is the coh3 game designer is a spy of coh2?

overall it's far more dynamic and interesting than Company of Heroes 3 currently is....

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.

You've said this before, but could you be more specific? Why is it far more dynamic and interesting? Because units die faster in the early game? You think its higher risk? Which factions in 3 have units that will never see the light of day? That's quite a prediction, they're bound to recieve all sort of tweaks and changes if the game continues to be patched and updated, just like 2.

The point about 2 'in it's current state' allowing for a wide variety of units that can be a part of a winning strategy is also a bit of a headscratcher... The meta is very stale and had been stale for a long time.

So for Company of Heroes 3 units that I never see people using, there are Snipers (for both US Forces and Wehrmacht), Pathfinders, SSFs, Nebelwerfers, the Flakvierling Halftrack, the Polsten 20mm Truck, the Grant, Foot Guards, Stosstruppen... and that's just off the top of my head. Mind you, that's not exactly from the largest sample size since I don't spend a ton of time watching a game that I find to be extraordinarily boring.

For Company of Heroes 2 the only unit I don't see anyone using, ever, is probably the IR Halftrack, and that's pretty much it. I see basically every other unit in the game with fairly regular frequency. Yes, the meta is stale, that's what happens when the game hasn't been updated or balanced in a while. It's also, as I said, far from perfect. However, I find that I have a significant leeway in deviating from the "norm" without overly-compromising my chances of victory.

As for the point about dynamism, that's purely on Company of Heroes 3's infantry combat being flat and boring. Early-game lethality isn't a necessary component, but it's one of many little cuts that have bled it dry, along with the ill-conceived height differential, the prevalence of global upgrades and just a general lack of "feel" to the units. Something about the way infantry operate in this game feels closer to Iron Harvest than a Company of Heroes game.

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.

CoH2 meta is tighter then virgins ass, you either use very small amount of viable units, or you lose, low
skill levels are irrelevant.

CoH3 on release had more units viable at any time, than CoH2 across its whole lifespan.

So for Company of Heroes 3 units that I never see people using... Mind you, that's not exactly from the largest sample size since I don't spend a ton of time watching a game that I find to be extraordinarily boring.

Interesting. I honestly see most of the units you've mentioned pretty regularly, with the exception of Footguards and the Wehr Flak 30 AA Team... It just sounds a lot like you just don't really play the game to be honest. All of the other stuff you mention is probably down to personal taste, I think there's quite a bit of room for build variety, especially when you consider the extremely limited number of battlegroups that are available currently.

I do share your concerns on the number of global upgrades though and a certain 'lack of feel'. It's difficult to describe, almost as if units feel a little bit weightless, for want of a better term. I guess because it uses a different engine?

I don't think it's necessarily just the different engine. I compared it to Iron Harvest because that was an RTS made by people who had never made an RTS before, imitating Company of Heroes. This game feels the same - in pretty much every aspect.

In every aspect like Iron Harvest? I mean, OK. I think the more time passes the more divorced from reality your complaints get. But as ever, everyone's allowed to have their opinion.

Not like Iron Harvest in every aspect, like an amateur product in every aspect.

Something about the way infantry operate in this game feels closer to Iron Harvest than a Company of Heroes game.

ESPECIALLY the grenades!! That was literally my first thought!

So for Company of Heroes 3 units that I never see people using, there are Snipers (for both US Forces and Wehrmacht), Pathfinders, SSFs, Nebelwerfers, the Flakvierling Halftrack, the Polsten 20mm Truck, the Grant, Foot Guards, Stosstruppen... and that's just off the top of my head. Mind you, that's not exactly from the largest sample size since I don't spend a ton of time watching a game that I find to be extraordinarily boring.

For Company of Heroes 2 the only unit I don't see anyone using, ever, is probably the IR Halftrack, and that's pretty much it. I see basically every other unit in the game with fairly regular frequency. Yes, the meta is stale, that's what happens when the game hasn't been updated or balanced in a while. It's also, as I said, far from perfect. However, I find that I have a significant leeway in deviating from the "norm" without overly-compromising my chances of victory.

As for the point about dynamism, that's purely on Company of Heroes 3's infantry combat being flat and boring. Early-game lethality isn't a necessary component, but it's one of many little cuts that have bled it dry, along with the ill-conceived height differential, the prevalence of global upgrades and just a general lack of "feel" to the units. Something about the way infantry operate in this game feels closer to Iron Harvest than a Company of Heroes game.

I'm just gonna jump in here and point out the obvious, with the exception of the polsten, all these units you mentioned, are viable and decent to strong. SSF,stosstruppen,paths are all meta viable picks that get used constantly, the Flak has superceeded the 8rad for a variety of reasons, footguards are crazy good with indian arty.

Now this is in the context of 1v1. But to claim coh2 has variety at the competitive level is kind of hilarious to me. Coh2 has always, for good or bad, been one of the least varied competitive games ever. You had one meta, one build 9/10 times, and then it's pure execution.

Now this is in the context of 1v1. But to claim coh2 has variety at the competitive level is kind of hilarious to me.

+1

I'm just gonna jump in here and point out the obvious, with the exception of the polsten, all these units you mentioned, are viable and decent to strong. SSF,stosstruppen,paths are all meta viable picks that get used constantly, the Flak has superceeded the 8rad for a variety of reasons, footguards are crazy good with indian arty.

Now this is in the context of 1v1. But to claim coh2 has variety at the competitive level is kind of hilarious to me. Coh2 has always, for good or bad, been one of the least varied competitive games ever. You had one meta, one build 9/10 times, and then it's pure execution.

Maybe at the highest competitive level, yes, players tend to default to the strongest available options. But again, it's like that in any game, especially one that's been around as long as Company of Heroes 2. I wasn't talking about whether or not someone could win whatever tournament with whatever strategy they wanted, I don't watch those games and I frankly don't care about what they do. I was talking about whether or not I can start an automatched 1v1 and use a diverse array of strategies with a reasonable chance of victory. This is, indeed, possible.

As for Company of Heroes 3, I'm sure that down the line it would get to the same place Company of Heroes 2 is currently at in regards to the meta. Nobody fucking plays it though and we'll probably never know once Relic shuts down!

I was talking about whether or not I can start an automatched 1v1 and use a diverse array of strategies with a reasonable chance of victory. This is, indeed, possible.

Name few viable diverse strategies, without mentioning 0CP call-in units and "strategies" where difference is 1 unit. You can skip soviets tho, because they at least have some sort of different options with cons\penals\clowncar and so on. What about others?

Random goofs vs 4 digit rank wont cut it, for oblivious reasons.

Name few viable diverse strategies, without mentioning 0CP call-in units and "strategies" where difference is 1 unit. You can skip soviets tho, because they at least have some sort of different options with cons\penals\clowncar and so on. What about others?

Random goofs vs 4 digit rank wont cut it, for oblivious reasons.

Well just as an example, if I'm playing OKW I can go 2 Sturmpioneers and either a Volksgrenadier or a Kubelwagen instead of just spamming Volksgrenadiers, if I use Elite Armour I can supplement this with a 221 which is particularly useful against Maxim spam. From there I can feasibly focus on a strong mid-game by building the medic and repair trucks, relying on closing the game out with light vehicles (Puma + HVAP is a reliable medium tank killer) and support weapons (MG34, Raketen), or I can rush the flak truck and start pumping out Obersoldaten and saving for either a Panzer IV or Panther depending on the situation, which I then also have the luxury of supplementing with a Sturmtiger if I need a heavy breakthrough unit.

Or, if I play Brits, I could spam Infantry Sections and go for Bolster early (boring), or I could build Sappers and a Universal Carrier, supplement that with a Vickers or Sniper (more applicable to OKW), use the Assault Officer to fill any infantry gaps, mainline Commandos, and use the fuel savings to get an early AEC or Comet, again, depending on the situation.

So there's several branching paths I can take the game down in both cases.

Maybe at the highest competitive level, yes, players tend to default to the strongest available options. But again, it's like that in any game, especially one that's been around as long as Company of Heroes 2. I wasn't talking about whether or not someone could win whatever tournament with whatever strategy they wanted, I don't watch those games and I frankly don't care about what they do. I was talking about whether or not I can start an automatched 1v1 and use a diverse array of strategies with a reasonable chance of victory. This is, indeed, possible.

As for Company of Heroes 3, I'm sure that down the line it would get to the same place Company of Heroes 2 is currently at in regards to the meta. Nobody fucking plays it though and we'll probably never know once Relic shuts down!

Im incredibly confused then, because I've seen this argument time and time again, but objectively. coh3 has FAR more variety and options, because if we go by the logic of competitive skill level and "anyone" being able to do a strategy, then your options of whats actually usable is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more than enough.

Just a look at Wehr

Pio,ketten,MG,Luftpio,Gren,Mortar and sniper

All either 0 CP, or in the first buildings you get, Compare that to wehr

MG,Gren,Mortar,pio,Sniper

And then the commander options of Ostruppen and Assgrens (Which are paid DLC).

Your build variety is objectively less, and then you look at tech, it's linear, and you are stuck with basically two real options, Halftrack or 222

Meanwhile you look at wehr in coh3

2A, 222,Flak,Jaeger squad (all viable and strong units btw), that goes into marder and wirble (also strong units, though marder got nerfed into obscurity, but since we arent taking competitive levels into account then it doesn't matter)

2B Pak,Pgren,Halftrack Same thing as above, all viable and strong, that leads into stug and nebelwerfer.


Like, just look at that variety! There are so many options its overwhelming, and when you add in transfer orders you can literally change your builds on the fly, having a massive sort of variety comparetivly to coh2s wehr, where you are ALWAYS locked into triple gren, ostruppen or assgrens, an especially huge issue with USF which is why you never see elites see play.


Honestly im just trying to see where the argument of coh3 lacking variety comes from, it's just... fake? not a thing? Like how do you even reach that conclusion?

I would even go as far as to say, one of cohs WORST qualities, is lack of variety, the manpower economy punishes large armies, which with late elites makes some armies (USF,OKW arguably brits) incredibly limited by their infantry builds, USF famously basically can't build elites because by the time you've gotten 2 cps, your rifles will have you bleed so dry there's literally no point.

I never said Company of Heroes 3 lacks variety, I just said it was a shit game and that from the little I've watched of it on the newest patches, it's boring and I don't see people varying their strategies much or using certain units.

If you're going to complain about the lack of viable strategies in a very new game that's already more diverse than its predecessor at this point in its life cycle, you might want to try playing it for a while and then commenting on its shortcoming or the things that you don't like.

If you get nothing else positive out of doing that, you might at least start to sound a little bit like you know what you're talking about when you make posts like this.

I'm pretty explicit that I don't actually know that much about Company of Heroes 3. I consider this generally to be a good thing - if you leave garbage out in the summer sun for a while and smell its rank stench, your first reaction should not be to open the bin and scrounge around for exactly what's rotten.

I'm pretty explicit that I don't actually know that much about Company of Heroes 3. I consider this generally to be a good thing - if you leave garbage out in the summer sun for a while and smell its rank stench, your first reaction should not be to open the bin and scrounge around for exactly what's rotten.

You clearly think you know more than you actually do though. It's pretty self-evident. But whatever, go off.

...

So basically by strategy you mean unit composition you can get. Then, question is, why in your opinion CoH3 is inferior in this regards?

You say, you didn't play CoH3 but rather watch it, because you dont like the game. Fair enough, if you go and watch CoH2, most of the people streaming it also use the same sweaty meta strats, the same way people do in in CoH3.

I mean its alright to be against CoH3, but honestly your opinion is 100% subjective on this topic.

And in terms of available viable non-meta strategies and unit composition, CoH3 is just superior to CoH2 in every aspect, like it or not. Simply because, you have access to more unit options earlier in CoH3, there are more units and all of them are strong.

I'm pretty explicit that I don't actually know that much about Company of Heroes 3.

Yes, at this point it's quite obvious. You act like an asshole and sound like an idiot and somehow you've managed to do it for half a year. Well done!