Should Micro be > Than Strategy?

If there was one thing that made Company of Heroes great, it was that there were multiple ways to win a game. A player with a much better plan or unit composition could beat someone with much better micro, but sometimes incredible early game micro could also so significantly hamper a very good strategic player that comebacks were impossible. What made it interesting was that these aspects were so finely balanced that no one could say that one was definitely more important than the other in winning a vCOH match.

I think, with the introduction of the high DPS Western Fronts faction units, that balance in COH2 has been finally put to rest. In all cases, micro > tactics and strategy. Unit preservation and abuse of high DPS units has become so much more important than having a plan, or a balanced army composition, or even large-scale flanks. Examples include: the M3, the M5 quad, the flak trucks, the T70, Obersoldaten, Falls, and of course, ISU-152s and Tigers late game.

In terms of winning, early engagements decide almost everything in high-skill games. And what wins you those early engagements? Focus firing before the other guy. Retreating the focus fired squad before the other guy. Dodging nades I don't even count because that's so basic even guys with my CPM can do it easily. Cover and positioning is also far less important now than focus fire.

I don't like this. I don't enjoy it, and I am man enough to admit that before the infantry DPS patch in March I could beat players with far higher CPM than me because I had the better plan, or was able to do something else super clever with the map (ie., Tellers, a pincer movement flank, etc.) because they were so busy with their micro they weren't seeing the big picture. I can no longer do that, and it's purely because I'm slower.

I also think we could pretty much prove CPM > tactics if we had the stats on the top tourney players. From my viewing of replays, I can tell that in order of CPM and multitasking speed: Jesulin>Cataclaw>Twister....OMGPOP somehere in there, not sure where I'd place him as I haven't seen those latest games. A strategic player like Cruzzi, as talented as he is, is always going to lose to higher CPM players, because he simply doesn't have that speed (apologies, Cruzzi, but I think you also know it's true).

Just opening this up for discussion.

im not sure this is really micro > strategy. strategy and micro are both obviously very important in any rts. if you have no AT, youll never kill a tank just because you have better micro. conversely, if you have a strong build order but cant control your units, youll struggle as well. COH was always on the low end of APM, so i dont really think its a problem if it becomes more demanding.

in my opinion, the problem isnt micro becoming more important, its that cheesy/spam builds are often very strong. i wish balanced armies with combined arms were more rewarding than they are today.

No, my ideal RTS looks like this:

RNG > macro > money spent on DLC > tactics > jeep push > micro > ELO > strategy > strategic tactics > special tactics > Crusader Kings II > CPM

Hahaha RNG change some games, more than micro and tactics, true!!! lol

Micro will always be more important than strategy in CoH2. It's just a product of how the game was designed.

It's a delicate balance. I stopped playing before the lethality changes because I found it boring how little micro affected the game. The CPM requirement has definitely gone up with the WF armies being introduced... frankly I like it.

As wooof pointed out, this game has some hard counters where if you screw your build up, you're dead meat. Saying CPM > strategy as a blanket statement seems a bit far fetched. The basic strategies for this game are fairly intuitive (get AT gun to counter tank) and if the other player's micro isn't good enough to pull off their strategy correctly, the guy with the higher CPM is going to win.

The problem with lowering the CPM requirements of a game like CoH is that it would be pretty dull for a lot of people. If it's easy to get all your units in the right place then two dudes who both know how to make a balanced army are just gonna wait around until one guy makes a major mistake.

I also think we could pretty much prove CPM > tactics if we had the stats on the top tourney players.

Isn't it just as reasonable to say that high APM is merely a correlation with learning how to micro well? In terms of a mental challenge, is learning how to micro your troops somehow different than learning how to strategize? Slowness is a factor yes, but that takes practice. You don't even have to worry about practicing though, because just playing the game is practice! You just have to devote a bit of your mind power to paying attention to it so you can actually learn about it.

After all
High APM =/= good micro, and that is something that can be proved.

in my opinion, the problem isnt micro becoming more important, its that cheesy/spam builds are often very strong. i wish balanced armies with combined arms were more rewarding than they are today.

This.

No, my ideal RTS looks like this:

RNG > macro > money spent on DLC > tactics > jeep push > micro > ELO > strategy > strategic tactics > special tactics > Crusader Kings II > CPM

Nooooo, u r wrong.

coh1 > Inverse > strategy > tactics > mags a cunt

You're creating a false dichotomy. Micro and Strategy are intrinsically linked and without one the other is an utter failure. Even in games like CoH2 where micro is an extremely important aspect to success.

If someone is beating you with no strategy and all micro, then you're not good enough with the strategic aspects to make up for your lack of micro. If someone has no grand scheme, an overall plan, then you shouldn't lose to them. Simple as that.

There's no "abuse" of powerful units, there's just strategy and then there's the implementation of that strategy. If you have a good strategy and can't micro for shit, you're going to lose to someone who's average at both. If you have great micro but can't plan anything at all, you're going to lose to someone who's average at both.

If you're losing to someone who is displaying no strategic thought but is great at stuff like unit placement, then you're realistically just not good enough at other aspects of the game to compensate for your inferiority and you shouldn't win anyways.

Strategy is a plan.

Micro is an execution of this plan.

This thread is weird.

Spam > both. As stated in one of the posts above.

Strategy is a plan.

Micro is an execution of this plan.

This thread is weird.

When discussing an RTS, "strategy" generally refers to a player's execution of a gameplan on a macro scale (building the correct units at the correct times, efficiently spending resources, upgrading at correct timings, etc.), and "micro" generally refers to a player's execution of a gameplan on a micro scale (positioning units correctly, focusing the proper targets, utilizing the units you have created in the correct manner, etc.).

All RTS games require a combination of these two elements. A game like SC2 puts a ton of emphasis on the strategy/macro element; it requires insane micro as well, of course, but at high levels of play those with better macro skills are generally more successful because they can draw games out longer, and a longer game generally favours the more mechanically-sound player because there are more decisions to be made and therefore more opportunities to outplay the opposing player.

On the other end of the spectrum are games like Men of War and DoW2 and CoH2, where the macro elements of the game are, relatively speaking, incredibly simplistic. When you have a simple game on a macro scale, it's far easier to outplay your opponent on the micro scale because that's the arena where you can differentiate yourself the most. When the strategic, macro element of the game is relatively easy to master, high-level games are decided on the precision of a player's micro capabilities. Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes lies vCoH, which emphasized micro but did so to a far lesser degree than CoH2, and left room for macro players but rewarded them to a far lesser degree than SC2.

You can't really make a value judgement about the two styles without it being an extremely subjective one. Some people like the SC2 style, some people like the CoH2/DoW2/MoW style. vCoH was unique because it bridged the gap between the two fairly well, and catered a little bit to both styles of players.

Commenting more directly at the OP, which I didn't get a chance to do in my first post, I don't really think CoH2 becoming more APM-intensive is a bad thing. Company of Heroes has always been an extremely easy series to play from an APM perspective; forcing top players to play faster is not a bad thing. It's not difficult to learn to play faster, and I don't think increasing the APM requirement means CoH2 suddenly has more focus on micro and less on strategy. That shift in focus has been there since the game's release, and it's caused more by the design of the factions and the layout of the tech trees than any increase in required actions during a game.

Interesting points being made in here, been a good read. I think there is also an element that exists between strategy and micro - tactics.

You have strategically planned your build order, arranged your military resources on the field, and then you make a choice to attack the the machine gun nest.

You make a choice to move squad A to cover X, and then you click to hide behind cover X.

Having good strategy and tactics accounts for a lot in this game. Being johnny on the spot with your retreats and dodges or losing whole squads also accounts for a lot.

ofc micro should always be the deciding factor. Even in a game with complex strategies like starcraft, the guy with superior micro will almost always win. How far could someone push the skilllevels with simply "out-thinking my opponent"? This is a real-time strategy game not a turn based strategy game and in real-time speed is always gonna be a important skill to have.

Think of it this way: With more speed you can do more actions and decisions than your opponent which will make you pull ahead.

Inverse could you please explain your fascination with the "deep" strategy elements of vcoh? Because to me it looks like you could never have understod high level broodwar play if you actually claim vcoh had a deep strategy to it because to me it was just "strategy" if you wanted to use your fuel for tanks or improve your infantry. Thats incredible shallow strategy compared to broodwar and not very far off from coh2.

Yes its a pity vcoh2 lacked global fuel upgrades but OKW to me looks atleast the same if not more "complex" in its fuel investment and munition distribution like any vcoh army and im sure you will still find a reason to why "coh2 design is flawed"

remember if you ever want to win a argument over why a game sucks, just use the word DESIGN a lot.

Strategy is a plan.

Micro is an execution of this plan.

This thread is weird.

Not really. Tactics is a execution of the plan, which is stuff like flanking and positioning. Micro is stuff like dodging a grenade, getting in cover, getting that fast countersnipe, etc. None of those things have anything to do with strategy, its just clicking and keyboard smashing.

ofc micro should always be the deciding factor. Even in a game with complex strategies like starcraft, the guy with superior micro will almost always win. How far could someone push the skilllevels with simply "out-thinking my opponent"? This is a real-time strategy game not a turn based strategy game and in real-time speed is always gonna be a important skill to have.

Think of it this way: With more speed you can do more actions and decisions than your opponent which will make you pull ahead.

Inverse could you please explain your fascination with the "deep" strategy elements of vcoh? Because to me it looks like you could never have understod high level broodwar play if you actually claim vcoh had a deep strategy to it because to me it was just "strategy" if you wanted to use your fuel for tanks or improve your infantry. Thats incredible shallow strategy compared to broodwar and not very far off from coh2.

Yes its a pity vcoh2 lacked global fuel upgrades but OKW to me looks atleast the same if not more "complex" in its fuel investment and munition distribution like any vcoh army and im sure you will still find a reason to why "coh2 design is flawed"

remember if you ever want to win a argument over why a game sucks, just use the word DESIGN a lot.

Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes lies vCoH, which emphasized micro but did so to a far lesser degree than CoH2, and left room for macro players but rewarded them to a far lesser degree than SC2.

vCoH was unique because it bridged the gap between the two fairly well, and catered a little bit to both styles of players.

When did I say vCoH was a deep strategic game? It was a micro game at heart, but it still had room for other styles of play. More so, I'd say, than CoH2, DoW2, or MoW, all of which take that micro emphasis to the extreme. Its big draw was its mix of these two elements of gameplay.

As for Starcraft, it's very much a macro player's game. Of course you need to micro like crazy, but macro ability is more valuable relative to micro ability in that game.

ofc micro should always be the deciding factor. Even in a game with complex strategies like starcraft, the guy with superior micro will almost always win.

Actually if you look at areas around gold league and then compare it to high diamond, the big difference is macro >_>. At least that was how it was a couple of years ago; there was an awesome thread on it.

There will always be more important aspects in playing a game well; microing well in CoH2 has the potential to give you a huge advantage from what I've seen of casts, and is thus very important.

I think the question whether it should be or not is a bad one. Micro just is more important in this case. Sure they could change around the balance I guess, but there is still just as much space for the strategy. You just need to step up to that space with micro.

CPM is best indicator of nothing in this game. I've watched casters do click fest spam, with no reason or benefit to it. Just so they would have high CPM at the end of the match.

(this of course doesn't mean that attention and moving units at the right time isn't crucial. It just means that moving unit from A to B can be done as effectively in 1 click as it is in 24 clicks)

You know who you are

CPM is best indicator of nothing in this game. I've watched casters do click fest spam, with no reason or benefit to it. Just so they would have high CPM at the end of the match.

For some people, this is just a way to stay on focus and rhytm on the early game where you can´t do as much.