since we are adding prototype tanks in game

Can we just be honest with ourselves here and admit they probably did it so it could have a mobility advantage? Like srsly churchills are slower than King Tigers in CoH. If they did end up making this KT-killer behemoth Churchill, who the fuck would use it when it's moving at 3.3 millimeters per minute?

Just give it a speed advantage to match KT's. Seriously.

I would much much rather "lose" the historical authenticity of the moving speed of a tank than insert a whole new paper machine in the game.

Its plenty close enough to option number 3 imo....

Sturmtiger was extremely rare, and yet during multiple periods of the coh2 meta u would see one EVERY single game. Yet most WW2 vets wouldnt even recognize one if u showed them a picture

Sure ST was actually used in ww2, not disputing that. But as long as BP isnt dominating the meta i dont see the problem

"This existed on the front AT LEAST once" is a silly line to draw imo. Especially in a franchise that has warped that line all over the place

Retarded comparison.

ST ACTUALLY fought in the frontlines and has an interesting combat history.

It's rare in the sense that it was produced only in 20 numbers.

Retarded comparison.

ST ACTUALLY fought in the frontlines and has an interesting combat history.

It's rare in the sense that it was produced only in 20 numbers.

R u fucking blind? Or just dumb? I literally said that ST actually fought in that post.....

The only reason i brought it up is because of its role in coh2. At multiple points u would see one every single game because of the meta

The point is coh constantly ignores history in many different ways. ST was rare irl and yet it dominated the meta multiple times

THe only thing thats retarded is that my example doesnt bother u but the mere existence of the black prince does. Ur just drawing a subjective line that barely anybody else on the forum agrees with

R u fucking blind? Or just dumb? I literally said that ST actually fought in that post.....

The only reason i brought it up is because of its role in coh2. At multiple points u would see one every single game because of the meta

The point is coh constantly ignores history in many different ways. ST was rare irl and yet it dominated the meta multiple times

THe only thing thats retarded is that my example doesnt bother u but the mere existence of the black prince does. Ur just drawing a subjective line that barely anybody else on the forum agrees with

Everybody agrees with my bottomline which is: COH was always freehanded with its depiction of HISTORY, but the HISTORY BEING DEPICTED WAS ALWAYS ON POINT.

NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO WRECK THAT.

Most people would agree yes that the Relic has taken generous liberty on history. the always on point part though is a huge nope.

They aren't trying to wreck anything, they are as for 3 games now trying to make something interesting in the gameplay to attract players old and new.

They've got enough on their plate I'm sure and just up and removing the thing isn't a solution, and adding more units isn't either. They've balanced the current product around its presence so just being up in arms to have it pitchforked out, id be concerned for the balance side of things.

I do see how the points of the history was on point and that the Sturmtiger had an interesting combat record would align for some concerningly. But the reality was its performance was pathetic and it was a last gasp deployment, and its representation is a fiction.

Being unable to concede that this game has had extremely generous fictions to create game interest and now suddenly this extra one is the straw that broke the camels back is very eyebrow raising. When you are losing you are much more inclined to use anything you can whether its proven, unproven or not being used for its designed task. So we saw IR halftracks, guns and so on that saw such limited use but for a simple reason, it was cool.

If we are going to start to tailor where and what fiction is permitted in coh3 can start with not adding invincible aircraft again. Personally I think with the timeline to launch id be more concerned about changing it right now beyond a model swap with identical stats.

Most people would agree yes that the Relic has taken generous liberty on history. the always on point part though is a huge nope.

They aren't trying to wreck anything, they are as for 3 games now trying to make something interesting in the gameplay to attract players old and new.

They've got enough on their plate I'm sure and just up and removing the thing isn't a solution, and adding more units isn't either. They've balanced the current product around its presence so just being up in arms to have it pitchforked out, id be concerned for the balance side of things.

I do see how the points of the history was on point and that the Sturmtiger had an interesting combat record would align for some concerningly. But the reality was its performance was pathetic and it was a last gasp deployment, and its representation is a fiction.

Being unable to concede that this game has had extremely generous fictions to create game interest and now suddenly this extra one is the straw that broke the camels back is very eyebrow raising. When you are losing you are much more inclined to use anything you can whether its proven, unproven or not being used for its designed task. So we saw IR halftracks, guns and so on that saw such limited use but for a simple reason, it was cool.

If we are going to start to tailor where and what fiction is permitted in coh3 can start with not adding invincible aircraft again. Personally I think with the timeline to launch id be more concerned about changing it right now beyond a model swap with identical stats.

Don't bother to speak for others, there have already been polls and the poll showed that this is a 50/50 ratio. So it is unnecessary to state here that only a small number of people care that the Black Prince breaks the authenticity and opens the doors for the World of Tanks to the Company of Heroes.

I don't speak for others, hence I add my opinion to this board. There have been people here with opinions supporting and those not.

Id say a 50/50 split is pretty representative of the discussion here, there people in the for and against camp and a 50/50 poll doesn't support either camp more than the other so I do not see how is that a point for removing the vehicle. The reach of said poll would be a topic of its own if it had a more unanimous or decisive result

No it is simply not "heavily in favor of the nazis".

All sides made prototype units that saw no action and units that did see action (even if produced in limited numbers.)

There is no "favor" here.

The question here is weather such prototype units should be included in the game or not.


I am not sure which question is biased but I find the fact that you are talking about nazis and losing the war interesting.

COH franchise is basically a game ,now if you are suggesting that because it is based in WWII that the "evil nazis" should lose every game, I have to point out that people would simply not play such a game.

I don't think "evil Nazis" should lose every game, I do think that it's macabre in general to reduce this disgusting conflict to a game but that's a completely different issue altogether.

I know that all sides produced prototypes that never saw action - you're not saying anything new. You're not actually responding to my point, you're reiterating your argument and accusing me of bias, something you loathe other people doing.

The "question" I'm referring to is "is this unit 'authentic'?" when referring to things that should be included in the game, particularly when it comes to things which actually saw combat. The Sturmtiger is a great example of my point - it's a purpose-built machine for a very specific battlefield problem. The British made tons of those types of things, but the reason why the Sturmtiger was deployed on the battlefield, outside of its intended purpose, and why combat-ready units like the Meteor were deliberately kept out of combat, or why things like the Black Prince or Tortoise weren't produced and deployed was that the British weren't losing the war and didn't need them. The question of combat use is therefore biased in favour of German tech for the reasons I've stated. Hopefully that's clear enough for you.

Compounding it is the mystique surrounding the Wehrmacht and their supposed wunderwaffen, something that the Company of Heroes series has gladly fed for sales and what the historical community has long debunked. Again, though, that's a completely different issue, albeit one which has effects in this arena.

I don't think "evil Nazis" should lose every game, I do think that it's macabre in general to reduce this disgusting conflict to a game but that's a completely different issue altogether.

I know that all sides produced prototypes that never saw action - you're not saying anything new. You're not actually responding to my point, you're reiterating your argument and accusing me of bias, something you loathe other people doing.

The "question" I'm referring to is "is this unit 'authentic'?" when referring to things that should be included in the game, particularly when it comes to things which actually saw combat. The Sturmtiger is a great example of my point - it's a purpose-built machine for a very specific battlefield problem. The British made tons of those types of things, but the reason why the Sturmtiger was deployed on the battlefield, outside of its intended purpose, and why combat-ready units like the Meteor were deliberately kept out of combat, or why things like the Black Prince or Tortoise weren't produced and deployed was that the British weren't losing the war and didn't need them. The question of combat use is therefore biased in favour of German tech for the reasons I've stated. Hopefully that's clear enough for you.

Compounding it is the mystique surrounding the Wehrmacht and their supposed wunderwaffen, something that the Company of Heroes series has gladly fed for sales and what the historical community has long debunked. Again, though, that's a completely different issue, albeit one which has effects in this arena.

It doesn’t matter at all for what reason something was created (no matter in what country) and why it was sent to the front, the main thing was at the front. You can even add T-26-5 to the game, this is a T-26 with a 37-mm anti-aircraft gun 61-K built in Besieged Leningrad, not even photos of this tank have been preserved, but it existed and was used in the 124th tank brigade. Black Prince - existed, but not at the front.

While the BP isn’t inherently problematic for a ww2 game imo, it is pretty problematic in the faction it is in. Relic made pretty clear that the British are supposed to be based more on the army of 1942/43 and most of the units in the faction reflect that. Namely the 2-pounder at gun, the M3 Lee and the crusader tank. If they felt that was a bit limiting in some regards, it would be understandable. Taking a few liberties with 1944 vehicles would have been fine, but they are really contradicting their own design by including this vehicle. It’s like giving the DAK a Sturmtiger. If the COH2 British had this vehicle it would make way more sense, since they have a lot of 1945 gear. It’s a really strange unit to include for a 1942/1943 faction though.

COH has off course taken liberties, but we hopefully can all agree there is a line we should draw. We can’t draw that line consistently but we should think about it nonetheless. If we don’t, then there might as well be a Maus in COH3, because COH has taken liberties before and none of it matters anyway. Equipment that was rarer or that was finished in the last month of a period on which a faction is based is fine. The Black Prince was finished two years after the North African campaign ended. That is way more of a stretch than overrepresenting a rare vehicle.

Most people would agree yes that the Relic has taken generous liberty on history. the always on point part though is a huge nope.

They aren't trying to wreck anything, they are as for 3 games now trying to make something interesting in the gameplay to attract players old and new.

They've got enough on their plate I'm sure and just up and removing the thing isn't a solution, and adding more units isn't either. They've balanced the current product around its presence so just being up in arms to have it pitchforked out, id be concerned for the balance side of things.

I do see how the points of the history was on point and that the Sturmtiger had an interesting combat record would align for some concerningly. But the reality was its performance was pathetic and it was a last gasp deployment, and its representation is a fiction.

Being unable to concede that this game has had extremely generous fictions to create game interest and now suddenly this extra one is the straw that broke the camels back is very eyebrow raising. When you are losing you are much more inclined to use anything you can whether its proven, unproven or not being used for its designed task. So we saw IR halftracks, guns and so on that saw such limited use but for a simple reason, it was cool.

If we are going to start to tailor where and what fiction is permitted in coh3 can start with not adding invincible aircraft again. Personally I think with the timeline to launch id be more concerned about changing it right now beyond a model swap with identical stats.

The problem is purely creative and, imo, shows that none of the original brains behind coh1 and coh2 are currently on this game (as far as I know).

They wanted to make stock Tiger (in which I also disagree with btw don't be quick to call me wehraboo, tigers in 1941 NA are a terrible stretch) so it makes sense to give the other faction a "tiger killer" as people here call it. So far so good.

They had literally thousands of Medium-Heavy-Superheavy Allied tanks that could have fulfilled that purpose and yet they go to the completely unhistorical path whilst at the same time "take into account the community's desire for historical authenticity" by changing the fucking ship sprite nobody really noticed where/what/how it's from.

Don't just look at Black Panther like it's a unicorn event.

It's literally the pick of an iceberg that stretches way further than simply "historical freedom".

That's the point I am trying to hammer into your brains all this time but yet the discussion stands at whether ST was a good or not machine, whether the Henkles fired directly to ground and with what accuracy etc...

Don't bother to speak for others, there have already been polls and the poll showed that this is a 50/50 ratio. So it is unnecessary to state here that only a small number of people care that the Black Prince breaks the authenticity and opens the doors for the World of Tanks to the Company of Heroes.

I was just ready to post this.

Even normie cucks on plebbit are divided among the use of BP.

Everybody agrees with my bottomline which is: COH was always freehanded with its depiction of HISTORY, but the HISTORY BEING DEPICTED WAS ALWAYS ON POINT.

That sentence literally contradicts itself. Honestly amazing that u even wrote that and posted it

Don't bother to speak for others, there have already been polls and the poll showed that this is a 50/50 ratio. So it is unnecessary to state here that only a small number of people care that the Black Prince breaks the authenticity and opens the doors for the World of Tanks to the Company of Heroes.

I dont think ppls problems with the BP are just about history tho. I dont want it in the game either, but thats cuz I dont want heavy tanks in general

Much rather the game revolve around lights and mediums, which is both authentic to the part of the war coh3 focuses on, but more importantly, its more interesting from a gameplay perspective

Uber units make the gameplay dumber and more stale. Coh2 has proven that a ton

The Black Prince was finished two years after the North African campaign ended. That is way more of a stretch than overrepresenting a rare vehicle.

And how about the 3 allied factions consistently fighting alongside each other? Especially with the soviets. Its one thing for the brits and US to work together, that actually happened

But for soviets to be frequently fighting next to US or brits?

I agree thats different than including the BP, but thats not the point. The point is: Why does the BP break immersion for some ppl when the above example does not?

I don't think "evil Nazis" should lose every game, I do think that it's macabre in general to reduce this disgusting conflict to a game but that's a completely different issue altogether.

I know that all sides produced prototypes that never saw action - you're not saying anything new. You're not actually responding to my point, you're reiterating your argument and accusing me of bias, something you loathe other people doing.

The "question" I'm referring to is "is this unit 'authentic'?" when referring to things that should be included in the game, particularly when it comes to things which actually saw combat. The Sturmtiger is a great example of my point - it's a purpose-built machine for a very specific battlefield problem. The British made tons of those types of things, but the reason why the Sturmtiger was deployed on the battlefield, outside of its intended purpose, and why combat-ready units like the Meteor were deliberately kept out of combat, or why things like the Black Prince or Tortoise weren't produced and deployed was that the British weren't losing the war and didn't need them. The question of combat use is therefore biased in favour of German tech for the reasons I've stated. Hopefully that's clear enough for you.

Compounding it is the mystique surrounding the Wehrmacht and their supposed wunderwaffen, something that the Company of Heroes series has gladly fed for sales and what the historical community has long debunked. Again, though, that's a completely different issue, albeit one which has effects in this arena.

Glad to see that you agree that outcome of the war has no real bearing in the design of a game. And I have to guess that "reducing" any war in a game is macabre so that applies to most "violent" games.

The "imperialistic army of the British empire" did have many designs (see Hobart's Funnies) some of which where used in combat and some of which never made it to the frontline.

The "nazi Wehrmacht" also had a number of vehicles that also never made into battlefield.

The question weather a unit was actually deployed in front line has no "bias" or "favor" and presence of more units does necessarily translate to advantage of the faction with more unit.

In COH2:
Ostheer have access to around 18 different vehicles
UKF have access to around 14 different vehicles
Soviet have access to around 14 different vehicles
but the number of vehicle does not really "favor" of a faction.

Relic has not promoted "wunderwaffen" it has created asymmetrical balance where axis faction in general get more expensive vehicles that perform better in order to balanced against cheaper more numerous units. That is historical accurate since in general the German army was fighting in inferior numbers.

As for the "historical community" imo it should be more concern about debunking the myth that WWII was about democracy fighting totalitarian states (since the same myth is still being used today, see the Iraq invasion) than weather Sherman was a better tank than the Panther.

As for the "historical community" imo it should be more concern about debunking the myth that WWII was about democracy fighting totalitarian states (since the same myth is still being used today, see the Iraq invasion) than weather Sherman was a better tank than the Panther.

Where do u see this myth? I live in the US, very few ppl here are still under the impression that US is always the good guy

Iraq war is a hilarious example, it literally proves the opposite. It is constantly cited as an example of our government completely abusing its authority. Has a very similar view to that of vietnam, waste of lives to accomplish the goals of a few assholes

And how about the 3 allied factions consistently fighting alongside each other? Especially with the soviets. Its one thing for the brits and US to work together, that actually happened

But for soviets to be frequently fighting next to US or brits?

I agree thats different than including the BP, but thats not the point. The point is: Why does the BP break immersion for some ppl when the above example does not?

Ask Relic why they broke their word that the second part will be completely devoted to the Eastern Front and now in the third part we will play the same US and Britain factions for the third time, even more USA the third time is a direct copy of the US from the first time . This is not an excuse, but the Allied forces could go to war on the territory of the USSR twice: the first time when the USSR and Britain discussed that Britain would send its troops to Murmansk and they would jointly launch an offensive against occupied Norway (in the end, the USSR did it itself) and when France thought whom send to the USSR: infantry divisions or pilots, in the end we know the famous Normandie-Niemen Aviation Regiment.

Ask Relic why they broke their word that the second part will be completely devoted to the Eastern Front and now in the third part we will play the same US and Britain factions for the third time, even more USA the third time is a direct copy of the US from the first time .

But thats my entire point, why r u still taking relic on the word? What were u expecting? They break their rules all the time

If i remember correctly USF in coh2 was supposed to be based around the fights leading to and during the battle of the bulge, where their resources werent as dominantly available as they were throughout the war. And then they added the fucking pershing....

As I stated previously, I'd personally rather not have the BP in the game for various reasons. But it also won't completely break immersion for me if Relic keeps it. I can live with it, but I also don't get why Relic clings on to the BP so much.

That's pretty much my point of view, and probably original idea behind this thread (before it ended up comparison olympics).

As I was always saying, there is nothing wrong with BP being in the game if we look at CoH history, Relic might as well decided to add yet another layer of fiction.

My main complain, is that, if you read between lines, existence of BP doesn't even make sense considering how Relic wanted to present CoH3.

I mean, in one of the videos relic employees proudly said something like "We received feedback from a community, saying that US Rifles model uses wrong model of a jacket and we changed it"

The whole reasoning why BP should be in the game and especially the fact Relic protect the existence of BP is very concerning. I am 99,9% sure its not because "big tanks sell games" or because its cool or even I am not sure that it has any balance reasoning behind it, since (at least from file digs) there are no indications that DAK\Wehr would have anything heavier then tiger\panther.

In other words, Relic intentionally adding and keeping BP in the game, and most likely solely to allow more prototype units added into the game. And if this is the case, they would be either used as a selling point in DLC content or it will be used to plug holes in balance, instead of creating interesting asymmetrical gameplay.

But thats my entire point, why r u still taking relic on the word? What were u expecting? They break their rules all the time

If i remember correctly USF in coh2 was supposed to be based around the fights leading to and during the battle of the bulge, where their resources werent as dominantly available as they were throughout the war. And then they added the fucking pershing....

Yes, that's another reason why I'm against the Black Prince. For Relic to start keeping its damn words. First, stating that historicity and authenticity are important to us, and we listen to the community. And then they themselves broke their promises.