//
Yes, it is a rant and a personal opinion.
In my own words, I would describe COH2 as:
(Faster Phases, More Lethality, Less Strategic Map, Commanders automatic linear tree)
I might not get the "crux" of these gameplay changes in 1vs1. But could you try to explain what am I missing. A well placed flanker SMG squad or micro'ed TD could wipe units. An unlucky mortar shot could wipe a clumped squad, un-dodged grenade wiping squads. Some other differences in teching and sector resources.
I also understand that the light-vehicle "Phase" is much longer in 1vs1. You get your one-trick flame halftracks or clown cars in 4vs4, but the window is short and you know the medium tanks will start to come out from 12th minute. I don't understand how it matters if the "infantry/light vehicle" phase is much shorter in 4vs4? A well balanced unit will retain it's value with high veterancy even later in the game. Kubelwagen is the consumable unit, it is a scout. You can have a wider light motor pool selection aimed at different playstyles. You want to micro your Pumas and T70? Perfectly viable, a high vet Puma is the MVP in many games. Case point the AEC is a great Stukahunter or suicide Tiger flanker with movement-hits.
From the design perspective, it is ok to have units aimed at different modes. LEFH or Priests are definitely not 1vs1 units, they can be balanced for 4vs4 knowing they will never disrupt the 1vs1. Same for those light motor pool options: some just get out-phased too fast in 4vs4. You have different maps, and probably a pool of tech options excelling in different scenarios.
The strategic choices to capture Fuel and deny your opponent resources: It is fine to put fuel into manpower points making sure that you cannot lockout your opponent from teching. I will concede that you lost strategic options by going with COH2 system, but... COH3 has regained it, right? And... I don't mind either way. Instead of 3 COH2 linear tech trees you now have 3 COH1 tech trees to choose from.
So what, most people playing games are in the Casual/Unranked/Silver bracket, they will adapt to either side as long as the game is exciting to play without even understanding the nuances. To this day I don't know why my IS is capturing sector at half speed sometimes. I was at the top of the 4vs4 ladder. I played COH2 not because it had any mechanical differences I preferred, but there were more players, it had more commanders/units to play with, and the game looked/sounded much better.
COH2 wasn't made for team games either. The 1vs1/2vs2 was the priority up until late into the lifecycle, when they nerfed base-sector artillery shots and then community patches followed. I can maybe accept that COH2 had more consideration for the 4vs4, but none of the COH1/COH3 mechanics are problematic to be as a 4vs4 player. Just... where are the maps, why is my MGs/PAKs/Mines bugged, why can leavers ruin games unpunished. (I know MGs and PAKs are greatly improved now). I have gripes on the nuance how they changed the tank-destroyers, but I would adapt and roll-over if the game was that "objective" upgrade I describe.
(I write COHO off because that game simply failed the F2P monetization test, it could have had the "best" mechanics but that game was fundamentally botched because it was a pre-LOL F2P game meaning a terrible free experience. I logged in once, it was the most freemium shit, uninstalled and never cared enough to play a single round online.)
Anyone else is also welcomed to say: no fantomshmuck, you really don't get how different these games were. Or... yeah, we don't care about nuance, either is fine.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
