Standalone America + Germany DLC

go play starcraft II, this is a WW2 rts for a reason. If they really enable sovs+ US matches in one game i will quit the game.
Retarded.

Or you could stick to the campaign and ToV?

Or you could stick to the campaign and ToV?

i like a challenge. Campaign and ToW = too easy.

Say... what?

I have never seen THAT coming.

Just hope it will be not OF all over again.

me thinks so

So I analyzed the video a bit and were able to identify the different squads:

Builder unit: 4 men squad were notable using pistols. Most likely Colt M1911.

Riflemen: The 5 guys in the light green wielding M1 Garands. One man also had a recoiless rifle.(upgradable?)

Airborne: 5 men squad with packs and leafy helmets. They wielded the M1a1 carbines.

Rangers: 6 men squads with M1a1 thompsons looked a bit like the airborne though, might not have different models yet.

P47: Was strafing with both machine guns and rockets.

M4 sherman tanks.



Not much I could tell about german infantry other then there was some 5 man squads. The last tank was the sturmtiger, but I'm not sure what the two lght ones were. Perhaps panzer 1s. If anyone can identify them that would be great.

Say... what?

I have never seen THAT coming.

Just hope it will be not OF all over again.

Look on the bright side - its not as if they could make the game any worse than it is currently.

Look on the bright side - its not as if they could make the game any worse than it is currently.

Well, I wouldn't underestimate Relic, but I'm looking forward into this.
Glad that I'm going back to germany tomorrow(I've seen some real T34s, both variants so I'm happy with the trip ).

So I analyzed the video a bit and were able to identify the different
Not much I could tell about german infantry other then there was some 5 man squads. The last tank was the sturmtiger, but I'm not sure what the two lght ones were. Perhaps panzer 1s. If anyone can identify them that would be great.

I thought they were Panzer IIIs first but on a second viewing they look more like Panzer IIs.

The light tank was the Panzer II 'Luchs' recon tank. It is armed with the 20mm.

I can see this replacing the 20mm scout car somehow.

OMFG WHERE IS THE PREORDER BUTTON ON STEAM

Theatre of War 2: Afrika
Theatre of War 2: Kursk

Genuine question, how do you define 'competitive'? I figured it was considered competitive, or at least played as such because it does feature tournaments, has multiplayer that focuses on player vs player etc. Maybe I'm just using the wrong words.

Also, and this is genuine not being a dick (I hope I'm not coming off as abrasive, because it's not my intention) but how do you consider things like balance patches? Would you rather have the two factions slightly unbalanced if it meant historical accuracy?

I haven't been able to read every response, but I can see this strikes a nerve. I want to say that to me I like CoH2 either way, I just enjoy the way it plays (or used to, I haven't played in months, I wanted to get back into it recently so I'll see if it still sticks). I'll play it regardless of mirror match options and the like, and I can also appreciate that some people like the limits imposed on matchups. Just saying, it seems like a very strange concept to me, for a game that seems to be primarily played in a player vs player basis.

I define a competitive game as a game where the winner is decided by skill, and one that has plenty of room to express the skills of the player.

This game has many features that simply don't allow me to consider this a competitive game. Let me explain them. I'll use Starcraft as a 'golden standard'.
- Terrible map balance. Compare the maps of SC2 with the maps in COH2, what's the first thing you notice? The maps are not symmetrical! In this game you can start with a disadvantage simply by the role of a dice.
- RNG. Need I really explain this one? In starcraft, players can predict outcomes and base their actions on this knowledge. In this game a player can't. For example, a tiger beats an IS-2 on paper. But a player can't rely on a tiger to beat an IS-2. I can perform the same action 10 times in a row in starcraft and I will get the same result 10 times. In this game I get 10 different results, based on dice rolls.
- Overly simplistic gameplay. This game has barely any ways to express ones skill. The micro is simplistic and macro skills are not required at all.
- As you said before, there are no mirror matches. There were none in vCOH and there are none in this game.

I'm pretty sure some developer also once stated in an interview that they saw COH2 more as a 'cinematical' RTS rather than a competitive RTS. Hence the RNG, map balance, no mirror matches etc.

Edit: I forgot to go into the balance patches. Here is my opinion of them: Patching the game and making the game more balanced and enjoyable for the players does not automatically mean that the game is intended to be highly competitive. It just means they want to make the game more balanced and enjoyable.

One thing I want to see:

VET 3 RIFLES!!!

For me a competitive game can have randomness in it. Maybe for the Top3 players it is a problem, but everyone else can win his games by playing better.

And CoH is surely more a cinematical Rts than Starcraft, and maybe not as super-competitive.

Almost every game were you play against other players is competitiv for me. But I would still say CoH2 is pretty high up in the list.


Also you can counter act many of the maybe not so competitiv aspects. In tourneys you can play the same map twice, with diffrent starting positions. You can play a best of 3 to even out the RNG distribution.

well,if they add historical battles mode i guess it will be alright.

I for one am very mad that Relic is going to break my illusion of a realistic World War II battle where people walk around in groups of six throwing molotov cocktails at mortar teams in blizzards and then retreat to base when they lose four people to pick up four brand new recruits who get upgraded with PPSh guns that teleport into their hands once the person in charge has secured enough munitions points by telling people to stand around flagpoles until the flag reaches the top.

Now that this realism is gone how can I pleasure myself to fantasies of being part of the Wehrmacht? I'm not even sure I can wear my Nazi uniform while automatching anymore without feeling like it's being defiled by Relic's inability to preserve their 100% historically accurate video game that I enjoy because it mirrors how actual World War II actually happened. This is a very sad day for CoH 2, which was once the most authentic World War II game in the world (well, it was actually tied for "most authentic" with Stalin vs. Martians, but still, you know what I mean...)

Anyone else notice the red tails on the American Aircraft?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen

I for one am very mad that Relic is going to break my illusion of a realistic World War II battle where people walk around in groups of six throwing molotov cocktails at mortar teams in blizzards and then retreat to base when they lose four people to pick up four brand new recruits who get upgraded with PPSh guns that teleport into their hands once the person in charge has secured enough munitions points by telling people to stand around flagpoles until the flag reaches the top.

Now that this realism is gone how can I pleasure myself to fantasies of being part of the Wehrmacht? I'm not even sure I can wear my Nazi uniform while automatching anymore without feeling like it's being defiled by Relic's inability to preserve their 100% historically accurate video game that I enjoy because it mirrors how actual World War II actually happened. This is a very sad day for CoH 2, which was once the most authentic World War II game in the world (well, it was actually tied for "most authentic" with Stalin vs. Martians, but still, you know what I mean...)

Great! Theb you would not oppose relic adding aliens to the game? I mean, who cares right? It fits your logic.

The 'X is unrealistic, therefore anything goes' argument is stupid.

So this is why they won't let the modding community do anything.

A slap in the face to old vCoH fans, having to pay $20 for the new factions after they nickel and dime us and make us buy DLC to access the full content we should have gotten when we bought a full-priced triple-A title. Blech. My money is no longer available.

I define a competitive game as a game where the winner is decided by skill, and one that has plenty of room to express the skills of the player.

This game has many features that simply don't allow me to consider this a competitive game. Let me explain them. I'll use Starcraft as a 'golden standard'.
- Terrible map balance. Compare the maps of SC2 with the maps in COH2, what's the first thing you notice? The maps are not symmetrical! In this game you can start with a disadvantage simply by the role of a dice.
- RNG. Need I really explain this one? In starcraft, players can predict outcomes and base their actions on this knowledge. In this game a player can't. For example, a tiger beats an IS-2 on paper. But a player can't rely on a tiger to beat an IS-2. I can perform the same action 10 times in a row in starcraft and I will get the same result 10 times. In this game I get 10 different results, based on dice rolls.
- Overly simplistic gameplay. This game has barely any ways to express ones skill. The micro is simplistic and macro skills are not required at all.
- As you said before, there are no mirror matches. There were none in vCOH and there are none in this game.

I'm pretty sure some developer also once stated in an interview that they saw COH2 more as a 'cinematical' RTS rather than a competitive RTS. Hence the RNG, map balance, no mirror matches etc.

Edit: I forgot to go into the balance patches. Here is my opinion of them: Patching the game and making the game more balanced and enjoyable for the players does not automatically mean that the game is intended to be highly competitive. It just means they want to make the game more balanced and enjoyable.

Thanks for the detailed reply
I have to agree with you that CoH is lacking in competitive merit on a lot of fronts, and something I have to remind myself often when playing to not take things too seriously when a lucky mortar squad-wipes me.

While I will say some of those I felt were not by design (map balance for example), something like RNG seems to lend weight to the idea that this game's main goal isn't 'balance' above everything. It is interesting though that so many people do play it as such (I think it is balanced enough and competitive enough to allow the better player to win in most cases without coin flips being a factor to ruin that), evidenced by MNF and Propagandacast etc. It's players like that, who put the game into a tournament setting that make me feel like there's a strange contradiction between wanting the game to be as competitive and balanced as possible but still historically accurate.

I think I'm going to just continue being a scrub online and try not to get too butthurt when I lose repeatedly.