Strategy in Company of Heroes 2

I get asked this a lot when I stream, and recent shoutbox conversations have prompted me to sit down and flesh out what exactly I find lacking in the game, and why. I don't bash CoH2 for the sake of bashing it; I've played Company of Heroes for over 5 years, I participated in the CoH2 alpha, beta, and two playtests at Relic's offices. I've talked to developers, engaged in discussions with other top players. I've put a hell of a lot of time into CoH and CoH2 because I want the game to be amazing. But despite all that, I still find it lacking. This is why.

The biggest thing missing for me in CoH2 is the potential for strategic depth. If you compare vCoH to CoH2 strategically, a lot of it is extremely similar. Both games have factions with four tiers and similar progression through those tiers. The Soviets have to build T1 or T2 before they can build T3/T4, just like the Americans. The Ostheer need to upgrade their HQ in order to build subsequent tiers, just like Wehrmacht. In terms of straight tech progression, both games are extremely alike.

The big difference, however, comes from global upgrades. Upgrades are interesting because they provide another entirely different layer of strategic depth to a game. When your game has upgrades, you give your players a lot of choices to make.

Let's generalize things and say you have two infantry units on the field right now. Each infantry unit costs as much as an upgrade for those infantry units that can greatly increase the strength of all infantry units on the field. Therefore, when you have enough money to build another infantry unit, you also have enough money to upgrade your infantry. However, the upgrade takes a long time to complete, and it means you sacrifice an infantry unit in order to complete it.

In this situation, you as the player have to make a decision. In this instance, it's rather simplistic; it's a binary decision between building a unit and purchasing an upgrade. If you build the unit, your on-field presence will be greater now but diminished in the future. Why? Because you've invested in a unit that gives you function and utility now, at the expense of investing in future tech (the upgrade) that will make your infantry stronger as the game progresses. Alternatively, if you purchase the upgrade, your on-field presence will be weaker now but stronger in the future, because while the upgrade is completing you will have less actual units on the field to do stuff with.

When you apply this scenario to an actual game, you can fairly clearly see how each decision can have serious implications. If you build the unit and your opponent attacks you right away, that unit pays off immensely because it gives you additional firepower against the attack that you would not have had otherwise. If you build the unit and your opponent techs instead, however, you need to get some use out of the unit (by gaining map control or attacking your opponent yourself) because your opponent is going to be ahead in tech. Conversely, if you purchase the upgrade and your opponent attacks, you will have less units available to defend and could be overrun. If your opponent doesn't attack, however, you've managed to get away with your tech unpunished, and will have superior infantry later on in the game.

Furthermore, you're never presented with a simple binary choice. There are numerous upgrades that you have to prioritize, balancing those against building units and making sure you have what you need to fend off your enemy's aggression. The more upgrades that are available, the more choices you have to make, and the more difficult it becomes to successfully balance the two facets of the game. It becomes exponentially more difficult to execute successfully, and it gives players a far wider array of viable options.

You can also base timing attacks on upgrades, since the strongest you as a player are at any point in the game is the moment right after a major upgrade or tech advancement completes. That is the moment you want to attack, because it gives your opponent the least amount of time possible to complete his own tech or field additional units.

This is the main difference between vCoH and CoH2 in my mind, and the main reason why I don't find CoH2 to be all that interesting a strategy game. In CoH2, you still have to make these decisions to a certain extent. You have to decide between building units out of your current tier or investing time and money into another tier in the hopes that your opponent either won't attack you until that next tier is built or won't have the units necessary to overrun you before the next tier comes online. But that's pretty much where the similarities end. There is a distinct lack of global upgrades in CoH2, and global upgrades are the real catalysts of this important strategic decision-making. There's no purchasable veterancy, no expensive rifle upgrades (only extremely cheap and quick conscript upgrades), no supply yard upgrades, nothing significant and expensive that can be purchased over more units or another tech building. It makes the game feel extremely linear to me. You build a tech building, then build a certain amount of units from that building, then build the next tech building, and so on.

Relic seems interested in mitigating this to a certain extent with purchasable commanders. The recently added commander that allows for a version of purchasable veterancy is one that comes to mind immediately. This is, in my opinion, a poor way to fix problems that exist in the core game. I shouldn't have to pay money in order to have access to general strategic options, or in order to fix deficiencies in the game I already paid full price for.

This is my biggest issue with CoH2. Again, it is my opinion, and I am hopeful that future expansions and content releases will be able to fix the issues I described above. But in its current state, this is what I mean when I say CoH2 lacks elements of strategy that were present in vCoH. I'm not saying CoH2 has no strategy, or takes no skill, or any nonsense like that. I just think it is a simplified take on a game that did a remarkable job of striking a balance between the importance of strategic decision-making and the impact of tactical plays. That balance, I feel, does not exist in CoH2.

Point taken, I hope this does'nt turn into one gigantic rant about the differences between both games.

Good piece, even if I don't agree with everything.

Meh Inverse I find your story rather thin tbh. Just cause CoH2 doesn't have a system of global upgrades, doesn't mean it's strategically shallow. It just has different design, which you can like or dislike.

Also you're making it sound like you played so much of CoH2, whereas in reality if I look at your scorecard you barely made it to a hundred games after release. I'm sure you played a lot during Alpha and Beta but that's a long long time ago now.

All in all you kinda sound like a CoH1 nostalgic fanboy to me. Personally I played CoH1 even more than you have (played it since the day it was released), and I played CoH2 more than you have as well.

I love both of them in their own way. I do feel, however, that CoH2 deserves to be cut some slack since it's hardly the steaming pile of shit people make it out to be.

I would recommend putting this in the Scrap Yard while you still have time, and not in the main forums for CoH2 enthusiasts.
Show Spoiler

I would recommend putting this in the Scrap Yard while you still have time, and not in the main forums for CoH2 enthusiasts.
Show Spoiler

+1

I would recommend putting this in the Scrap Yard while you still have time, and not in the main forums for CoH2 enthusiasts.
Show Spoiler

This, just cause Inverse dislikes it and he came up with the SSSSS build doesn't mean he should just go and ruin a game a lot of people love to play.

On a sidenote I find it kind of odd so many of the CoH2 mods use this site (which is still dedicated to CoH2) as a way to vent their frustrations about the game. If you don't like it walk away please. Stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

So Inverse doesn't like COH2 as much as he likes COH1. Good. I think we can move on now and play the game you prefer.

If you build a good game, players will come. Simple as that.

I don't agree with that argument. PE probably had the most global upgrades and they weren't better for it.

That being said, I also share your feeling that there is a lack of strategic depth but I find it lies elsewhere.

1. The simplified cover mechanics.
- There's no need to deny cover, just walk up to the enemy.
- No need to push infantry out of cover with light vehicles.
- Fire and explosives used to deal more damage to units in cover, less in negative cover. That was a nice trade off.
2. The awkward s-mine placement.
3. Doctrinal Forward HQ.
4. Doctrinal tank traps.

Still, it's early in COH2's lifetime and people are still finding out new ways to play the game and nothing prevents Relic from tweaking points 1 and 2 at least.

That's a fair point. I would have to look closer at what it is about the American/Wehrmacht upgrades that make them compelling and interested while the PE upgrades don't have the same effect. In that sense my argument is likely overly simplistic.

Inverse just touched base on what his single biggest problem is, but there is probably more to it than that. Possibly including:

1) Lack of early game
2) Retarded small time window for some light vehicles. FHT has about a 1 minute time frame to do damage before another light vehicle (T70) shows up and kills it in seconds. AT nades + oorah or button also make killing it easy mode.
3) New vet system. The fix for some units being ridiculous with vet rather than adjusting the values was rework the vet so that they are almost useless and do not scale to late game whatsoever (FHT and AC are great examples).
4) Game progresses so fast in terms of tech speed yet the infantry engagements are painfully slow paced. Even Shocktroops are extremely slow at killing stuff without using grenades relative to their vcoh counterparts, they just outlast everything because they have way too much health.
5) Its been about 6 months now and we still have non interrupting AT nades and fausts that will go through shot blocking objects to hit the target. Epic fail.
6) DLC commander of the month and the entire doctrine system
7) Possibly the worst optimized game ever. Mid range cards have very inconsistent frame rates even on lowish settings. Even high end cards can barely manage to max the game out. No sli or crossfire support either, its like the gfx programmer is some intern working his way through gaming school.

For the sake of discussion, I have changed the title of the thread from "Why do I dislike CoH2?" to "Strategy in Company of Heroes 2". I want this to be a discussion on the merits and downfalls of CoH2's approach to strategy, not a bash thread.

I think that a lot of the strategic depth that you say is missing actually comes in the form of commanders in CoH 2. For the sake of this discussion let's pretend for a moment that all commanders were/are free because I'll admit that constant paid DLC is lame.

Before you even go into a game you have to make commander choices, and these choices are something that I don't find to be taken lightly at the higher levels of play as they can drastically change/affect the entire course and outcome of a game. I have different load outs for 1v1s, 2v2s and 3v3/4v4 and find myself using different commanders for different situations frequently.

Creating/balancing a load out properly requires knowledge of the not only the general German vs Soviet meta game but also how that meta game transfers to different maps and even how enemy commanders can have an impact on the meta game. The meta game is constantly evolving and already in the course of CoH 2's life we've seen commanders fade in and out of prominence and commanders have entirely shaken things up. In some cases (Industry/Elite Troops) commanders have initially had a negative impact on the game but as they've become more balanced their presence is welcomed.

Now in team games you are going to want a set of commanders that will be able to compliment your teammates while also being flexible on different maps. Moscow Outskirts plays way differently than Minsk Pocket for example. I won't waste too much time going into detail on this point because it is so similar to 1v1 load outs, just with an extra layer of depth required.

I guess you can argue that the CoH 2 commander system adds artificial depth to the game but I don't see it that way. Commanders in CoH 2 are much more of a strategic choice - one that has ramifications throughout the entire course of the game. You fight off Shocks differently than you fight off Guards differently than you fight off PPSh Cons etc etc. Commanders have very real and very deep impacts on the game - I think this is something that has evolved since you stopped playing CoH 2. Hell, back in the beta people didn't even pick commanders half the time because everyone was just trying to figure out how to play the game. And then Relic showed us how great the Panzer Tactician ability was, but now it is used way more rarely because people's unit control has gotten so much better.

Anyways, I think I've harped on the commander system enough. It is a wonderful system outside of the fact that so many commanders have to be purchased (and even that isn't as big of a deal as some people make it out to be). On the point of "global upgrades" I think that the Soviets may be lacking in this aspect of the game, but the Germans certainly aren't. As a German player you have to decide between LMGs, FHT, G43s, Schrecks, tank MGs, and flamethowers while taking into account wanting to use grenades, tellers, off maps, vet abilities etc etc. There is a lot to take into account when spending munitions as German. Additionally the Elite Troops commander has to decide if/when to vet units - an ability that is fine for the commander but doesn't fit CoH 2's meta game as a whole. An LMG Gren squad has to be used different than a G43 Gren squad (or you can try and get both... but you better not let that squad die). A Schreck PGren squad is a huge investment and you're giving up a lot of AI capability to buy schrecks. None of these choices can really be made lightly and they all involve the same level of depth that you mention being present in vCoH. If you buy an early LMG for your Gren you won't be able to get a FHT in case Shocks come out. Saving for a FHT in the case of shocks makes your Grens significantly weaker to Cons. Purchasing a FHT is a huge risk because you're investing so much into one fragile unit, but if you control it properly it can be a monster. Each of these choices is vitally important to the overall flow of the game.

As I mentioned before, unfortunately this level of upgrade choice is not present on the Soviet end of the spectrum with PPSh being "brain dead" upgrades that you should ALWAYS get once they're unlocked and the same is basically true of DPs for Guards (although this is more of a choice early game since early DPs means no CE flamethrower, mines, or Guard Grenades). However this is something that could be easily fixed and it almost not necessary because Soviet choices come in the form of tech choice/timing. While it is possible for a Soviet player to build T1 and T2 or T3 and T4 these are such huge investments that it is unlikely. I'll spare the specific CoH 2 meta game details since Soviet teching is similar to American teching so the same principles probably apply but knowing when/why to tech and which tier to tech to as a Soviet player is hugely important.

Another difference that I really like is the upkeep/popcap system in CoH 2. Both of these systems offer more chances of a comeback, which are always exciting to watch and to pull off. The two most intense SNF games involved Barton making miraculous come from behind wins that probably would not have been possible in vCoH. More importantly the upkeep/static pop cap system of CoH 2 constantly presents players with an opportunity to make important decisions in much the same way that WarCraft 3's upkeep system worked. In the middle/later stages of CoH 2 I find myself frequently questioning whether I should build an additional unit (for capping power/map presence/etc) or if I should continue to "bank" resources. Having another unit will help me now, but banking resources will ensure that I'm able to both consistently reinforce my high vet squads but also have the ability to react to my opponent properly. However, if I make the wrong choice and choose to sit on a lower total number of units I risk not getting tech out in time or being overrun. While the upkeep dynamic is somewhat similar to vCoH it is different enough in the sense that upkeep is directly related to population, not unit type and that regardless of how much/little territory I control I always have a cap of 100 and a set manpower income. These differences also allow for players to express their own styles.

Of course CoH 2 is not a perfect game and many things could/can be improved but, as I've said before, I really think you downplay the amount of strategy/important player choice that is present in CoH 2. The game is not as clear-cut and shallow as you constantly say it is. New strategies arise constantly with people figuring out new/better ways to play each map or deeper ways to weave a commander into their game plan. Each game of SNF between Barton and Andy the players used different strategies/commanders/etc. Honestly it was awesome to watch and significantly more entertaining than most, if not all, of the vCoH casts I've seen.

I think what it really boils down to is that you played CoH 2 in an entirely different era. This game barely resembles what it was in the beta with flamer M3s, SU85s, and Soviet snipers being so overpowered that nothing else was viable. Commanders were barely even touched on back then and we had to play on terrible maps like Prip Spring half the time. I too took time away from the game back then because it was frustratingly stale and disgustingly imbalanced, but that isn't the case anymore.

I'm lucky enough to be a part of the balance beta so I too have spent a lot of time working with the developers on improving the game and so far they've been doing a phenomenal job listening to community feedback and implementing good balance changes and bringing us interesting commanders/content. The developers/Relic are here for the long haul. They're more than willing to listen to good feedback.

So my question to you is that same as it has always been - why spend so much time bashing CoH 2 (a game that you say you want to see succeed) instead of continuing to work to improve it? Why constantly bash CoH 2 instead of helping to build up the community? Honestly we've all discussed this to death at this point. If you (or any vCoH veteran) want CoH 2 to succeed then help those of us that also want it to succeed. If not, just enjoy vCoH and let us enjoy CoH 2. There's no reason this community can't enjoy both games simultaneously. Frankly the CoH 2 bashing (not necessarily from you specifically Inverse) gets old.

Inverse just touched base on what his single biggest problem is, but there is probably more to it than that. Possibly including:

1) Lack of early game
2) Retarded small time window for some light vehicles. FHT has about a 1 minute time frame to do damage before another light vehicle (T70) shows up and kills it in seconds. AT nades + oorah or button also make killing it easy mode.
3) New vet system. The fix for some units being ridiculous with vet rather than adjusting the values was rework the vet so that they are almost useless and do not scale to late game whatsoever (FHT and AC are great examples).
4) Game progresses so fast in terms of tech speed yet the infantry engagements are painfully slow paced. Even Shocktroops are extremely slow at killing stuff without using grenades relative to their vcoh counterparts, they just outlast everything because they have way too much health.
5) Its been about 6 months now and we still have non interrupting AT nades and fausts that will go through shot blocking objects to hit the target. Epic fail.
6) DLC commander of the month and the entire doctrine system
7) Possibly the worst optimized game ever. Mid range cards have very inconsistent frame rates even on lowish settings. Even high end cards can barely manage to max the game out. No sli or crossfire support either, its like the gfx programmer is some intern working his way through gaming school.

+1

Each game of SNF between Barton and Andy the players used different strategies/commanders/etc. Honestly it was awesome to watch and significantly more entertaining than most, if not all, of the vCoH casts I've seen..

I agree!

I agree with you about commanders. I think that is one aspect of the game that I just don't like, even though it isn't necessarily bad. It adds depth in a different way, and I think Relic has made it clear that the base game is going to remain largely unchanged and the majority of updates will come via commanders.

I have the old-school mentality that commanders/doctrines/companies/whatever should supplement your strategy, not define it. This mentality doesn't really apply to CoH2, because the commanders feel so integral to how you play the game. I feel that as CoH2 matures, playstyles are going to largely depend on the commanders players use. And variety, as a result, will hinge on commander variety.

When you look at it this way, the simple base game actually makes a lot of sense. You give people the core and then let them customize it via commanders based on their individual playstyles. That's interesting, and could make for a very interesting competitive scene. I prefer the vCoH approach is commanders as supplements to otherwise perfectly viable strategies, but I can see the CoH2 approach working as well.

I think if they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by making these interesting commanders available solely via DLC, you would see a lot more people playing CoH2 and competing in and watching SNF. If Relic's goal was to give people a basic core of a strategy game and then let them flesh it out with commanders, they needed to make those commanders available to everyone. That would actually be extremely interesting, the more that I think about it, and would make me a lot more excited for the future of CoH2.

Honestly, this could all be solved by making DLC commanders unlockable in gameplay as well as purchasable. Give players who can't wait a means to pay for commanders right away, and give players who would never buy DLC in the first place an opportunity to earn everything in the game that affects the actual gameplay.

Thinking about that actually got me excited about what could happen if Relic changed their DLC system to something like that.

For me the things that makes CoH2 strategically inferior to CoH1 are:

- Dull early game.
Small arms damage and cover being less decisive makes first engagements pretty boring and predictable.

- Commander system.
Doctrine trees were much more fun and versatile than commanders. There are commanders that nobody uses because you have to pick only 3 beforehand, and usually everyone uses only 1 or 2.

- Infantry gameplay lategame.
I find infantry die too easily in late stages of the game. You can see vet3 units get one-shoted by a ISU or Brummbar. This makes players to rely in armored vehicles only for the late stages of the battle.
I remember paratroopers, PGrens, KCH... being a decisive factor in CoH1 battles, as much as Pershings and Panthers. In CoH2, I still see my infantry as cannon fodder who must die throwing AT nades or capping points.

^ Greeb, I agree with your point re. infantry... but I definitely remember Quinn Duffy saying they wanted to reflect brutality and carnage. And make the game get going quicker.

So those were two design decisions that were deliberate. I find the first more onerous than the second and I liked that in vCoH a no-armour build was viable in a way it never will be in CoH2.

As for Inverse, I have a lot of time for the effort he's put into vCoH and agree with easily half of what he's saying and glad he wrote it. However, I can't agree with the "make all the DLC free." The DLC ain't over-priced, it supports CoH2 in the long-run and the non-DLC commanders are viable.

Disclaimer: Windustry and Elite CheeSSe commanders need thwacking with the nerf bat. They undermine much of my point and I am aware of it. However, now they've been around a while they aren't the game-breaker they were.

Yeah so many vital commanders being only attainable through buying them is upsetting to say the least. I'd love to see some form of a system where after you're level 100 you keep earning EXP in some form that you're allowed to "bank." You could then redeem this EXP to buy new commanders, or if you prefer you could shell out the $3.99 or whatever for them and get them instantly.

Would have to play with the specifics so that you can't bot comp stomp games all day/night for infinite exp or whatever silly stuff people would inevitably do but being able to unlock commanders without paying for them, I think, is hugely important for growing the community. Any new players that want to play the game have to shell out like $120+ if they want to be on an even playing field. (I haven't done the math but I imagine the real amount of money they'd have to spend to get every current commander is at least $120 US.) And it is only going to get more and more expensive over time with each set of DLC commanders that are released - which will just push new players away more =/

Paid DLC is necessary. Paid DLC that affects gameplay is not. The game has no hope of being popular competitively if all commanders aren't available to everyone eventually.

There are so many ways to do it and still make money. You can sell faceplates, unit skins, interface skins, XP boosters. You can sell commanders to those who don't want to grind but have them be unlockable as well at certain levels. You can have a rotating list of new commanders that you can pay to use, and make those commanders free when new ones come out. There are a lot of ways to make money post-release that don't involve locking game-changing units and abilities behind a paywall.