is the coh3 game designer is a spy of coh2?

CoH2's oppressive snares and AT guns killed off most dynamic Tank gameplay though.

Not saying it's impossible but usually people who make daring tank rushes or flanks get giga punished.

Meanwhile someone who slowly turtles their way forward with A-move squads/blobs, t4 vehicles, support weapons and mines gets giga rewarded. Which has become a massive design flaw and made the gameplay extremely boring over time imo.

Worst offender and best example for this is the faction with fausts that cover half the screen, mines that oneshot vehicles and the fair vet 1 AT gun ability 😊

I love COH2 and find it much better than COH3 but this is actually true. That`s one of COH2s faults along with the MGs.

I have yet to play a 4v4, I main USF, and I think the ASC is fucking retarded

It seems to me that relic buff ASC because usf does not have any late game artillery options. ASC looks nice on paper but seems hard to balance. For me, it would be perfect if instead of ASC they gave a building that gives access to artillery.
I dont understand why they dont buff gmc75 barrage range instead.

ASC looks nice on paper but seems hard to balance.

Making it so the MG strafe is actually just a suppression ability and nothing else.... could be a good start. Rather than deleting 80-100% of a squads HP.

In fact that might be everything needed to fix ASC

Let me kindly remind you that CoH3 players whining loudest about ASC are 4v4 blobbers who do not even attempt dodging going by steam forums example.

As a matter of fact, dodging it with blob in 4v4 is actually one of the few possible things, unless you are near map edge.
On the other hand in 1v1\2v2 its close to impossible do dodge even with single squad, and dodging it with support weapons is state up impossible even in 4v4. Even if you instantly retreat your MG\start moving AT guns the second you see flares, they still will be hit.

You actually need to play the game if you want to post such bold claims, because you are clearly didn't even launch it ones this patch. Claim about good performance kinda proves it.

dodging it with support weapons is state up impossible even in 4v4. Even if you instantly retreat your MG\start moving AT guns the second you see flares, they still will be hit.

Yeah it is very difficult to react in time with support weapons at the moment, it feels like they get fried before you even have a chance to move them.

[size=1][size=3]

I got used to new TTK and can't see the problem now, you just play differently, and I disagree with the lower ceiling argument, once in the late game with vet3 infantry accross the map TTK drop down really fast.
I think the big difference for coh2 players is how Coh3's LMG aren't anymore the terminator machinegun they are in COH2 so fights are longer at long range.

But overall I find the game is getting better.

You disagree with the skill ceiling being lowered but provided no argument of how it isn’t lower? Besides your blerp about late game TTK being okay. I didn’t say a higher or lower TTK is better. Just that it lowers the skill ceiling. My playstyle has nothing to do with what I said either. I just said. Lower TTK = less room for more skilled players to grow.

Like I said the biggest indication of it being lowered is just units overall, including vehicles die slower/have more health. Which means its easier to not lose squads/vehicles. Which is probably one of the biggest ways to lose a game in COH.

The health for tanks, and tank gameplay is also opinionated. Some people like the snare rework along with mediums. I personally don’t find enjoyment in people using tanks haphazardly and not being punished for it. For better or worse that is.
The game is getting better with patches. As it they break something every time one drops. But still a long way away from being good.

Nevertheless, I feel a lot of the shock and awe (big wipes) moments have been removed. For better or worse. No more insane rocket arty wipes. Or wipes on retreats, or armor engagements. Feels most engagements extend past what they should be with the units involved. But that’s my opinion. Not saying I’m right.

Let me kindly remind you, again, that Relic has already said it's broken... And needs to be fixed. It's clearly not only 4v4 blobbers

I have yet to play a 4v4, I main USF, and I think the ASC is fucking retarded


Yeah it was fine for me before the patch. But we're talking about right now... And Kat trying to blame peoples PCs when Relic admitted they fucked up is pretty stupid

I played USF early on and last I remembered, the strafing run carries ASC. When I played you could never in a billion million years get off a bombing run because of all the flak emplacements, wirbelwinds, and other flak stuff.

Funnily enough, before they nerfed the flak emplacements, the double strafing run was actually one of the best counters to the little flak 36 emplacements if they were built near the edges of the map. Strafe 1 decrewed, strafe 2 destroyed the emplacement.

It comes insanely fast on the edges of the map, can't be shot at while outside of map boundaries, and shreds infantry.

Yeah, probably a good idea to adjust it.

[size=1][size=3]

You disagree with the skill ceiling being lowered but provided no argument of how it isn’t lower? Besides your blerp about late game TTK being okay. I didn’t say a higher or lower TTK is better. Just that it lowers the skill ceiling. My playstyle has nothing to do with what I said either. I just said. Lower TTK = less room for more skilled players to grow.

So I disagree that coh3 TTK is lowering the skill ceiling of the game, probably the opposite because it extend the possibilities of gameplay, exit the 3/4gren blob or 3/4 pathfinder blob or 2vet2 Obers group just to wipe single target cautch out of position at long range which in my opinion isn't skill at all.

Wiping squads take more time, specific unit engagement range matter, for instance till this patch everyone was abusing Mp40 because they were a no brainer force retreat or wipe available at minute 3 in the game, there isn't a single once of skill in that. Now that they have been fixed you need to use your brain to make them work and not just click-move on the other side of map so they can simply wipe everything on their path.

Slow TTK might not be a “problem” but it definitely discourages tactical gameplay. Removing time as a priority in a strategy game weakens the importance of it. Examples – You rush two squads at 1 squad to try and force a fast retreat. With lower TTK you can save the situation by kiting the 1 squad back to another squad and salvage the situation. Same thing goes with fighting out of cover. Less importance on cover because the squad dies slower overall. These are just a few examples but can be applied to many situations that don’t reward timing pushes/flanks etc..

Losing a medium in COH2 in less than 3 seconds does suck. That’s correct. Maybe don’t drive into 2 At guns? Maybe use combined arms to properly scout ahead before driving a tank solo into the fog of war? The developers making everything easier to keep alive, is again a gameplay opinion on what’s preferred. I personally find no enjoyment in my opponent doing something dumb and getting away with it. Like why shouldn’t you lose a tank if you blindly drive into the fog of war into my 2 AT guns?
In COH2 blobs can work. Until you lose your entire army to rocket artillery. You can even thin out blobs with proper use of cover/mines. Because COH2 units out of cover actually drop models. It’s insane. There is no late game blob deterrent in COH3. There is no wipe potential equivalent in COH3 as in COH2. Which encourages blobbing. Because there is no justice against it.

Like I said higher TTK might not be a “problem” but it 100% lowers the skill ceiling of an RTS (Real Time Strategy). You are giving people more time to react to situations that are advantageous to your opponent and detrimental to you. It’s not subjective, its objective.

I am not sure if one should be talking about TTK or if "reaction time" is better term.

High reaction time might be an issue if 100% player can react in time but low reaction can be equally problematic when 99.9% of player can not react in time.

As for RTS it does stand Real time Strategy but in there is nothing "real" about it. It simply differentiate it from Turn basted Strategy. The emphasis is always on "Strategy" and it turning it into third person shooter where the best reflexes wins should be avoided.

Like I said higher TTK might not be a “problem” but it 100% lowers the skill ceiling of an RTS (Real Time Strategy). You are giving people more time to react to situations that are advantageous to your opponent and detrimental to you. It’s not subjective, its objective.

No, it does not as evidenced by leaderboards very clearly.

It does the opposite - it makes the game approachable for more people.
I dare you to try to explain how making the game approachable and friendly to more players is a bad thing.

I still fail to understand what is the problem with CoH3 TTK so many people revering to.

Alright its true that retreating units in 3 are a bit more tanky then then should be, but thats pretty much it.

"Superior" CoH2 TTK was rigged with RNG. Where sturmpios was able to charge rifles and beat them or charge combat engis and lose 2 models. In CoH3 units consistently deal small damage, unlike CoH2s "all or nothing" with either models droping behind cover or running across the field mostly unharmed.

Or probably RNG indirect fire units either wiping you instantly or doing nothing at all in CoH2 were only made for skilled players. In CoH3 indirect will never wipe full HP squad, but will consistently hit dealing HP damage.

Tank combat in CoH2 was superior as well for sure. Where you either kill mediums in 4 hits with double AT guns or you do jack shit, because RNG decided that 10 shots should be a bounce\miss.

CoH3 didn't even become more friendly its just has much less impactfull bullshit, which pro players just learned to mitigate as much as possible in CoH2. But bullshit is still bullshit.

Combat in 3 now actually looks like a RTS combat, instead of being poor attempt to recreate tablet top games, where every action requires a dice roll

I think that's been one of the consistent issues people have had with Company of Heroes 3 - that the combat has been clinical and sterile. Providing up-front information to the player is important, but when the combat capabilities of each unit are too reliable and too consistent then it removes the fun and nuance from encounters. The random element, done well (like in Company of Heroes 2's infantry combat, and not its at-launch tank criticals, etc.), is an important component in making infantry combat exciting, and will encourage a player to take risks or make daring plays that can turn out well or poorly.

Company of Heroes 3 has failed in that regard, and even watching a dynamic player like VonIvan is terribly boring, to the game's detriment.

I think that's been one of the consistent issues people have had with Company of Heroes 3 - that the combat has been clinical and sterile. Providing up-front information to the player is important, but when the combat capabilities of each unit are too reliable and too consistent then it removes the fun and nuance from encounters.

Well maybe maybe not. I see where you're coming from; In CoH 2, you might have to gamble a bit to get that squad wipe or finish off that tank. Should I stay or should I pull back? I might be able to bounce that shot, amd if I do I could get the kill, but if not I lose this tank and they keep theirs. Etc. These choices are a bit of gambling mixed in with the skill.

But games don't HAVE to have that RNG element to them. Chess, for example, doesn't have you roll dice to determine whether you capture a piece or not, you simply capture it. Maybe with unit interactions being more "clinical and sterile", it will be easier to balance. Just a thought.

I was going to admit that the "clinical and sterile" nature of chess has created a "meta" where most people play the same openings, but then I remembered that even in top level play, chess players do experiment with openings not considered the best. It's not like RNG somehow cured CoH 2 of this phenomena.

The random element, done well (like in Company of Heroes 2's infantry combat, and not its at-launch tank criticals, etc.), is an important component in making infantry combat exciting, and will encourage a player to take risks or make daring plays that can turn out well or poorly.

Company of Heroes 3 has failed in that regard, and even watching a dynamic player like VonIvan is terribly boring, to the game's detriment.

CoH2 had virtually no weapon profiles at launch, so what random element are we talking about here? The 20% flamethrower instant kill criticals or the "body armor" where shots deflected on many squads

I get what you mean with inf combat being too consistent, predictable & boring, however I don't see where CoH2 was really better here. For a seasoned player it is pretty easy to predict the outcome of CoH2 infantry engagements in almost every single case as well.




And tanks get crazy RNG wipes 24/7 in CoH3, so there is that

I am not sure if one should be talking about TTK or if "reaction time" is better term.

High reaction time might be an issue if 100% player can react in time but low reaction can be equally problematic when 99.9% of player can not react in time.

As for RTS it does stand Real time Strategy but in there is nothing "real" about it. It simply differentiate it from Turn basted Strategy. The emphasis is always on "Strategy" and it turning it into third person shooter where the best reflexes wins should be avoided.

I agree about the reaction times, coh2 got too fast, almost like blizzard games. Not fun for an oldie.

It needs to be more about positional and scouting and flanking.

The flanking part coh3 seems to be devasting to get that fast TTK pros wanting. The issue with coh3 is how much auto healing and auto reinforcing the game gives you by around 10-15min mark.

And tanks get crazy RNG wipes 24/7 in CoH3, so there is that

Yes. medium tank blob like sherman chasing you into base is crazy in coh3, too strong mate

CoH2 had virtually no weapon profiles at launch, so what random element are we talking about here? The 20% flamethrower instant kill criticals or the "body armor" where shots deflected on many squads

I get what you mean with inf combat being too consistent, predictable & boring, however I don't see where CoH2 was really better here. For a seasoned player it is pretty easy to predict the outcome of CoH2 infantry engagements in almost every single case as well.

And tanks get crazy RNG wipes 24/7 in CoH3, so there is that

I don't mean at-launch infantry combat, I mean its current state. It's far from perfect, and I have several things I would definitely change (the prevalence of high-accuracy long-ranged squads, and LMGs in general), but overall it's far more dynamic and interesting than Company of Heroes 3 currently is. You can predict the outcome of an infantry engagement, sure - the whole point of the game is predicated on being able to make tactical decisions with the information available to you. Do I retreat to preserve my manpower and deny the enemy veterancy? Do I stay and try to bleed a few models from the squad? RNG injects a bit of fuel into these decisions, because overall the stakes tend to be fairly low (losing an early engagement will not lose you the whole match, unlike in Company of Heroes 1) and for a good player the worst that will happen is a bit of manpower bleed.

Well maybe maybe not. I see where you're coming from; In CoH 2, you might have to gamble a bit to get that squad wipe or finish off that tank. Should I stay or should I pull back? I might be able to bounce that shot, amd if I do I could get the kill, but if not I lose this tank and they keep theirs. Etc. These choices are a bit of gambling mixed in with the skill.

But games don't HAVE to have that RNG element to them. Chess, for example, doesn't have you roll dice to determine whether you capture a piece or not, you simply capture it. Maybe with unit interactions being more "clinical and sterile", it will be easier to balance. Just a thought.

I was going to admit that the "clinical and sterile" nature of chess has created a "meta" where most people play the same openings, but then I remembered that even in top level play, chess players do experiment with openings not considered the best. It's not like RNG somehow cured CoH 2 of this phenomena.

There's always going to be a metagame - literally any competitive activity in history has developed a metagame as professionals attempt to predict and one-up one another. The analogy with chess is somewhat flawed because I find that chess is more applicable to a game like StarCraft than Company of Heroes. Chess and StarCraft are both "macro-level" strategies - the "tactical" level, i.e., what happens when one piece encounters another, or what happens when a StarCraft unit comes against its counter, is predictable. The "strategic" layer, how the player distributes the resources available to them and reacts to the opponent's decisions, is where the majority of these games are played.

Company of Heroes is a "micro-level" strategy game first and foremost, and this is why I enjoy it over most other RTS games. Resources distribution and build order are not as important as having your units in the right place at the right time, and knowing how to use them and what situations they're effective in. Play and counterplay are decided in the moment-to-moment use of units, not in the economic decisions that are largely relegated as secondary. The RNG-reliant combat system is largely what enables this. There will always be a "meta" - that is unavoidable. The question is how restrictive or permissive it is to alternative strategies. In its current state, Company of Heroes 2 allows for a wide variety of units that can actually be a part of a winning strategy - Company of Heroes 3 has factions that are bloated with units that never see the light of day.

Company of Heroes 2 allows for a wide variety of units that can actually be a part of a winning strategy - Company of Heroes 3 has factions that are bloated with units that never see the light of day.

This is just not true.

Even without bringing all useless call-ins and commanders, which CoH3 might as well have in the future, CoH2 factions have units which is completely useless depending on gamemode or just strate up useless in every gamemode.

In CoH3 with so called "bloated faction", every single unit is played. Again, every single unit, for all 4 factions is useful and has its play in every single gamemode.

You in fact, probably didn't even play CoH3, outside of closed beta, because your claims in this regard are completely wrong.

This is just not true.

Even without bringing all useless call-ins and commanders, which CoH3 might as well have in the future, CoH2 factions have units which is completely useless depending on gamemode or just strate up useless in every gamemode.

In CoH3 with so called "bloated faction", every single unit is played. Again, every single unit, for all 4 factions is useful and has its play in every single gamemode.

You in fact, probably didn't even play CoH3, outside of closed beta, because your claims in this regard are completely wrong.

+1