PCGamer CoH2 hands-on

These 20 levels sound more like DOW2 ranks rather than COH levels.
It's experience, not real level. And your level will only increase, even with losses, and even vs AI.

GuruSkippy is right. He is always right.

Only one post, but somehow I recognise that name...


OT: I think that the problem with vague bulletins is that they will not provide any big feeling of customization for the player, and at the same time they will be extremely niche. I'm afraid that they will only come in use every now and then and make you feel more lucky to have picked it than a part of why you won.

Example: You can't really tailor your strategy around 10%+ cover bonus, or 5%+ panzershreck accuracy, it's (arguably) too small a bonus for you to customize your play to any larger extent. If you do though get a panzershreck, and manages to take out a tank with a impressive long range shot, wouldn't you feel more 'lucky' that you happened to pick that bonus, than 'skilled?

Since Intel bulletins were acquired through experience, why don't they come into play as a unit vets? In essence, it would allow you to customize how your units improve as they gain vet, which sounds both intriguing and rather fair to me.

Since Intel bulletins were acquired through experience, why don't they come into play as a unit vets? In essence, it would allow you to customize how your units improve as they gain vet, which sounds both intriguing and rather fair to me.

Customisable vet MIGHT be ok. But I don't want this situation;

Volks v Riflemen early game
Both in yellow cover
At Medium Range
MINE BEATS YOUR EVERY TIME BECAUSE I HAVE INTEL

LOLOLOLOLOLOL YOU MAD????

fuck that shit

Yeah, I'm not really for it either, but if Relic is insistent that it remains, then at least the intel buffs should be acquired through vet and not outright. The good thing about vet in coh2 is that it isn't as significant as in coh1, so adding some customization might actually work out alright. It's imperative, though, that every player is fully aware of what intels each player has opted for, as to prevent nasty, nasty surprises winning games.

I'm not convinced if vet being less significant than in CoH1 is a good thing. Need to first see the abilities that it unlocks. Getting to Vet3 units - especially as US - is an amazing feeling in CoH. Yes, a Vet3 rifle squad is super-effective (and god help you if they picked up a shreck), but it's very satisfying - and hard - to get there.

I wonder, given the high attrition rate of Soviet inf, if Red Army units actually even get vet or if you can just keep on feeding the meat-grinder.

Yes they get vet.

Unfortunately I'm not seeing these intel bulletins working out too well, probably the least desirable aspect of Coh2 that I've heard. If there really is to be something like 10% extra bonus damage resistance in cover, then that's a no-brainer upgrade. Anything that flatly boosts a fundamental mechanic is always going to be a no brainer, and the only way these things are gonna work out competetively long term is if the intel bulletins are heavily nuanced; rather than 10% bonus cover, make it 5% extra damage when flanking behind grenadiers (for example).

The problem is, the dev in the interview claims that a worse player with all the upgrades will still be beaten by a naturally better player who just bought the game. OK, fair point- but what about when two equally skilled players face off? What if one player has a really powerful combination of upgrades that work in synergy, lets say 10% bonus to cover, 10% bonus to rifle reload and 10% bonus to stationary accuracy. You now have one player who, even in a mirror match, is gonna backhand his opponent into next week with flatly superior units simply due to the money he's spent or the time he's spent playing.

The one way that they could bring this back from the brink is by disabling such things in automatch. For basic matches, comp stomps and so on (which in turn is the majority of players anyway) then let em knock themselves out with all kinds of crazy upgrades and stuff, fine tuned to their liking. But 1v1 laddering shouldn't be about out of game customization imo.

I can see the logic behind what you said but consider the following scenario , lets say that someone goes for the 3 inf bulletin upgrade , if that is visible prior to the match then he makes it incredibly clear that he will go for lets say conmscript/rifle spam , to what you can respond by going early acs and/or support weapons and picking a commander specialized in early ai and bylletins that will help your tanks , you can find a small analogy in a player who goes early p4 and locks it in your base against your 4 rifles 3 flamers granted that this could easily fail since its based on one unit . If however it is not visible then it will take a lot of experience and skill in recognizing the intells elected and tweaking your army appropriately if your bulletins are completely unrelated with countering the given strat . Imo relic are going to make the bulletins effective in matches of same skill otherwise they would not do it at all . But cheer up customization means more characterfull and beautifull army and as any seasoned wargamer can tell you a well painted army allways fights better

Customisable vet MIGHT be ok. But I don't want this situation;

Volks v Riflemen early game
Both in yellow cover
At Medium Range
MINE BEATS YOUR EVERY TIME BECAUSE I HAVE INTEL

I think it would be important to know what your opponents bulletins Intels are right from the start of the game to sort of compensate for this. Maybe display it in the load screen or present on the opponents units UI when clicked on.

in CoHO, army items (intel bulletins) were displayed both in the loading screen (all of them) and when you clicked the appropriate unit it displayed all army items for this particular unit. also, units that were affected by army items had a frame around their health bar, so they were easily recognizable as being "enhanced".

Watch this to see how it worked in CoHO

Achievements are for xbox preschoolers

I want the game balanced, not worrying that much about bulletins etc.. Dont want to see that stupid Wehr vet system from CoH again which used to turn the tide at the end of the game. A fair vet system should do the trick. And please Relic: if a fraction has best overall tanks, dont let this fraction have the overall best anti-tank units as well.

The fraction with the best tanks is 1/4.

in CoHO, army items (intel bulletins) were displayed both in the loading screen (all of them) and when you clicked the appropriate unit it displayed all army items for this particular unit. also, units that were affected by army items had a frame around their health bar, so they were easily recognizable as being "enhanced".

Watch this to see how it worked in CoHO

Thanks for that. I never played CoHonline.

And in a (somewhat) unrelated note:
I have a prediction: One of Sega's first DLC's will be a blood patch!!!!!

Because that has never happened before for $0.99

If some of these Intels are no brainers then it will be somewhat equal because everyone will be using the same shit. 10% extra cover would be great, and im sure 90% of the players would be using it. I mean, lets not bring back fatherland hmg buffs or anything but some shit would be alright.

I also hope they have some sort of vanilla mode. In Age of Empires Online u can get unit gear and buffs and shit for comp stomps and basic matches but on the ladder all that shit is disabled and its just vanilla units with skins.

"As part of your profile loadout, you’ll also be able to equip up to three ‘intel bulletins’ before battle. These are subtle passive abilities earned through Steam achievements, conveying minor boosts to your troops in the field."

I was curious about this point in the review. Are we saying here that when I unbox the game, log straight into multiplayer I do not have any intel bulletins availalbe to me (or perhaps am just limited to a default 3 that every player gets) because I have not achieved the relevant steam achievements yet?
If that statement is true, then it kind of contrasts with the follow-up statement the dev makes in the following paragraph..

“One thing that was very important for us is that if you unbox the game, and I’ve been playing for a hundred hours and have access to everything – if you’re a better player than me you will beat me with your straight-out-of-the-box experience.”

That seems kind of redundant statement to me. Surely (on numbers) I can see how you can measure the benefit a bulletin will provide to a unit(s). But I cannot see how you can compare that statistical margin of improvement to units to the (presumably ever-changing) scale of player skill. So that to me was a VERY definitive statement to be making on something that have drawn a lot of skepticism from the community.

Perhaps he is alluding to the fact the the RNG has been reduced in its potency in this game and that skill will overcome luck a lot more. Personally I liked the RNG in the first one, I learned to live with it when the numbers are against you. That's why I come back to the game 2 hours after go back to desktop, routed. I hope it doesnt change.

What the developer is referring to in that second quote is that a better player can win even with a worse army. I can own people in Counterstrike even with a shitty gun because I'm good at FPS games. 12azor can destroy you with zero intelligence bulletins because he's 12azor.

I will of course wait to see what the new system is like before I start to worry, but here is how I see Intel Bulletins. I prefer COH over SC2 because while COH may be a bit slower, its much more nuanced - forcing you to be good at both micro and strategy. This is because of things like directional cover, buildings, obstacles, veterancy etc - and Intel Bulletins might just add more of that nuance to a match. One of the best parts about COH is you have to adapt your strategy as a result of something your opponent does. Things like weather, rivers, mud, etc in the environment all affect how you play your opponent and how you use the map. If the Intel means that your opponent is a bit harder to kill if they are in green cover, then maybe the answer is to use snipers etc. Or get more flamers which are not affected by this bonus. Either way - it just means to me that I can look forward to more variables that will let players with more skill adapt, and possibly take advantages that would not be there otherwise. If I knew that my opponent had three Intel bulletins that buffed infantry, then I might go for tanks, countering their advantages.

Either way I can't wait till its out and we can see what its like.

What the developer is referring to in that second quote is that a better player can win even with a worse army. I can own people in Counterstrike even with a shitty gun because I'm good at FPS games. 12azor can destroy you with zero intelligence bulletins because he's 12azor.

the worse army point is what I was concerned about. there's two threads for balance now in this game. The obvious one of player skill (and It would seem logical to expect that if you are good at counterstrike -or any other game, and I am bad then you are going to beat me) needs to be solid in terms of balance for the intel bulletins to function fairly. Secondly (and this is the issue i find confusing) If you have a 'worse' army because of the bullletins you chose (and I can see this being a kickstarter for many a '...is OP thread') but you are a better player than me and you beat my 'better army' then why even have these bulletins in the game at all?
If the effect of them is not going to close the gulf somewhat between a bad player and a good player then it's surely going to widen that gulf in which case I would ask, again, why are they in the game?