I have moved on from Coh3 and i am down for ....

Yes, you literally presented the situation as: expecting more than two maps was equivalent to expecting 2023 COH2 amount of maps, or being naive with COH3 expectations.

Oh I did? Please show me where I 'literally' presented that situation, Fantomasas.

I've also never once claimed that it's wrong to give the game a bad review based on it's current state.

Also, Relic's opinion:
"The legendary strategy franchise is back! Bigger and better than ever, Company of Heroes 3"

I personally went from "Coh3 could fix all the issues and have CELO based functions built in. This is gonna be great!" to "Two maps, a skin store, and now a brand new comp stomp map! Oh boy!!!"



My expectations quickly fell to Duffman™ Crippling Depression™ levels.

I am clearly a giant idiot. I expected more from Relic. A lot more.

Oh I did? Please show me where I 'literally' presented that situation, Fantomasas.

I've also never once claimed that it's wrong to give the game a bad review based on it's current state.

Not the people who expected COH 2 level balance and content, right out the gate? Hahaha.

There, you are presenting the strawman situation in which you claim people expected COH2 level balance and content right out of the game.

There, you are presenting the strawman situation in which you claim people expected COH2 level balance and content right out of the game.

Oh I see what the problem is. I presented that situation because some people absolutely did expect Coh 2's level of content *after 10 years of additions and balancing* in COH 3, on release. They complained about things that aren't in this game yet and that weren't in CoH 2 at the equivalent point in its lifespan either.

Granted, I did't specify that I meant *after 10 years of additions and balancing* because I thought the point was really fucking obvious.

The missing features, lack of maps, replays etc are an entirely fair thing to complain about. I've complained about those things too.

@Vermillion_Hawk:

capture points have returned to a Company of Heroes 1 standard

This is flat-out wrong and degrades your argument.

• There were no capture circles in COH1. You either hit or missed the flagpost.
  
• If you were e.g. 75& up in your capture of a point, you would automatically go down to zero if your enemy touched the flagpost and you were not holding it. e.g. Ketten push

Purchased veterancy for Wehrmacht in COH1 was part of the asymmetric design.

Relic's love for the Nazis is defamatory. There are no Nazi symbols in the game - German standards alone demand that.

rip parts from Company of Heroes 1 visibly for nostalgia factor at the expense of a coherent vision for how the game should play

Here we can agree. It confounds me that Relic seem not to take account of age. The 18-year-old in 2006 is now aged 35; the 18-year-old in 2012 is now aged 29. i.e. they are most probably moving into building families in RL and have little time to devote to PC games. There is no Lost Legion of COH1 players stuck in Scotland among the Picts, waiting to troop South to fight again under the execrable loading screen of COH3. They have vanished. And the same applies to a lesser extent for COH2.

Unlike you, I believe that COH3 will be cleaned down and improved, especially for teamgames. But I am sure we would both like an answer as to how it came to this, especially when there were a team of testers/posters, mostly from this site, who went along with it all.

You're right in that we still have the (infinitely superior) Company of Heroes 2-style capture circles, I should have been a bit more specific and said I was mostly talking about the capture points as representations of the match economy. Manpower being a standardized income affected SOLELY by unit upkeep was probably one of the best features of Company of Heroes 2 from a competitive standpoint - one of the main issues in Company of Heroes 1 was the outcomes of early engagements practically deciding the match and allowing for manpower snowballing. Relic, in their infinite wisdom, saw fit to return to a non-functional standard here, not the first time that was decided in this game's development.

As for their love for the Nazis, that's hardly defamatory since it's been on display since the first game, and I'd wager it's one of the reasons why some people like this game to begin with. It's not necessarily having an open endorsement of National Socialism or having swastikas and iconography everywhere, it's the way the German factions have been deliberately portrayed. Relic dredged up every pseudohistorical myth creating the German factions as "elite" forces with superior technology and weaponry, with a strong late-game presence. Someone who has no idea about the actual history of the war would think the Allies were some kind of scrappy underdogs if this game was their only experience of it. I remember John in particular was really sensitive to these criticisms in the run-up to release and it gave me a little hope that they were shifting things around - nope, same old, same old, "elite" Nazis versus cobbled-together Americans and British. The Africa Campaign's existence leads me to believe someone was making a Rommel-forward campaign showing him as a noble commander (as in many post-war memoirs and HIAG-approved histories) and not a meth addict so far up Hitler's ass he didn't get a tan in Tunisia, and then at some point someone else realized how it would look, which led to the post-mission campaign briefs of the civilian storyline. So Relic's definitely earned their reputation, and I'll be more than willing to speak on it.

I don't think the game will get better, because the studio is clearly run by people who have no idea what this game is and what decisions will be best for it. It stinks of bean-counter logic the whole way through, from the pre-alpha until now. I'd like to say it was a big disappointment but I really had no expectations for it at all after the public tests, and now the continuing trainwreck of its post-release support is more entertaining to me than the actual game. Relic deserves every bit of what's happening, and I only wish the burden of that actually fell on the people in charge of the studio and not the programmers struggling to extract a decent game from a mountain of shit.

Relic dredged up every pseudohistorical myth creating the German factions as "elite" forces with superior technology and weaponry, with a strong late-game presence.

The Wehrmacht was objectively superior by every metric: training, technology, tactics, equipment, everything. They only lost because they went up against 3 globe-spanning empires that turned North America into a continent-sized factory. Cry harder.

The Wehrmacht was objectively superior by every metric: training, technology, tactics, equipment, everything. They only lost because they went up against 3 globe-spanning empires that turned North America into a continent-sized factory. Cry harder.

Even ideology departament was better

The Wehrmacht was objectively superior by every metric: training, technology, tactics, equipment, everything. They only lost because they went up against 3 globe-spanning empires that turned North America into a continent-sized factory. Cry harder.

This looks a lot more like crying than what he said...

"They were better at everything, only lost cause it was unfair matchup boohoo"

Last time I checked that continent sized factory was also fighting on more than one front. But who cares? The real point here is whether or not this makes for a good game

Germany was superior in those metrics. But if you want to show that in game, then US and soviets would have 150-200 pop, faster income, and faster production speeds. Like you alluded to, that's the metric that won them the war. But CoH MP isn't really about the larger picture, its a much smaller scale

The Wehrmacht was objectively superior by every metric: training, technology, tactics, equipment, everything. They only lost because they went up against 3 globe-spanning empires that turned North America into a continent-sized factory. Cry harder.

Tell me you're a historical revisionist without telling me you're a historical revisionist.

Yes, the myth of the superior German soldier stabbed in the back by incompetent political leadership/military high command/all of the above is a time-worn trope at this point - it worked out really well for Hitler in the 1920's and onwards and it likewise proved very popular among Nazi generals and former SS servicemen, many of whom had a vested interest in avoiding a noose or otherwise ensuring they had careers post-war. I've mentioned HIAG already but the "popular perception" of World War II which Company of Heroes has had a hand in perpetuating has been shaped largely by Nazis and their Allied patsies, unwitting or otherwise, who likewise often had a vested interest in making it look like the opponent they overcame was, post-facto, a terrifying and unstoppable force.

It's why you get the reality of a foe deemed to be "superior in every respect" which nevertheless did not win a single major strategic or tactical victory after 1941. It's also why you get Nazi fanboys contorting themselves in attempting to unironically deal with the same aforementioned cognitive dissonance that the authors of this particular false history strove to create in the first place. If I wasn't a historian I'd be amused but I am and therefore it just makes me sad.

It's no coincidence that, while the rest of the world either doesn't care or tacitly accepts the historical truths of the conflict, the Company of Heroes community is one of the only places where I still continue to find dusty statements like your own repeated, or worse. For this, I hold Relic at fault.

Well, even Marvin van Crefeld came to this conclusion that the Wehrmacht was almost everytime superior. But whatever...

Well, even Marvin van Crefeld came to this conclusion that the Wehrmacht was almost everytime superior. But whatever...

Your cited historian hasn't published anything substantial on the subject since the 1980s (when we were only just beginning to see the narrative I've been describing overturned) and has a marked popularity among German neo-Nazis. So that's hardly the refutation you think it is.

At least once per month, the first two minutes of this video become uncomfortably relevant on this forum..

Relic dredged up every pseudohistorical myth creating the German factions as "elite" forces with superior technology and weaponry, with a strong late-game presence. Someone who has no idea about the actual history of the war would think the Allies were some kind of scrappy underdogs if this game was their only experience of it.

I think you are interpreting too much into it. How do you depict that Germany deployed heavier tanks into a game? You make their stats better.

Also this goes both ways. They literally implemented a non existing super tank for the British in Coh3 or an out of setting Pershing in Coh1.

Nashorn when?

I think you are interpreting too much into it. How do you depict that Germany deployed heavier tanks into a game? You make their stats better.

Also this goes both ways. They literally implemented a non existing super tank for the British in Coh3 or an out of setting Pershing in Coh1.

I don't give a single shit if the Allies got one paper tank, focusing on minutae and tiny quibbles like that is meaningless in the overall scope of my statement, which is that, in all three Company of Heroes games, the Germans are "the late-game faction". Which means they have the biggest and most dangerous armour and infantry and the Allies need to either stop them early or build an unstoppable horde to win. If this were explicitly a fantasy game I wouldn't even remotely care. But it's (nominally) based on historical events and it therefore bears some responsibility in respect to the narrative it's creating.

I don't give a single shit if the Allies got one paper tank, focusing on minutae and tiny quibbles like that is meaningless in the overall scope of my statement, which is that, in all three Company of Heroes games, the Germans are "the late-game faction". Which means they have the biggest and most dangerous armour and infantry and the Allies need to either stop them early or build an unstoppable horde to win. If this were explicitly a fantasy game I wouldn't even remotely care. But it's (nominally) based on historical events and it therefore bears some responsibility in respect to the narrative it's creating.

This is a game not a history book, saying that it creates a narrative is an exaggeration.

But feel free to explain what "narrative it should be creating" in your opinion...

Calling Relic Nazi lovers is both defamatory and false

Show Spoiler