CoH 3 German Campaign!!

Let's not kid ourselves, German campaigns were pretty common in RTS games. Panzer General, Sudden Strike 1 and 2, Blitzkrieg 1 and 2 or Axis & Allies to name a few of the important ones. I would even say not having a German campaign in an RTS game is an exception.

Yes, however I would argue that they weren't as "mainstream" games so to speak as something like CoH, which I would say was highly popular for historical strategy fans.

I myself have played Blitzkrieg and Blitzkrieg 2, however fewer people sadly know about them as they were made by Russian developers and were thus not as popular in the West as in the East.

STALKER and the Cossacks as well as American Conquest series followed a similar trend, they were developed by some Ukrainian guys called GSC and never really took off in the West unfortunately even tho I would say they were some very brilliant games.

Ah yes, I'm a socialist liberal (neither of those things) for saying that actual Nazis are attracted to World War II games. I thought this was fairly obvious but of course, if you ask around there are about as many Nazis here as the Nuremberg trials, thankfully because it has been obviously stigmatized to hell and back.

It's funny because forums like these for World War II games are the last places that I see the myths about the Wehrmacht that were debunked by actual historians still spread around. Myths that were written by the actual SS and former high-ranking Nazis looking to avoid a noose and garner additional sympathy from their occupiers. Company of Heroes 2 got in trouble for its campaign which largely (save maybe burning its own soldiers alive) depicted actual atrocities that happened at some point or another in the Red Army over the course of the war, without touching on some of the real atrocities, as you've mentioned, also lovely things like using penal squads as human minesweepers, etc.

I'd wager this game would get an equal amount of backlash if they realistically portrayed Rommel as a lucky opportunist and not 4D chess-playing Nazi Jesus as his popular portrait seems to make him out as, which was, mind you, part of that postwar propaganda which was encouraged by the British because it made them look better for beating him in North Africa when he didn't have a chance of winning it to begin with.

And I love the "Wehrmacht wasn't racist" thing, pretty much every army was fucking racist to whatever degree, it's just the British wouldn't have turned their colonial troops into soap and candles if they didn't have a crippling manpower shortage. If you missed it that was intentional hyperbole by the way.

For the record I don't really have a "side". I think, generally, the glorification of war is troubling, doubly so when it leads people, in whatever small ways, down the path of sympathy for an awful regime, whichever one. I also think the American army committed a ridiculous share of war crimes and incited a racial hatred against the Japanese that at least approached the level of Jews in Germany, but you see a lot fewer people reacting to that with denial or deflection as opposed to merely mentioning that some people harbour sympathy for the Nazis.

I never called you socialist or a liberal, or both but okay I guess?

I said that your socialist liberal education has gone to your head based on things that I've read about Canadian education and most recently, people being angry and breaking monuments for the tragic events of Canadian schools killing native kids which is not going to bring them back unfortunately, it's just trying to erase the history which I don't really agree with but I guess people don't really have anything else to direct their anger at.

And yeah, WW2 and history is in general a hotspot for extremists, on both sides unfortunately. It's very rarely that you can have a civil discussion that's not full of bias or shit flinging from either side.

Extremism, regardless on which side of the political spectrum it falls on, ends very badly as history has proven but that's something a lot of people seem to disregard and keep to it that they're right and that their views and their side are the right ones while the others are bad regardless of any evidence and historical proof.

I also never said that the Wehrmacht wasn't racist, I'm just saying whenever I see somebody say they were while defending the Allies or Soviets, who also held contempt for the jewish people and called them capitalists, not to mention that they outright banned religion, but again this is rarely ever even mentioned for some reason.

As far as you picking a side goes, again I never said that you did altho your comment makes it look like you're suggesting that only right wing extremists play and enjoy these games while in reality there are many nationalistic and extremist types also on the left that play and enjoy them but again, only the Nazis are ever mentioned.

And I think that's dangerous because people grow up with these Hollywood like beliefs that life and the world work in absolutes and that things are black and white and not grey and complex as they are in reality.

One example that I can give is actually as you said that of the 422nd Infantry Regiment of the US Army which was the only Japanese-American unit in the entire US military during the war I believe to serve in the war due to America's distrust towards the Japanese after Pearl Harbor happened and the segregation policies that followed. Roosevelt is often blamed for the US concentration camps set out for these people and this is never mentioned as well because many people want to believe that he was the good guy that established the "arsenal of democracy" and took America out of the great depression while in reality it was a bit different.

I also find it ironic how after the war the Lend-Lease plan was turned against the US as the Soviets started lining up tanks between the East-West border that was set up in Europe.

The West basically traded one dictator for another, arguably an even bigger and more cruel one as history shows.

I, for one, would like to play a German campaign. Ideally each faction would have a campaign. If nothing else, it provides a good way to get players acquainted with each faction, and their various units/gimmicks. (Assuming the campaigns don't have their own unique balancing/unique unit variations... though this latter point is very likely.)

Honestly, anyone making an argument that they shouldn't do so because of imagined "neonazis" is being kind of disingenuous. It really is not an important factor in the slightest. You can already play as the Axis in multiplayer.

Unrelated, but I am vaguely optimistic about CoH3? There arent any massive GLARING flaws, though there are some slightly questionable decisions (Autovaulting, etc), and control problems are somewhat prevalent (For some reason my camera snaps to random points when i try to pan with the mousewheel?). I imagine most of these will be ironed out with the full release.

I can confirm from digging in the game's files that there will be a German campaign since there's battlegroups and units listed there, including Italian ones:

The only offensive thing here is that the trailer features a Panzer IV with sideskirts in North Africa.

I can confirm from digging in the game's files that there will be a German campaign since there's battlegroups and units listed there, including Italian ones:

It's possible that the AI uses Battlegroups and similar, though. Is it necessarily evidence of Axis campaigns?

The only offensive thing here is that the trailer features a Panzer IV with sideskirts in North Africa.

Nice catch.

For earlier in the thread there have been plenty of german campaigns, and every one I've played had little to no reference to nazis or their emblems, focusing purely on military matters.

Panzer General was the first and it was done pretty well. Panzer Korps has a dedicated desert campaign and was very much a modern version of Panzer General. The german campaign in Hearts of Iron 2 somehow managed to inject political stuff (annexation of austria and sudetenland among a long list) without nazis as well.

It's possible that the AI uses Battlegroups and similar, though. Is it necessarily evidence of Axis campaigns?

I mean generally if you go through CoH2's files using it's own Archive Viewer you will notice that they don't really have campaign folders like here.

They only have _sp units which are used in the Allied campaigns so it makes sense to me with all of the evidence we have that there will be a German campaign in Africa with Rommel in this game as opposed to CoH2.

Plus there's also mention of the DAK in the files as well, further hinting at the above.

I mean generally if you go through CoH2's files using it's own Archive Viewer you will notice that they don't really have campaign folders like here.

They only have _sp units which are used in the Allied campaigns so it makes sense to me with all of the evidence we have that there will be a German campaign in Africa with Rommel in this game as opposed to CoH2.

Plus there's also mention of the DAK in the files as well, further hinting at the above.

Neat! I wonder what the Afrika Korps' gimmick will be, when compared with the "regular" german faction?

Neat! I wonder what the Afrika Korps' gimmick will be, when compared with the "regular" german faction?

I'm guessing they'll be relying more on planes rather than ships but I'm not entirely sure.

Other than that the DAK was undersrength and undersupplied most of the time and had to resort to scavenging so we might see this ability back for them as well as using captured British and American vehicles.

One great example is Rommel's command truck that they called a Mammoth which was an AEC Armored Command Vehicle which was a 4x4 Matador truck, or this thing here:



You can read more about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEC_Armoured_Command_Vehicle

But yeah, it's possible that the DAK have a mobile HQ instead like the OKW in CoH2 and Brits in CoH or something as well as us seeing German Crusaders, Matildas and other such captured tanks and vehicles.

CoH and Codename: Panzers were literally one of the first few RTS games that had a German campaign lol.

CoH1 made a great german campaign. For me it was a huge suprise that CoH2 didn't have german campaign especially that they intensionally remove battle of Kursk from soviet campaign. Then Western Front DLC and Arden push. It was a huge german offensive which did great progres in first days - yet they focus only on USF.

Entire USF Arden Assault campaign seems very wierd as in first mission you have german pushing your frontline and then suddenly you are the one in offensive.

I think Relic will learn that axis campaign is what a lot of people asking for. Question is if it's gonna be in release (which i doubt as allies campaign seems pretty big).

I just hope this german campaign will be as story line similar to old coh1 campaigns. Smaller number of missions but well thought and design is way better.

From a design point of view it would be better to combine Italians with Africa Corps as Italy didn't really have late game options. No good medium tanks expect samovente75.

I wonder though how they will allude to the fact that axis used a lot of retakenally tanks, vehicles and weapons. It was very common in Africa and most noticable in ww2.

CoH1 made a great german campaign. For me it was a huge suprise that CoH2 didn't have german campaign especially that they intensionally remove battle of Kursk from soviet campaign. Then Western Front DLC and Arden push. It was a huge german offensive which did great progres in first days - yet they focus only on USF.

Entire USF Arden Assault campaign seems very wierd as in first mission you have german pushing your frontline and then suddenly you are the one in offensive.

I think Relic will learn that axis campaign is what a lot of people asking for. Question is if it's gonna be in release (which i doubt as allies campaign seems pretty big).

I just hope this german campaign will be as story line similar to old coh1 campaigns. Smaller number of missions but well thought and design is way better.

CoH2 felt like a product of corporate meddling after SEGA took over for some reason with as you said a poorly executed Soviet campaign and non-existent German one even tho there was a big opportunity for one showing Operation Barbarossa or the Ardennes as you said.

CoH3 seems to have a more balanced and community involved approach, at least so far that isn't until the game is actually released.

I doubt there won't be any long lists of DLC shenanigans going on again sadly but I guess thats just modern gaming nowadays altho I would say many people are against the practice and I myself know people that said they'd never play CoH2 because of the amount of DLCs and P2W mechanics that were in the early days of the game with 5 dollar premium commanders that were better than anything else in the game at that time and were then nerfed after a month to make room for the next batch of OP commanders so they will most likely miss out on a lot of potential customers again if they decide to milk the game once more.

And I honestly prefer the dynamic approach since it's non-linear meaning that you have far more options and freedom to make your own experience and not to mention replayability, like the Total War games.

Altho I would still enjoy a good story and new cutscenes.

No, people didn't like the CoH2 solo company because it was a complete lousy Enemy at the Gate of cliche mythical nonsense. For clarity, I have already cited Mission: Mtsensk. When a bunch of recruits were desperately on the defensive in October when the ice withstood the tanks and blah blah blah. When in reality Mtsensk was defended by more than 6,000 paratroopers who were airlifted with guns, mortars and even eight light T-37A tanks successfully defended the highway before the arrival of tanks and jointly counterattacked, the best tanker of the Anti-Hitler Coalition took part in these battles, after these battles Guderian writes about the superiority of the T-34 over German tanks. But who needs it? It's boring, let's do boring missions and plot.

Meanwhile, people were in love in CoH1 campaign, because it was complete lousy Saving Private Rayan cliche mythical nonsense.

Whatever they will do in CoH3 campaign, it'll be fine, monke will throw poop and everyone else will just play and enjoy it.

Meanwhile, people were in love in CoH1 campaign, because it was complete lousy Saving Private Rayan cliche mythical nonsense.

Whatever they will do in CoH3 campaign, it'll be fine, monke will throw poop and everyone else will just play and enjoy it.

CoH 1 was based on the cult films people love: Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, A Bridge Too Far. I don’t know what drove the development of CoX2 as a single-player campaign: bias, lack of competence, poor funding (due to the imminent bankruptcy of THQ). But devastating criticism scared away the creators and they decided to play neutral boring single-player campaigns: Ardennes Assailt and now. This is not why we love the Company of heroes a single player campaign, but for the emotions, for the plot, for the excellent cut scenes. There are some people who don't like the campaign from the screamish battles - it's boring.

CoH 1 was based on the cult films people love: Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, A Bridge Too Far. I don’t know what drove the development of CoX2 as a single-player campaign: bias, lack of competence, poor funding (due to the imminent bankruptcy of THQ). But devastating criticism scared away the creators and they decided to play neutral boring single-player campaigns: Ardennes Assailt and now. This is not why we love the Company of heroes a single player campaign, but for the emotions, for the plot, for the excellent cut scenes. There are some people who don't like the campaign from the screamish battles - it's boring.

It was the exact same Hollywood cliche war mythology and stereotypes.

It was the exact same Hollywood cliche war mythology and stereotypes.

I would not call for example A Bridge Too Far to cliché films, he described the events quite well, but a little with anguish and anti-war. But the film as a whole is pretty accurate.

I would not call for example A Bridge Too Far to cliché films, he described the events quite well, but a little with anguish and anti-war. But the film as a whole is pretty accurate.

Have you seen Enemy at the gates?

Have you seen Enemy at the gates?

Yes, and read the real memoirs of Zaitsev. So I really understand how bad this movie is.

Some new info about the German campaign that I found while digging around the files.

Apparently there will be 3 German commanders from what I'm seeing and their names are kind of "coded" so to speak.



The first appears to be a German General which has the closest thing to the first name in the list altho he never was in Africa apparently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ludwig_Ewald_von_Kleist

The second "Rahmel" when googled for comes up as Rommel to no surprise.

And finally we have the guy that organized Operation Valkyrie who also fought in Africa as well having the closest name to the third person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg