Moving forward, what factions / theatres do you want?

The Italians do have good amount of tanks that can work in the coh meta.
P26/40Show Spoiler,Semovente 105/25Show Spoiler, Semovente 75/46Show Spoiler, Semovente 90/53Show Spoiler, Autoblinda Show Spoiler

Although Italy's poor industry capacity and coupled with its surrender in 1943 prevented mass production of these tanks. (though the RSI existed until 1945 .)

I prefer to continue Theater of War for the Eastern Front, and why not, adding a ToW pack for the Western Front.
After this i hope for the Italian Army and the Commonwealth, if not expanding through north africa, it should expand to the Italian & Balkans campaigns.
I think that this is the best idea to expand CoH2 at the moment.
1) Concluding Eastern Front Theater of War
2) Italian Army & Commonwealth
3) Theater of War for the Western Front
4) Theater of War for the Mediterranean & Balkan front

I prefer to continue Theater of War for the Eastern Front, and why not, adding a ToW pack for the Western Front.
After this i hope for the Italian Army and the Commonwealth, if not expanding through north africa, it should expand to the Italian & Balkans campaigns.
I think that this is the best idea to expand CoH2 at the moment.
1) Concluding Eastern Front Theater of War
2) Italian Army & Commonwealth
3) Theater of War for the Western Front
4) Theater of War for the Mediterranean & Balkan front

This pretty much sums up what I wanted to say.

For Eastern Front I hope they'll continue developing on it because:
1) CoH2 is set on the eastern front
2) the battles on the eastern front, besides massacres, are very great battles!
3) there are many countries for the eastern front like Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Germany
4) This is only my thought that the battles on the eastern front are more interesting than the other front ones!

Maybe the next expansion could be called Company of Heroes 2: Balance? It could even have a paid DLC called bug fixes.

For Eastern Front I hope they'll continue developing on it because:
1) CoH2 is set on the eastern front
2) the battles on the eastern front, besides massacres, are very great battles!
3) there are many countries for the eastern front like Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Germany
4) This is only my thought that the battles on the eastern front are more interesting than the other front ones!

The Ostfront has plenty of battles and areas not explored in the game, but you can only really add factions on the Axis side because it's all soviets all the time for allied forces there.

The Ostfront has plenty of battles and areas not explored in the game, but you can only really add factions on the Axis side because it's all soviets all the time for allied forces there.

Though Soviets did have a lot of gear and designed many tanks (though many got outdated fast). But there are still many decent tanks that are worthy for the game. The current Soviet faction is rather stereotypical, and frankly, badly designed. There is always the possibility of another Soviet faction with different gear.

Though Soviets did have a lot of gear and designed many tanks (though many got outdated fast). But there are still many decent tanks that are worthy for the game. The current Soviet faction is rather stereotypical, and frankly, badly designed. There is always the possibility of another Soviet faction with different gear.

I proposed a "Polish Army" faction based on the late war (1944/45) Polish forces under Soviet command. But while Relic evidently doesn't mind putting in 50 flavours of Germans, I'd personally prefer to avoid doubling up on factions where possible.

Yeah my personal faction wishlist is for a late-war Soviet and German faction based around or after Operation Bagration. Soviets would be armed with well-trained infantry, some elite guards, T-34/85's (not the current version). It would be pit against Germany fielding Romanian infantry, MG 34 Assault squads, and Panzer IV Ausf. H's.

My notes for it if anyone's interested:

Show Spoiler

But what you're saying, it took three years to oust the axis army from Africa ( and the Americans have helped a lotif not, it took months before others to drive them from the mountains of Tunisia) ,
also having more men,supplies and means , and the commander montgomery was overvalued lot.
why add only the Afrika korps? the Afrika Korps is only German troops and you can not have three factions German, if you meant Italian and German units with the right name is Panzerarmee Afrika (end campaign africa)

Montgomery was a much better General than Rommel as evident by the fact that he defeated Rommel and ended his precious Afrika campaign.

Why add only the Afrika corps? Because the Italians are represented by the Ostruppen unit for the Wehrmacht, and it suits them finely along with the Romanians and etc. Italy, Romania, Slovakia and etc had the worst troops in WW2 so it wouldn't make sense to add any units from those countries since they're already in-game via the Ostruppen unit; they were used in WW2 to soak up damage and were practically cannon fodder; the same function the Ostruppen serves.

Honestly, if Relic does decide to add any Hungarian, Romanian, Slovenian unit, i'm going to protest them and write a petition. The only units that should be in CoH2 are units that actually fought hard in WW2.

Montgomery was a much better General than Rommel as evident by the fact that he defeated Rommel and ended his precious Afrika campaign.

Why add only the Afrika corps? Because the Italians are represented by the Ostruppen unit for the Wehrmacht, and it suits them finely along with the Romanians and etc. Italy, Romania, Slovakia and etc had the worst troops in WW2 so it wouldn't make sense to add any units from those countries since they're already in-game via the Ostruppen unit; they were used in WW2 to soak up damage and were practically cannon fodder; the same function the Ostruppen serves.

Honestly, if Relic does decide to add any Hungarian, Romanian, Slovenian unit, i'm going to protest them and write a petition. The only units that should be in CoH2 are units that actually fought hard in WW2.

I disagree with your claiming of Montgomery's military skill being superior to Rommel's. As do most historians, that doesn't imply that Monty was inept, he was a competent leader. Here's a succint video on the subject and a good site to learn WW2 history from reputed historians hailing from all the belligerent nations of WW2. Here's also a short interview of a West Point historian about the North African Campaign.

Hope you find it interesting.

I disagree with your claiming of Montgomery's military skill being superior to Rommel's. As do most historians, that doesn't imply that Monty has inept he was a competent leader. Here's a succint video on the subject and a good site to learn WW2 history from reputed historians hailing from all the belligerent nations of WW2. Here's also a short interview of a West Point hisotrian about the North African Campaign.

Hope you find it interesting.

Nope, Rommel was one of Germany's worst Generals. Montgomery was a master of defensive tactics and it showed in his African campaigns where he consistently repelled German attacks, and eventually forced him out of Africa. Too many people praise Rommel when he was ok at best, while bashing Montgomery mainly due to the fact that he's British and defeated the legendary German General Rommel.

If Rommel was better than Montgomery, Rommel would've decisively won all of his battles against Montgomery but alas that's not the case, now is it?

The only faction which needs to be added is the Commonwealth. The Italians, the Romanians, the Finns, etc. could come as new Commanders for the Axis and The French as a new Commander for the Allies.

Nope, Rommel was one of Germany's worst Generals. Montgomery was a master of defensive tactics and it showed in his African campaigns where he consistently repelled German attacks, and eventually forced him out of Africa. Too many people praise Rommel when he was ok at best, while bashing Montgomery mainly due to the fact that he's British and defeated the legendary German General Rommel.

If Rommel was better than Montgomery, Rommel would've decisively won all of his battles against Montgomery but alas that's not the case, now is it?

Did you even bother to read and watch the sources I gave you? Nobody is bashing Monty on account of his British origin (2 of the interviewed hisorians are british) but Monty skill ultimately did not factor that much in the winning of the desert war. However declaring Rommel as the worst German General, well that's quite a stretch! He's not overrated at all, Guderian is the one that's overrated. What's next Friedrich der GroBe and Napoleon Bonaparte were the worst generals in history?

Did you even bother to read and watch the sources I gave you? Nobody is bashing Monty on account of his British origin (2 of the interviewed hisorians are british) but Monty skill ultimately did not factor that much in the winning of the desert war. However declaring Rommel as the worst German General, well that's just ignorant, he's not overrated at all, Guderian is the one that's overated. What's next Friedrich der GroBe and Napoleon Bonaparte were the worst generals in history?

Yes, I read your sources and came to the conclusion they're wrong. They keep going on about how Montgomery didn't defeat Rommel because of his experience, skills and tactics but because of American equipment. Here's something to take into account, if anyone else but Montgomery was in given the task of defeating Rommel and pushing Germany out of Africa, would they have been able to accomplish that task? Montgomery when WW2 broke out had considerable battlefield experience and was highly respected among colonial troops; he was by no means inexperienced and inept. Rommel on the other hand didn't have much experience and wasn't respected by a lot of his troops(Italians and Germans).

Guderian was actually a skilled General, but I can't say the same about Rommel; he literally screwed Germany in Africa and I honestly believe someone else should've replaced him. Look no further than Normandy where he was stationed after his defeat in Africa; was he able to achieve victories there? No, not even close.

Yes, I read your sources and came to the conclusion they're wrong. They keep going on about how Montgomery didn't defeat Rommel because of his experience, skills and tactics but because of American equipment. Here's something to take into account, if anyone else but Montgomery was in given the task of defeating Rommel and pushing Germany out of Africa, would they have been able to accomplish that task? Montgomery when WW2 broke out had considerable battlefield experience and was highly respected among colonial troops; he was by no means inexperienced and inept. Rommel on the other hand didn't have much experience and wasn't respected by a lot of his troops(Italians and Germans).

Guderian was actually a skilled General, but I can't say the same about Rommel; he literally screwed Germany in Africa and I honestly believe someone else should've replaced him. Look no further than Normandy where he was stationed after his defeat in Africa; was he able to achieve victories there? No, not even close.

"LAURENCE REES: So what lessons were we learning in North Africa?

ROBERT CITINO: Well, better intelligence. General Montgomery benefited from the Enigma Intelligence or Ultra Intelligence that was flowing into his headquarters, and soldiers in both the British and the American Army learnt that a German tank attack as impressive and as much, to use the current cliché, shock and awe as it contained was also something that could be countered with massed anti-tank guns, with steadier infantry formations, and with better fire control systems for the artillery. And certainly the British Army had learned those things by itself by Rommel’s last great throw of the dice at the end of 1942. Montgomery was then able to go on the offensive and actually destroy a German Army, something that the Western Allies had not been able to do up until this point. And Churchill’s famous saying that before Alamein we never had a victory and after Alamein we never had a defeat, still speaks volumes to my mind about armies having to learn how to win."

See they do praise Monty's expertise on using superior British Intelligence in order to counter the german blitzkrieg with superb defensive line, he also trained troops and built morale which is very important. No one said it was USA Equipement that defeated Rommel they just say that the landing 60 000 US troops sealed the deal. They mainly pick on Monty for having an inflated ego and taking credit for things he did not do or merit. By the way, the Australians and New Zealanders did not get along with Montgomery, they made a bing chunk of the colonial troops.

Rommel did not really screw it up in Africa, he was in a desperate position and gambled it all on the El Alamein offensive because he had no more supplies so he attempted a breaktrough (He failed, it happens). Then the Afrika Korps lost the initiative and was hunted down; that is how you lose wars. The same thing happened in Kursk on the eastern front, the Ostheer lost the initiative forever. Truly it was the German High Command that screwed up by not giving more strategic importance to the North African Theather, replacing Rommel would not have changed the outcome. I'm still glad the Axis lost in North Africa, I'm just noting that it was a formidable training ground for the US Army, the British Forces and the Free French at Bir Hakeim, in part because Rommel was a splendid enemy and thus teacher. Rommel's lack of victories in Normandy are also the consequence of the lack of initiative, the germans were on full defense at the operational and strategic level, if you're constantly taking punches then u can't win as you lack initative and can't punch back/riposte.

Regarding Guderian.

Yes, I read your sources and came to the conclusion they're wrong.

Welp time to go home guys, REforever knows more about history than actual historians.

"LAURENCE REES: So what lessons were we learning in North Africa?

ROBERT CITINO: Well, better intelligence. General Montgomery benefited from the Enigma Intelligence or Ultra Intelligence that was flowing into his headquarters, and soldiers in both the British and the American Army learnt that a German tank attack as impressive and as much, to use the current cliché, shock and awe as it contained was also something that could be countered with massed anti-tank guns, with steadier infantry formations, and with better fire control systems for the artillery. And certainly the British Army had learned those things by itself by Rommel’s last great throw of the dice at the end of 1942. Montgomery was then able to go on the offensive and actually destroy a German Army, something that the Western Allies had not been able to do up until this point. And Churchill’s famous saying that before Alamein we never had a victory and after Alamein we never had a defeat, still speaks volumes to my mind about armies having to learn how to win."

See they do praise Monty's expertise on using superior British Intelligence in order to counter the german blitzkrieg with superb defensive line, he also trained troops and built morale which is very important. No one said it was USA Equipement that defeated Rommel they just say that the landing 60 000 US troops sealed the deal. They mainly pick on Monty for having an inflated ego and taking credit for things he did not do or merit. By the way, the Australians and New Zealanders did not get along with Montgomery, they made a bing chunk of the colonial troops.

Rommel did not really screw it up in Africa, he was in a desperate position and gambled it all on the El Alamein offensive because he had no more supplies so he attempted a breaktrough (He failed, it happens). Then the Afrika Korps lost the initiative and was hunted down; that is how you lose wars. The same thing happened in Kursk on the eastern front, the Ostheer lost the initiative forever. Truly it was the German High Command that screwed up by not giving more strategic importance to the North African Theather, replacing Rommel would not have changed the outcome. I'm still glad the Axis lost in North Africa, I'm just noting that it was a formidable training ground for the US Army, the British Forces and the Free French at Bir Hakeim, in part because Rommel was a splendid enemy and thus teacher. Rommel's lack of victories in Normandy are also the consequence of the lack of initiative, the germans were on full defense at the operational and strategic level, if you're constantly taking punches then u can't win as you lack initative and can't punch back/riposte.

Regarding Guderian.

Lol, several historians in your link heavily implied that the only reason Montgomery won was because US troops were secured and en route. Your links aren't credible because they're extremely biased, and i'm surprised you don't see this yourself.

As for Montgomery, he was the most skilled General the Allies had except for maybe Guy Simonds and Harry Crerar, so if he defeated Rommel it was because of superior tactics. Honestly, I don't even know why you're complaining about the fact that I said Montgomery defeated Rommel and thus considered better; if Rommel was better, he would've defeated Montgomery. Napoleon Bonaparte was outnumbered in most of his battles but he won most of them despite that disadvantage. By saying Rommel was outnumbered, you're trying to shift blame away from him and you're even insulting all the great Generals in history who defeated opponents who had numerical superiority.

Australians and New Zealanders respected Montgomery because he was a front line General and was incredibly intelligent and skilled; he made sure that all of his troops were ready and he didn't believe in huge gambles. Rommel on the other hand was willing to sacrifice entire divisions on the whim, and that's why he lost and why British tactics were superior.

If Albert Kesselring or Erich von Manstein was in charge of the Afrika corps, their chances of achieving victory would be much higher compared to Rommel's.

emotion lots of emotion not enough facts.

I'd love to see the return of the Commonwealth. But not with its stupid design from vCoH that OKW have somewhat adopted.

I would love to see the Finns too.