely heard players complaining about it. Purchasable veterancy was one of the most interesting and strategically challenging aspects of vCoH play, and one of the main reasons why Wehrmacht was such a diverse faction strategically. It gave you something other than units to spend your money on, forced you to prioritize and manage your economy more intelligently, and opened up strategic opportunities for your opponents.

The problem I have with CoH2 is the fact that the base game is so painfully dull and simplistic, and the attempts by Relic to diversify that base game by releasing paywall-blocked commanders is needlessly segregating the community and making any well-intentioned attempts at balance completely futile.

+1

should they reduce the commander cycles and make it 3 months? 6 months? so they instead of releasing 4 commanders each month they release 12 every 3 or 24 every 6

Sure, it would make balancing easier, but it wouldn't change the fact that they're releasing commanders to compensate for the lack of depth in the core game. There needs to be a major overhaul of the current gameplay alongside a change in their DLC policy.

Maybe balancing the less used units would be a good starting point.

I miss Brummbars, SU76, Stugs and penals.

Maybe the community should write some sort of an open letter that collects all the criticism the community agrees on ? (not only coh2.org) We could also include proposals how to solve these issues etc

getting a large group of peopel to agree on anything is impossible.

Im pretty sure most people would agree on the points HolyHammer made ealier (even though he could have expressed it a little bit more polite). Its not about details its about basic game mechanics like houses and cover.

Maybe the community should write some sort of an open letter that collects all the criticism the community agrees on ? (not only coh2.org) We could also include proposals how to solve these issues etc

What is the incentive for Relic to fix broken things in this game? They already made their profit and many of this game's problems are structural like input lag and p2p connection, etc.

The problem I have with CoH2 is the fact that the base game is so painfully dull and simplistic, and the attempts by Relic to diversify that base game by releasing paywall-blocked commanders is needlessly segregating the community and making any well-intentioned attempts at balance completely futile.

I totally agree with this - when I first played the Alpha I thought the army rosters were only placeholders for the real factions. It was very painful to learn that we would have to swallow a wehr+pe remix...

Sure, it would make balancing easier, but it wouldn't change the fact that they're releasing commanders to compensate for the lack of depth in the core game. There needs to be a major overhaul of the current gameplay alongside a change in their DLC policy.

Yeah probably make commanders only usable for ToW and custom games and introduce real doctrines vcoh style (2 trees, 3-4 ablities each) for ranked. Following relic´s logic casual players would still buy those over the top commanders and the core multiplayer players would get theirs...

As a casual player I'm heartened to see so many prominent members of the community feeling the same way I do.

I was watching SNF last night, and with CoH2 it's a pretty pale imitation of the vCoH days. And, like I say, I'm a casual, non-tourney player who likes watching high-skill play with folks like DevM, Tommy, Sepha and the rest.

I might give coh2 a try when devs will be done with the alpha version.


edit : oh so.. implementing new units and commanders and fucking up the balance isn't part of the alpha test ? lulwuut

Its finally good to see the majority of the community is seeing COH2 for all its short comings.

The positive here is that we'll most likely see a COH1 fix finally as COH2 sales peter out.

I think given the choice of a working COH1 vs COH2 - most are going to opt to uninstall COH2 leaving it to those that enjoy it - which I gather isn't very many.

People compare early vCoH to early CoH2 all the time, but the comparison doesn't really make sense when you think about it.

When vCoH was being patched in its early years, the core game never changed. Sure, there were some pretty drastic changes to how units functioned and how mechanics worked, but the actual units themselves and the dynamic of the gameplay was exactly the same. Things like Strafing Run and Calliopes and infantry upgrades were heavily modified, but nothing was really added or removed. Tweaks were made purely to improve balance and encourage quality gameplay, not to add content or artificially create diversity.

Compare that to CoH2. No matter how brilliant Peter and the balance devs are, I don't see how it's possible to successfully balance a game when completely gamechanging content is being added on a monthly basis. The early stages of vCoH never had to worry about half a dozen new commanders every month, and balancing the need to make those commanders strong enough to encourage purchases with not screwing over the players that refuse to play.

And it's not even the balance that's my greatest concern. The core gameplay of CoH2 is incredibly simplistic when compared to vCoH, in my opinion at least. That's doubly upsetting when you realize that, strategically speaking, vCoH is technically a very simple game. Yet when you look back at early vCoH replays and walk through the history of the game, you quickly notice striking changes in gameplay and strategy. These changes didn't rely on the addition of new content, but rather the inherent depth of the original game.

Take, for example, the Americans vs. Wehrmacht matchup. Gameplay in the early years of vCoH revolved around heavy low-tier play with rushes to high-tier tanks. Veterancy was rarely touched, certain tiers were rarely used, and gameplay was fairly simplistic. Fast forward a few years and you have the emergence of T2 Terror with heavy veterancy and doctrine dependance for late-game strength. This change in strategy and gameplay was purely the result of players understanding the game better; no new content was needed.

I can't see a similar situation occurring in CoH2, and I don't think Relic can either, which is why they're attempting to artificially create this innovation by adding commanders that drastically change how the game is played.

Wehrmacht veterancy, for example, was bitched about by many players in the vCoH days. However, at the highest level of play, you rarely heard players complaining about it. Purchasable veterancy was one of the most interesting and strategically challenging aspects of vCoH play, and one of the main reasons why Wehrmacht was such a diverse faction strategically. It gave you something other than units to spend your money on, forced you to prioritize and manage your economy more intelligently, and opened up strategic opportunities for your opponents.

The problem I have with CoH2 is the fact that the base game is so painfully dull and simplistic, and the attempts by Relic to diversify that base game by releasing paywall-blocked commanders is needlessly segregating the community and making any well-intentioned attempts at balance completely futile.

consent

So sad but so absolutely positively true. I am guilty as many for supporting the DLC, but it was to support the company. I had no idea it will break the game and franchise I love so much. As many said, the basic game play is a spam of grens vs cons, and then later tanks. Being someone who prefer team games, you cannot even start to imagine how shit a 3 v 3 or 4 v 4 game is compared to COH1. Yes its for noobs but so what, I still enjoyed 100's of hours in COH1 playing my noob game mode, not the same for boring COH2. Although I think the game looks pretty, the game just doesnt have any feeling...