State of the Game

Hey CoH2. Org and Relic,

This post is sort of a personal appeal and as a way of giving feedback to the community and the developers, it's going to be a long one, so I appreciate your patience. I have been inactive for quite a while now, mainly because I am disappointed with the current state of the game.Let me be clear: I am not unhappy about the balance or the developers. Balance issues are always going to be an issue in strategy games, especially if you introduce changes. The developers have faced numerous challenges outside of just making a "fun game", including but not limited to, a change in publishers.

So what am I unhappy about?

CoH2 currently has a very weird metagame. The Commanders(default and paid), in particular, pose very little support to the game loop. It is not always fair to compare everything to Company Heroes 1, since there are substantial differences, but there are core elements that can and should be compared, since they make up what the franchise is about. I'm going to list out the differences that made CoH great amongst other RTS games, and then I'll explain why CoH2 doesn't completely use these strengths.

The Goal
What was captivating about the original game, was the game's objective. All other RTS games focus solely on destroying your opposition. The most direct way of doing so is by destroying their buildings. Destroy their Town Center, they can't pick resources. No resources, no troops. No troops, no resistance.

Dawn of War, and by extension CoH changed this. CoH is all about strategical victories first, tactics second. You don't collect resources at all, instead you earn them by strategically controlling the map. To reinforce this, base rushes were almost completely discouraged (cheap, unforeseen tactics aside), by giving free defenses and hardy buildings that could only be taken out in the very late game.

The Catch
The catch, as in real life war, is that there's going to be someone else resisting you. They are going to be controlling territory as well. The only possible solution, is neutralizing them. Let me remind the readers: these tactics are only encouraged because you want the territory. Killing the enemy but not taking the territory is fruitless.

In order to reinforce this however, the territory itself was turned into a passive force. If you used the environment correctly, it was your best ally. Incorrectly, the territory would slow you down, make you vulnerable, and restrict you. These elements are represented as cover and buildings. This alone changed everything.

In fact, reinforcing this idea, Relic gave the players never before seen tools: Your troops had the ability to create their own cover (sandbags), and barbed wire (area denial). If that wasn't enough, a very specific unit in the game and a whole mechanic was introduced, that reinforced this idea: The machine gun and suppression.

50% of every single CoH game relied on holding the best cover, and creating the best kill zones early on. The semois pin, the Angoville Right Side Pin, the Sout house in Rails & Metal. Old timers know these terms, and whoever pulled these strategies had an early advantage.

Doctrines
Finally, they introduced doctrines. Doctrines were not something new. Command and Conquer had introduced them as early as Generals. It is, in theory, a reinforcing of the concept of different races with different play styles introduced in Warcraft. Your base army is different than the enemy's, but on top of that, you can choose a commander/doctrine to make certain aspects even stronger. The enemy will most likely use those strengths against you, so you had to adjust your entire strategy to prevent that. This ensured that although the same two armies met in battle, the fight would be different depending on which commanders were leading those battles. Great Replay Value!

What did CoH change for Commanders though? Well, Generals already had unit unlocks like the sniper, it also had artillery things and stuff. It's expansion also brought about passive strengths to each commander. The difference CoH brought was that you didn't choose your commander from the start. It was similar to choosing random in Starcraft: The enemy didn't know which tools were going to be used against you, so you had to adapt once again.

On top of that, each Commander brought units instantly into the battlefield, on top of providing certain passive bonuses once they were unlocked, such as stronger bunkers, riflemen that could lay down mines or faster vehicle building times.

In short: Commanders were trump cards. If the enemy had won those vital early engagements, and you knew his strategy was switching to a defensive position, then you would choose a doctrine that allowed you to spearhead through them. If the Germans used Blitzkrieg to kill your infantry, bringing in Airborne troops with recoiless rifles or paradropping AT Guns made a big difference. Likewise, a German player abusing strong defensive bunkers would not likely withstand constant howitzer artillery coming down on them from infantry doctrines.

---------------------------------------
CoH2

Now that I got that long preamble, I want to enunciate what CoH2 brought to the playing field, in an attempt to support the above formula...

General Winter
At first sight, snow seems to reinforce the idea of territory control, as well as adapting to your environment. However, there is a fundamental flaw in how it was implemented: Every single element of cold weather is detrimental.


As mentioned, the original concept required players to take advantage of the terrain, lest it was used against you. With the exception of slowing you down, the terrain never brought about anything bad against you unless your enemy actively exploited it. Cold weather, on the other hand: slows you down, while it freezes you. While very unlikely, it also helps reveal your position through footsteps. Ice is the only element inherently neutral in the game: It will only act against you if you fail to exploit it before your opponent via mines and active overwatch (kudos on that).

When I first heard of snow, I imagined true dynamic snow. I though I'd be able to hide my troops there in ambush unless they cleared the heavy snow, for example. Instead, I can only hide my troops in heavy snow if they are standing still on it, in a blizzard. That's THREE penalties, just so my troops can't be spotted, because they don't get any bonuses from hiding. The three penalties are: Reduced mobility from heavy snow, reduced visibility from blizzard (which defeats the point of an ambush spot) and increased freezing from the blizzard. You'd have to be lucky enough to have cover in that snow, or build a giant bonfire saying "i'm here" to even use the heavy snow. The conclusion is: I won't use snow at all since its just an obstacle. I can't turn it into an opportunity.

Population
CoH1 had a very strong design towards territory control. In fact, if you didn't control enough territory, then your population suffered. The more territory, the more troops you could field. In general game design, there's this trick to break stalemates: If a player controls 51% or more of the game's goals, then the game must actively turn against the losing player so the game can finish. This advantage must be very slight though: CoH's version of this advantage is increased population. This also doesn't mean the winning player automatically wins, he must keep using skill: upkeep still plays a role and the losing player can still use good old skill to punch back and win.

CoH2 DOES NOT support this feature yet. Back in beta population and upkeep were such that both armies always had constant troops thrown at each other. In fact, being on the losing side was slightly BETTER, since upkeep didn't restrict you from reinforcing. This has changed for the better, but controlling more territories only gives you more resources, not more population, which means those extra resources are offset by upkeep anyway.

This still makes games longer, allows for way too many comebacks, and discourages players from making what I call hail mary strategic territorial disconnection: Breaking the enemy's resources by risking a cutoff. In CoH2, not only are you encouraged to OP cutoffs, but your population and by extension your production line are not affected at all form this. It's only worth it if you want to delay their resource income a bit (I am not going to critique the resource system. It's been done ad nauseam).

Commanders

This is what has enraged a lot of players lately. I am not going to go into depth discussing the DLC philosophy. I hate it, but its the route most games are taking these days, and Sega has to recover money, period. We know it can work, since games like League of Legends introduce Champions almost every month or two and still manage to remain highly competitive (Praised be the day the CoH community is that competitive). That aside, here's what truly grinds my gears, and what I think Relic can do:

First off, read what I wrote on Commanders again. Yes, it is that important. The very philosophy of Commanders is NOT bring new units into the fray. New units are fun and we all love them. Most of all, new units sell, but they won't make your day easier when balancing. Please, please, please, make sure that if a new unit will be introduced into the game, it does not duplicate the role of an already existing unit!!!! Assault Grenadiers are just cheaper PG's with a twist. Ostruppen break the entire German philosophy of quality vs quantity! Why bring trenches into the game, when we have bunkers already? Trenches were one of the most hated elements of CoHF.

These changes only have a "cool" factor, but have no positive effect on the metagame at all. I'm going to list three things I personally think would benefit the metagame:

-Earlier artillery, but munitions expensive. Compare how off map artillery worked for the Allies in vCoH. It was a gamble of munitions but it arrived early enough. Most Off Map Artillery in CoH2 is end game, when it won't have as much impact.

-Passive bonuses are great, and are not necessarily uncool: One thing I loved about Defensive Doctrine in vCoH was stronger bunkers with free reinforce points. I thought it was cool as hell since my teammates could fall back there or in 1v1 I could create my own artificial forward HQ. Fast recruitment for Riflemen or fast vehicle building was also amazing.

-If the unit is a new unit, make it WIDELY different than any other unit in the game: Besides all the extra stats and whatever, the very concept of airborne troopers having recoiless rifles, rangers having Thompsons and Falls entering almost anywhere on the battlefield made these units worth it, and awesome. note: Mechanics like Fire Up! are discouraged, since they instantly broke the kill zone mechanic. Don't make that mistake again.

As far as overall commander design, I think Relic is trying too hard to seem historically authentic. Besides giving doctrines a cool name like Spearhead or Terror, the doctrine needs to have a very specific philosophy in mind. It doesn't feel like commanders follow a strong, unified philosophy. Everything in Airborne from vCoH told me that it was a doctrine focused on battlefield presence. My paratroopers could drop and reinforce anywhere, I could field rapid munitions and support weapons, as well as quick indirect fire support from the air. Battlefield Presence.

Compare that to something like Spearhead Doctrine (which is one of my favorites in CoH2). It's got great things from other doctrines, but absolutely no real philosophy behind it: I have some offensive things, and some defensive things but no metagame changers. It won't change the way I play the game. With the exception of the mortar HT's incendiary round, I won't get anything that changes my playstyle.

Champions in LoL are bought for one main reason: They usually always bring something different into the battlefield. Some weird twist on an already known mechanic. Usually this causes a little imba, too, but its fixable.

Conclusion
LESS Commanders, more variation. Less is more. I'd happily pay as much $9.00 for a Commander, if it brought as much depth as each vCoH doctrine brought. I'm sure a lot n here would.

I love Relic's games, and I absolutely love the franchise, but I sincerely think it can be improved a lot from its current state, which is more of a spiritual successor.

This is a very dedicated community for the most part: You have guys pitching in personal time, effort and money into SNF and other tourneys. You also have very vocal(if at times a little too emotional) members in your forums. Most of all, you have very loyal players, who pitch in their time and money to play your game: Remember the roster of games out there is huge now, and some are free to play, so the fact that you are still holding on is commendable.

The money aspect is very important and I'm sure there's very knowledgeable economists at both Sega and Relic that have all the numbers perfectly laid out, but I think in the end, the perception of fairness (economically speaking) is the most important aspect. In my own very personal opinion, throwing dozens of commanders and changes is not a sign of fairness, it is a sign of desperation.

I'd rather have a couple of amazing changes in a week or two(think vCoH Stuart burst bug kind), than 300 little changes every month and a half.

I agree with a good amount of what you wrote. Map control isn't worth the manpower risk. You spread yourself thin trying to take more area but if you lose a squad in the process you're set back a minute of resources for the reward of what, +3 fuel and munitions per minute? I was so frustrated when I started playing this game and lost after controlling the entire map save two regular points. Granted I was new then but I felt I should have been more rewarded than I was for driving my opponent off the map. As of right now I feel you are in a better position focusing on holding 2 VP's and your side of the map without bothering to advance. Manpower is the controlling resource by far and you are never rewarded with more.

Cover bonuses are certainly in need of work too.

Hey CoH2. Org and Relic,

This post is sort of a personal appeal and as a way of giving feedback to the community and the developers, it's going to be a long one, so I appreciate your patience. I have been inactive for quite a while now, mainly because I am disappointed with the current state of the game.Let me be clear: I am not unhappy about the balance or the developers. Balance issues are always going to be an issue in strategy games, especially if you introduce changes. The developers have faced numerous challenges outside of just making a "fun game", including but not limited to, a change in publishers.

So what am I unhappy about?

CoH2 currently has a very weird metagame. The Commanders(default and paid), in particular, pose very little support to the game loop. It is not always fair to compare everything to Company Heroes 1, since there are substantial differences, but there are core elements that can and should be compared, since they make up what the franchise is about. I'm going to list out the differences that made CoH great amongst other RTS games, and then I'll explain why CoH2 doesn't completely use these strengths.

The Goal
What was captivating about the original game, was the game's objective. All other RTS games focus solely on destroying your opposition. The most direct way of doing so is by destroying their buildings. Destroy their Town Center, they can't pick resources. No resources, no troops. No troops, no resistance.

Dawn of War, and by extension CoH changed this. CoH is all about strategical victories first, tactics second. You don't collect resources at all, instead you earn them by strategically controlling the map. To reinforce this, base rushes were almost completely discouraged (cheap, unforeseen tactics aside), by giving free defenses and hardy buildings that could only be taken out in the very late game.

The Catch
The catch, as in real life war, is that there's going to be someone else resisting you. They are going to be controlling territory as well. The only possible solution, is neutralizing them. Let me remind the readers: these tactics are only encouraged because you want the territory. Killing the enemy but not taking the territory is fruitless.

In order to reinforce this however, the territory itself was turned into a passive force. If you used the environment correctly, it was your best ally. Incorrectly, the territory would slow you down, make you vulnerable, and restrict you. These elements are represented as cover and buildings. This alone changed everything.

In fact, reinforcing this idea, Relic gave the players never before seen tools: Your troops had the ability to create their own cover (sandbags), and barbed wire (area denial). If that wasn't enough, a very specific unit in the game and a whole mechanic was introduced, that reinforced this idea: The machine gun and suppression.

50% of every single CoH game relied on holding the best cover, and creating the best kill zones early on. The semois pin, the Angoville Right Side Pin, the Sout house in Rails & Metal. Old timers know these terms, and whoever pulled these strategies had an early advantage.

Doctrines
Finally, they introduced doctrines. Doctrines were not something new. Command and Conquer had introduced them as early as Generals. It is, in theory, a reinforcing of the concept of different races with different play styles introduced in Warcraft. Your base army is different than the enemy's, but on top of that, you can choose a commander/doctrine to make certain aspects even stronger. The enemy will most likely use those strengths against you, so you had to adjust your entire strategy to prevent that. This ensured that although the same two armies met in battle, the fight would be different depending on which commanders were leading those battles. Great Replay Value!

What did CoH change for Commanders though? Well, Generals already had unit unlocks like the sniper, it also had artillery things and stuff. It's expansion also brought about passive strengths to each commander. The difference CoH brought was that you didn't choose your commander from the start. It was similar to choosing random in Starcraft: The enemy didn't know which tools were going to be used against you, so you had to adapt once again.

On top of that, each Commander brought units instantly into the battlefield, on top of providing certain passive bonuses once they were unlocked, such as stronger bunkers, riflemen that could lay down mines or faster vehicle building times.

In short: Commanders were trump cards. If the enemy had won those vital early engagements, and you knew his strategy was switching to a defensive position, then you would choose a doctrine that allowed you to spearhead through them. If the Germans used Blitzkrieg to kill your infantry, bringing in Airborne troops with recoiless rifles or paradropping AT Guns made a big difference. Likewise, a German player abusing strong defensive bunkers would not likely withstand constant howitzer artillery coming down on them from infantry doctrines.

---------------------------------------
CoH2

Now that I got that long preamble, I want to enunciate what CoH2 brought to the playing field, in an attempt to support the above formula...

General Winter
At first sight, snow seems to reinforce the idea of territory control, as well as adapting to your environment. However, there is a fundamental flaw in how it was implemented: Every single element of cold weather is detrimental.


As mentioned, the original concept required players to take advantage of the terrain, lest it was used against you. With the exception of slowing you down, the terrain never brought about anything bad against you unless your enemy actively exploited it. Cold weather, on the other hand: slows you down, while it freezes you. While very unlikely, it also helps reveal your position through footsteps. Ice is the only element inherently neutral in the game: It will only act against you if you fail to exploit it before your opponent via mines and active overwatch (kudos on that).

When I first heard of snow, I imagined true dynamic snow. I though I'd be able to hide my troops there in ambush unless they cleared the heavy snow, for example. Instead, I can only hide my troops in heavy snow if they are standing still on it, in a blizzard. That's THREE penalties, just so my troops can't be spotted, because they don't get any bonuses from hiding. The three penalties are: Reduced mobility from heavy snow, reduced visibility from blizzard (which defeats the point of an ambush spot) and increased freezing from the blizzard. You'd have to be lucky enough to have cover in that snow, or build a giant bonfire saying "i'm here" to even use the heavy snow. The conclusion is: I won't use snow at all since its just an obstacle. I can't turn it into an opportunity.

Population
CoH1 had a very strong design towards territory control. In fact, if you didn't control enough territory, then your population suffered. The more territory, the more troops you could field. In general game design, there's this trick to break stalemates: If a player controls 51% or more of the game's goals, then the game must actively turn against the losing player so the game can finish. This advantage must be very slight though: CoH's version of this advantage is increased population. This also doesn't mean the winning player automatically wins, he must keep using skill: upkeep still plays a role and the losing player can still use good old skill to punch back and win.

CoH2 DOES NOT support this feature yet. Back in beta population and upkeep were such that both armies always had constant troops thrown at each other. In fact, being on the losing side was slightly BETTER, since upkeep didn't restrict you from reinforcing. This has changed for the better, but controlling more territories only gives you more resources, not more population, which means those extra resources are offset by upkeep anyway.

This still makes games longer, allows for way too many comebacks, and discourages players from making what I call hail mary strategic territorial disconnection: Breaking the enemy's resources by risking a cutoff. In CoH2, not only are you encouraged to OP cutoffs, but your population and by extension your production line are not affected at all form this. It's only worth it if you want to delay their resource income a bit (I am not going to critique the resource system. It's been done ad nauseam).

Commanders

This is what has enraged a lot of players lately. I am not going to go into depth discussing the DLC philosophy. I hate it, but its the route most games are taking these days, and Sega has to recover money, period. We know it can work, since games like League of Legends introduce Champions almost every month or two and still manage to remain highly competitive (Praised be the day the CoH community is that competitive). That aside, here's what truly grinds my gears, and what I think Relic can do:

First off, read what I wrote on Commanders again. Yes, it is that important. The very philosophy of Commanders is NOT bring new units into the fray. New units are fun and we all love them. Most of all, new units sell, but they won't make your day easier when balancing. Please, please, please, make sure that if a new unit will be introduced into the game, it does not duplicate the role of an already existing unit!!!! Assault Grenadiers are just cheaper PG's with a twist. Ostruppen break the entire German philosophy of quality vs quantity! Why bring trenches into the game, when we have bunkers already? Trenches were one of the most hated elements of CoHF.

These changes only have a "cool" factor, but have no positive effect on the metagame at all. I'm going to list three things I personally think would benefit the metagame:

-Earlier artillery, but munitions expensive. Compare how off map artillery worked for the Allies in vCoH. It was a gamble of munitions but it arrived early enough. Most Off Map Artillery in CoH2 is end game, when it won't have as much impact.

-Passive bonuses are great, and are not necessarily uncool: One thing I loved about Defensive Doctrine in vCoH was stronger bunkers with free reinforce points. I thought it was cool as hell since my teammates could fall back there or in 1v1 I could create my own artificial forward HQ. Fast recruitment for Riflemen or fast vehicle building was also amazing.

-If the unit is a new unit, make it WIDELY different than any other unit in the game: Besides all the extra stats and whatever, the very concept of airborne troopers having recoiless rifles, rangers having Thompsons and Falls entering almost anywhere on the battlefield made these units worth it, and awesome. note: Mechanics like Fire Up! are discouraged, since they instantly broke the kill zone mechanic. Don't make that mistake again.

As far as overall commander design, I think Relic is trying too hard to seem historically authentic. Besides giving doctrines a cool name like Spearhead or Terror, the doctrine needs to have a very specific philosophy in mind. It doesn't feel like commanders follow a strong, unified philosophy. Everything in Airborne from vCoH told me that it was a doctrine focused on battlefield presence. My paratroopers could drop and reinforce anywhere, I could field rapid munitions and support weapons, as well as quick indirect fire support from the air. Battlefield Presence.

Compare that to something like Spearhead Doctrine (which is one of my favorites in CoH2). It's got great things from other doctrines, but absolutely no real philosophy behind it: I have some offensive things, and some defensive things but no metagame changers. It won't change the way I play the game. With the exception of the mortar HT's incendiary round, I won't get anything that changes my playstyle.

Champions in LoL are bought for one main reason: They usually always bring something different into the battlefield. Some weird twist on an already known mechanic. Usually this causes a little imba, too, but its fixable.

Conclusion
LESS Commanders, more variation. Less is more. I'd happily pay as much $9.00 for a Commander, if it brought as much depth as each vCoH doctrine brought. I'm sure a lot n here would.

I love Relic's games, and I absolutely love the franchise, but I sincerely think it can be improved a lot from its current state, which is more of a spiritual successor.

This is a very dedicated community for the most part: You have guys pitching in personal time, effort and money into SNF and other tourneys. You also have very vocal(if at times a little too emotional) members in your forums. Most of all, you have very loyal players, who pitch in their time and money to play your game: Remember the roster of games out there is huge now, and some are free to play, so the fact that you are still holding on is commendable.

The money aspect is very important and I'm sure there's very knowledgeable economists at both Sega and Relic that have all the numbers perfectly laid out, but I think in the end, the perception of fairness (economically speaking) is the most important aspect. In my own very personal opinion, throwing dozens of commanders and changes is not a sign of fairness, it is a sign of desperation.

I'd rather have a couple of amazing changes in a week or two(think vCoH Stuart burst bug kind), than 300 little changes every month and a half.

Hey Bro I like what you have said here - maybe we can combine both our posts for a larger and more holistic critique? The link is below is you want to check it out - the gist of it is I miss the depth and the small details in coh - it was expertly made and its obvious that they took no where near the care and love for the 2nd game.. and its time to change that

www.coh2.org/topic/10658/how-coh2-sold-out--and-whact-to-do-about-it

I have to agree here on almost everything. I like CoH upkeep/resource system more. Commanders are just dull to me and I prefer dual tree doctrines that are actually real strategic choices. I hate all gimmick stuff like fire-up you mentioned.

I would never pay 9 bucks for a DLC doctrine though. DLCs should focus on cosmetics only. Period. Buying champions in League of Legends is annoying but acceptable because LoL is f2p game not full retail AAA title as CoH2. There is even better example how free to play model can let people stay competetive. Dota2 my friend. You pay only for skins, all heroes are avalible to everyone for free, heck, users create content to this game and earn money from it.

To sumarize, I think that not much can be done to this game at this point. They will not change core mechanics etc. We will probably see more content like new commanders, ToW missions and probably soon new expansion with 1 or 2 factions with extremely expolitable mechanics that everyone will rage for months

My only hope for this game is huge mode that will bring vCoH mechanic/factions to this game. By I hope Relic will decide to prove me wrong.

Hey Bro I like what you have said here - maybe we can combine both our posts for a larger and more holistic critique?

That said, OP made a very solid post - but I am afraid you're being too optimistic

Thanks for taking the time to read all that.

Hey Bro I like what you have said here - maybe we can combine both our posts for a larger and more holistic critique? The link is below is you want to check it out - the gist of it is I miss the depth and the small details in coh - it was expertly made and its obvious that they took no where near the care and love for the 2nd game.. and its time to change that
www.coh2.org/topic/10658/how-coh2-sold-out--and-whact-to-do-about-it

Don't take this the wrong way, but your post has a different direction than mine, so I'd prefer to keep this independent. A lot of the things you mention are technical in nature, and they cannot be changed anymore without expending an unrealistic amount of resources.

A lot of what I said cannot be "changed". You won't get dynamic snow, its just not realistically feasable at this point. The core gameplay is now set in stone.

What they CAN change, is their DLC philosophy. Those things can help shape the metagame, but not if they release them at a rate so impossibly high that it goes out of hand.

The best way to handle this, I think, is to split the game's DLC's into two: Automatch and Skirmish. Just like ToW has its own commanders unique to it, so too should automatch have its own set of Commanders. Custom games have access to all of them.

If we limit the Commanders in automatch, only the hardcore community will be affected, and I don't think the recoil will be too bad. Not if they make it so the Commanders in automatch are balanced. Automatchers would rather have a fair, in-depth fight than a fight with a Commander choice longer than a Buffet.

I'm sorry to say I cant really agree with most of the things you are saying. I'll go over your points listed under COH2 one by one and add my opinion on the subject.

General Winter:
I actually quite like Cold Tech. Harsh weather conditions simulated in this game were a reality in WW2 and for the most part it had detrimental effects on the war effort on both sides. Many men found their deaths by hypothermia, air support was not available during blizzards, tanks engines malfunctioned due to the extreme low temperatures, offenses were bogged down by snow etc.

I think it's quite refreshing to see a WW2 game where this is reflected. It forces players to take the environment into consideration. Long range, defensive, units have more power outside of storms, as the deep snow bogs down assaulting units. While during blizzards, long range units suffer from a lack of vision. A smart commander can make use of this and stage his attack to happen during a storm, but he will have to do a little more planning as his flanking troops might freeze and air support won't be able to assist him. A defending commander can, for example, use barbed wire to funnel units into pockets of deep snow.


Population:
I don't have a problem with the system as it is now. I see having a bit of comeback potential as a good thing rather than a bad thing. It forces a winning player to keep up the pressure rather than just sitting back and building up a huge army. It keeps the game more dynamic. If the winning player attacks correctly, he will get an early victory. If he just sits back, he will see his advantage slowly declining.



Commanders:
Even though the first commanders mostly lacked flavor, I do feel that relic is going in the right direction. The new commanders like luftwaffen support, partisan tactics, mechanized assault and ostruppen support had some clear ideas behind them and are all unique in how they are played.

General Winter:
I actually quite like Cold Tech. Harsh weather conditions simulated in this game were a reality in WW2 and for the most part it had detrimental effects on the war effort on both sides. Many men found their deaths by hypothermia, air support was not available during blizzards, tanks engines malfunctioned due to the extreme low temperatures, offenses were bogged down by snow etc.

It doesn't matter how real WW2 happened, if it breaks the flow of the game. Game first, history lesson second. That's the rule here. A lot of realistic things of WW2 are not depicted in the game's already existing features, because they made the game unfun to play. Mud is one very realistic example, that the developers explicitly removed from the game because it wasn't helping at all.

Population:
I don't have a problem with the system as it is now. I see having a bit of comeback potential as a good thing rather than a bad thing. It forces a winning player to keep up the pressure rather than just sitting back and building up a huge army. It keeps the game more dynamic. If the winning player attacks correctly, he will get an early victory. If he just sits back, he will see his advantage slowly declining.

You do not give freebies in a competitive strategy game. Ever. You do not get your Queen back in Chess because you are losing. You, however, can get a second Queen if you risk crossing the board with a pawn. You earn your right to come back, you don't get it for free.

Commanders:
Even though the first commanders mostly lacked flavor, I do feel that relic is going in the right direction. The new commanders like luftwaffen support, partisan tactics, mechanized assault and ostruppen support had some clear ideas behind them and are all unique in how they are played.

The general consensus by most of the experienced player's opinions I've read here, is that the Commander system itself is stale and casualized. I don't have precise numbers with me right now, but you will notice most players gravitate towards very specific doctrines. Particularly doctrines with heavy use air support or a heavy unit, such as the Tiger. The rest are fill ins.

Some of the new Commanders have interesting things, but none of them change the gameplay environment in any truly noticeable way.

I see you casually ignored the part where I stated the benefits of having cold tech. Where you see deep snow and blizzards as only annoyances, I see terrain and weather conditions that can be turned into an advantage by a competent commander.

As for the comeback mechanic: CoH2 is not a serious competitive strategy game. It never was, and it will never be. If compare CoH2 to a real competitive strategy game, such as chess or starcraft, you will see why. Unlike these real competitive games, CoH2 is based on a random number generator to determine combat events and it hands out freebies all the time. I can flame-crit 2 squads of the field with engineers, or I can lose my own whole squad instantly because the fuel tank combusts. The outcome is completely random and getting an early lead is can often just be pure RNG luck. Having a bit of a comeback mechanic helps to avoid frustration over these events.

As for the commander system: To each his own I guess. I prefer the current system (bar the retarded two new p2w commanders).

I see you casually ignored the part where I stated the benefits of having cold tech. Where you see deep snow and blizzards as only annoyances, I see terrain and weather conditions that can be turned into an advantage by a competent commander.

I played enough strategy games to know the difference between an annoyance and exploitable opportunities. This, as far as almost every standard by which other strategy games (RTS and otherwise), is not a well implemented mechanic. Even the Dune Sandworms worked better.

Unlike these real competitive games, CoH2 is based on a random number generator to determine combat events and it hands out freebies all the time.

Company of heroes was not created around random numbers. Random numbers compliment the gameplay. The very fact that CoH2 relies so much on RNG is a testament to the steps the franchise took backwards. Yes, there were instances 7 years ago when RNG changed the outcome of a battle (example: lucky mortar), but overall, you couldn't depend on lucky things to save the day. Micromanagement and positioning did.

More to the point: Just because starcraft is popular, doesn't mean its a prime example of competitive gameplay. It has been riddled with bugs and glitches since its birth, and some of them even became staples of the sports scene.

CoH2 has design flaws: They reinvented the wheel when they didn't need to. They changed the entire way small arms fire works, and even the way the player interacts with their troops, all in favor of eye candy.

Cold tech is a good thing, though i dont like my units or my opponents units freezing to death but a temporary sightline and movement decrease makes for a better game imo because you have to change up how you attack/defend.

I dont mind the commander system i feel it makes for a good game where you have to pick between shocks or guards, elephant or tiger ect but i do wish that some of the abilies like tank smoke, g43's and ppsh were global upgrades in return for fuel

for example i feel that purchesing g43s fits the long range defensive nature of the ost and ppsh upgrade would fit the upclose offensive cap everywhere style of the soviet armies

Also theres no sheltd maps really in coh2 so i would like to see tank traps, sandbags and cheap mines available to both factions because i dont think it would degenrate into an arty fest which frankly coh1 could turn into which was boring.

Coldtech is a cool idea, but it's not in a state where it actually adds positive variation to the gameplay.

Holding map control is not rewarding enough I completely agree.

I could live with the a DLC model you proposed.

Overall very nice, constructive post.

Thanks for taking the time to read all that.



Don't take this the wrong way, but your post has a different direction than mine, so I'd prefer to keep this independent. A lot of the things you mention are technical in nature, and they cannot be changed anymore without expending an unrealistic amount of resources.

A lot of what I said cannot be "changed". You won't get dynamic snow, its just not realistically feasable at this point. The core gameplay is now set in stone.

What they CAN change, is their DLC philosophy. Those things can help shape the metagame, but not if they release them at a rate so impossibly high that it goes out of hand.

The best way to handle this, I think, is to split the game's DLC's into two: Automatch and Skirmish. Just like ToW has its own commanders unique to it, so too should automatch have its own set of Commanders. Custom games have access to all of them.

If we limit the Commanders in automatch, only the hardcore community will be affected, and I don't think the recoil will be too bad. Not if they make it so the Commanders in automatch are balanced. Automatchers would rather have a fair, in-depth fight than a fight with a Commander choice longer than a Buffet.

I understand where you are coming from but for the game to be good its needs both the technical and strategic elements changed. For game developers changing an engine is no big deal.. yes it would take time and resources but it would also make them sales so therefore its not only doable its the best option. If over tje next 2-3 months they added advanced physics, damage table, imlroved at gun mechanics cover ect this is the sort of stuff every player would appreciate.

Modders change games all the time om pretty sure a game dev can too. They thpught if they used the substantially inferior dow2 engine and prettied up the graphics then no one would noticer... they were wrong everyone noticed they might not verbalise it specifically but its obvipus coh2 is a dramatically inferior game to coh in nearly every respect.

I understand where you are coming from but for the game to be good its needs both the technical and strategic elements changed. For game developers changing an engine is no big deal.. yes it would take time and resources but it would also make them sales

no

" Fire Up! are discouraged, since they instantly broke the kill zone mechanic. Don't make that mistake again. "

Nice post.I agree mostly

But one issue i Have is in coh fire up was needed because vet 3 tanks had mg42s and in coh you were not running up or operating infantry at all in front of mg42s, tank mounted or crewed. They nerfed mg42s on tanks into oblivion but the crew served mg42 was still a beast if you were in front of it so I think fire up in that instance was needed.

plus im going to say it ...coldtech sucks, its a brilliant idea, but it's not fun to play on. Maybe on a map were you have to move your forces across large swaths of territory but fighting in a closet where you are never more than 30 secs away from the other side is more tedious than anything. Leave it in if they must but turn the frequency down, once or twice a game is more than enough.

Good Post

For game developers changing an engine is no big deal.. yes it would take time and resources but it would also make them sales so therefore its not only doable its the best option. If over tje next 2-3 months they added advanced physics, damage table, imlroved at gun mechanics cover ect this is the sort of stuff every player would appreciate.

It is EXTREMELY complicated to modify game engines, and it is one of the most challenging parts of any development. Most modders don't change engines at all (they can't, its locked). They rather use clever programming tricks and workarounds to make it seem like they do. Modifying or updating a game engine can escalate to millions of dollars depending on the complexity of the engines. It's unrealistic to expect them to do this.

There's still design elements they can change, but right now, they are only modifying superficial numbers: "more speed", "less armor". These things change the strengths of units, but not their roles or functionality in the battlefield.

THAT is what they need to polish, imho, and its not unrealistic for them to do (not easy either). Back in beta they rethought some units into T4 and T3. Stuff like this does change the game a lot, and can benefit.

Early game still should be worked more.

I've the feel that all early units escalate badly, and they become trash or cannon fodder in the last steps of the game.