4 things that would make CoH2 instantly better

I guess I'm in the minority when I say that I absolutely love blizzards and the chaos they cause.

I never liked vCoh, I never liked CoH1 in any way shape or form. I have 30 hours or so on record and none of it was fun.

I have over 250 hours on this game to date, and frankly if all these fixes you mention are going to be applied I might just quit. I didn't get this game to play CoH 1 with new units, I bought this game because of the squad-based action alongside with environmental hazards.

When a Blizzard shows up, I line up my artillery ready to fire at confirmed Fire Pit locations, I send out my Pioneers/CEs to lay mines and boobytrap locations. I call-in the units I've been saving for, safe in the knowledge that the enemy will not have LoS to see it coming. This, for me, adds a magnitude of depth and -entertainment- to casted games. Why isn't coh 1 an esports title, why does it not qualify as being entertaining to watch in states like S. Korea where gaming is a sport in its own right?

I can guarantee you that it has less to do with these "issues" you are citing, and more to do with entertainment value.

CoH1 is actually fun to watch, but after the 500th game you just go "Yeah. Seen it all." 10 M10s in a 3v3 charging at Panthers like tards is funny the first 50 times, then it gets stale. But losing an IS-2 to a PGren grenade because the Soviet didn't see it coming? Oh man, the tragedy.

I guess I'm in the minority when I say that I absolutely love blizzards and the chaos they cause.

I never liked vCoh, I never liked CoH1 in any way shape or form. I have 30 hours or so on record and none of it was fun.

I have over 250 hours on this game to date, and frankly if all these fixes you mention are going to be applied I might just quit. I didn't get this game to play CoH 1 with new units, I bought this game because of the squad-based action alongside with environmental hazards.

When a Blizzard shows up, I line up my artillery ready to fire at confirmed Fire Pit locations, I send out my Pioneers/CEs to lay mines and boobytrap locations. I call-in the units I've been saving for, safe in the knowledge that the enemy will not have LoS to see it coming. This, for me, adds a magnitude of depth and -entertainment- to casted games. Why isn't coh 1 an esports title, why does it not qualify as being entertaining to watch in states like S. Korea where gaming is a sport in its own right?

I can guarantee you that it has less to do with these "issues" you are citing, and more to do with entertainment value.

CoH1 is actually fun to watch, but after the 500th game you just go "Yeah. Seen it all." 10 M10s in a 3v3 charging at Panthers like tards is funny the first 50 times, then it gets stale. But losing an IS-2 to a PGren grenade because the Soviet didn't see it coming? Oh man, the tragedy.

You are in the very small minority.

You are in the very small minority.

I live in a country of 5 million. You get used to it.

Minority does not mean incorrect, in the wrong, nor does it make my point(s) any less qualified or correct. I'll take it as a positive that the only thing you could comment about my post, was the fact that I am in the "very small" minority.

I'm agree with Fortune: I played COH since 2006, I did maps, tried mods, 1vs1 classified, everything that was COH, and COH is my favourite game, but I think if you want COH, play COH, I prefer COH2 and i don't want it will be COH. Fortune, there are lots of people agree with you, COH is COH, COH2 is COH2, i didn't pay 50€ for COH (please correct me for the grammar, i'm italien).

CoH1 is actually fun to watch, but after the 500th game you just go "Yeah. Seen it all." 10 M10s in a 3v3 charging at Panthers like tards is funny the first 50 times, then it gets stale. But losing an IS-2 to a PGren grenade because the Soviet didn't see it coming? Oh man, the tragedy.

If this is the example you choose to reference to describe your enduring memory of CoH1, would I be right in saying that you're more of a basic match player? And I'm not being facetious, just asking.

The reason I ask is that I could easily watch a thousand games of top-level CoH on good maps and never get bored, mainly because of the incredibly tense, delicate and brutal opening minutes where the position of every single man is so important, right down to the late game hair-raising base-rapes where a well-placed V1 or off-map can bring a KO to the game right there an then.

Could I find watching as many 4v4s, or indeed 3v3s or even 2v2s as interesting? No- they lack those elements described above because more people means less important decisions, and whereas a Panther in a 1v1 is a large, targeted and specialist investment with the power to turn the tide, the same tank in a 4v4 is very much just more of the same.

CoH by its nature lives and dies by its maps- even with the best design in the world (as with CoH1), a bad map could easily ruin things. Just think of Flooded Plains, or Best, or Beach Assualt, or any number of 1v1 maps that were eventually shafted in favour of better ones. I reckon that if the original had a far greater map pool, it would have lasted a lot longer, simply because strategies are so frequently built around maps. B

ut once again, the significance of the map is inversely proportional to the size of the game. To me, all the 4v4 maps look roughly the same, and you can be near-guaranteed that by 30 minutes in, every hedge, shotblocker and building will have been razed to the ground leaving nothing but a flat billiard table- shown by the popularity of a map like Red Ball Express, which cut out the middleman and gave players a basic map that amounted to little more than a decorated field (but became one of the most played maps in the game).

If this is the example you choose to reference to describe your enduring memory of CoH1, would I be right in saying that you're more of a basic match player? And I'm not being facetious, just asking.

The reason I ask is that I could easily watch a thousand games of top-level CoH on good maps and never get bored, mainly because of the incredibly tense, delicate and brutal opening minutes where the position of every single man is so important, right down to the late game hair-raising base-rapes where a well-placed V1 or off-map can bring a KO to the game right there an then.

Could I find watching as many 4v4s, or indeed 3v3s or even 2v2s as interesting? No- they lack those elements described above because more people means less important decisions, and whereas a Panther in a 1v1 is a large, targeted and specialist investment with the power to turn the tide, the same tank in a 4v4 is very much just more of the same.

CoH by its nature lives and dies by its maps- even with the best design in the world (as with CoH1), a bad map could easily ruin things. Just think of Flooded Plains, or Best, or Beach Assualt, or any number of 1v1 maps that were eventually shafted in favour of better ones. I reckon that if the original had a far greater map pool, it would have lasted a lot longer, simply because strategies are so frequently built around maps. B

ut once again, the significance of the map is inversely proportional to the size of the game. To me, all the 4v4 maps look roughly the same, and you can be near-guaranteed that by 30 minutes in, every hedge, shotblocker and building will have been razed to the ground leaving nothing but a flat billiard table- shown by the popularity of a map like Red Ball Express, which cut out the middleman and gave players a basic map that amounted to little more than a decorated field (but became one of the most played maps in the game).

I'm not sure what part of your post is addressed to me and what part is just describing overall Relic RTS competitive gameplay, which I'm somewhat introduced to from other Relic games (dawn of war 1&2 series) so I'll just sort of comment on your post, if that's alright.

The type of player I am makes or should make no difference, as I've spent far less than 100 hours on CoH1. Instead, I've played DoW 1&2, and was only introduced to CoH1 within a year before it was moved to Steam servers. Far too late to enter the competitive scene, and frankly the game itself seemed dated. As the playerbase at this point had devolved into two camps; the raging teens who talked smack in every "automatch game" win or lose, and the ones who either described themselves as competitive, or actually happened to be on that level. I had -some- fun, I'll admit, but this is largely due to my fascination and interest in WW2, not the gameplay itself.

To me, CoH2 is much closer to DoW 2 than it is to CoH1, save for the theme and context of thereof. MG42s take a while to suppress in CoH1, compared to CoH2 for example, Pumas are rather heftily armored but don't "feel" as good as the SdKfz 221. You can watch it shoot for a while and do negligible damage. I'm not a huge fan of Rock Paper Scissors balancing, because that takes away from the WW2 theme, in my opinion.
In addition, the MG42s on Panthers in CoH1 felt like frivolous decoration, in CoH2 they feel like they're serving a purpose.

Now to answer the question of what type of player I am, I have in the zone of 5000 hours of DoW 2, and along the lines of another 1800 hours on DoW 1 series. I would describe myself as unrelenting, and I love discovering and "exploiting" facets of gameplay I strive to discover. I wish to make a game my own, to have my own style that makes casters go "What, why'd he do that? That makes no sense.." To me, CoH2 gives this opportunity, CoH1 did not. While I appreciate the competitive challenge of 1v1, my heart truly lies in 2v2, though I am trying my best to immerse myself more fully in 1v1s, despite the gametype feeling "snowbally" in comparison.

I disagree that a Panther only serves a specialist function in 1v1, I feel that decisions of that calibre are made much more often in 2v2s, atleast in CoH2. It's a shame that most of the casts, though understandably, are of scrub bashing due to the lesser amount of people as of yet playing the game on automatches.

Anyway, as for what you said about V1s turning the tide or indeed ending a game outright, sure. But that doesn't take away the "Yeah seen it 50 times" feel. Yes, you killed something critical, but it -was- a V1. It was a nuke, the most powerful one infact, you -expect- it to be doing critical damage. Blizzards, ice and the sort add obstacles, it's not just a playing field with tanks, infantry and artillery going at it, a single squad of infantry can make a huge difference. Your units that you've invested in can play a huge role. It's not -just- micro, there's elements of surprize aswell. A Panther in 1v1 can make a huge difference. But what if it showed up in a blizzard, and in your base? You missed it because of the blizzard, and now you have to retreat to deal with it. Maybe it's vet 1 by the time you get there and it gallops into the sunset at your return, and now his army is eagerly taking back the territory you were holding.

V1s are end-game nukes, you hear them coming and you have the time to go "Oh for crying out loud." PGrens sitting in stealth, just waiting, then when they see the tank stop a lone "Grenata!" rings out, and the Soviet checks his infantry. Nothing. Wait, where's my tank?

Fortune, I don't want to crap all over you, and in fact I agree with lots of stuff you're saying (CoH 2 does feel a lot more like a Dawn of War game than a CoH game) but if you're primarily a 2v2 player your opinions don't really have much meaning here.

We all love 2v2s for fun and blowing off steam and stuff but nobody would really call them the epitome of competition, in this game or in the original CoH, and certainly the game shouldn't be balanced around them or focused on what works in them.

I mean, my friend and I beat DrHorse and his buddy in a 2v2 once, and DrHorse was ranked #1 on every single 1v1 ladder at one point. Are my friend and I that great? No, we aren't.

2v2s are a joke. They're something to watch when you want to see a lot of pretty explosions and wacky shit. They're not serious games and when we put on our serious hats and talk about the nuts and bolts of what makes this game succeed and fail, 2v2s and up are just completely out of the picture, which is as it should be.

Fortune, I don't want to crap all over you, and in fact I agree with lots of stuff you're saying (CoH 2 does feel a lot more like a Dawn of War game than a CoH game) but if you're primarily a 2v2 player your opinions don't really have much meaning here.

We all love 2v2s for fun and blowing off steam and stuff but nobody would really call them the epitome of competition, in this game or in the original CoH, and certainly the game shouldn't be balanced around them or focused on what works in them.

I mean, my friend and I beat DrHorse and his buddy in a 2v2 once, and DrHorse was ranked #1 on every single 1v1 ladder at one point. Are my friend and I that great? No, we aren't.

2v2s are a joke. They're something to watch when you want to see a lot of pretty explosions and wacky shit. They're not serious games and when we put on our serious hats and talk about the nuts and bolts of what makes this game succeed and fail, 2v2s and up are just completely out of the picture, which is as it should be.

I think you're reading in too much on one snippet of what I said. While my "heart is in" 2v2 that does not mean I only play that gametype. I fully realize that 1v1 is much easier to balance and indeed is a better showcase of the game's overall health than 2v2 can ever be, but at the same time I disagree that choices and builds in 2v2 play a lesser role than in 1v1.

3v3 and 4v4 I would rule out completely as competition or a base for tournaments, but 2v2, in my opinion, comfortably sits in a green zone where competition and indeed tournaments are possible to arrange, though it is much more complex than simply having individuals play one another.

2v2s are a joke.

Then why do the top 2v2 teams outperform the top 1v1 players when it comes to win streaks and win/loss ratios? Just because you try to brag about how you beat DrHorse in a 2v2 does not mean you will do well versus actual top 2v2 teams.

Besides that, 2v2 adds other elements such as teamplay and increased number of engagements to the game. Other games, considerably more competitive when compared to CoH1 and CoH2, take 2v2 quite serious, so why should CoH2 be any different?

As a very mediocre player who likes competitive play, I see both sides. The pro / 1 v 1 elite are *crucial* to the longevity of games like this and I love to follow the community. But OTOH without the rest of the gaming community tagging along the whole thing is screwed. It's a delicate ecosystem, and sometimes things don't go our way.

Love and Peace
BFW

+1

I absoluteley agree, that this game isnt perfect at all. That they must be changes and stuff, balance and gameplaywise. But as a mediocre Player i sometimes feel like the pros just dont like to adapt to the new stuff as much as other Players do. I feel like they want as less changes from vCoH as possible(everything new is bad - no offence to anybody). I totally accept that, really. I think its a normal reaction since they got so used to all the mechanics in vCoH.

I just sometimes cant see why. There are Blizzards. And? I still can see my Units and so does everybody, I still can cap/fight/whatever. Everything is fine. Ofc ist new but i think ist not bad at all. Its just a new Feature. If some poeple dont like it ok. But it does not make this game less fun or competitive.

Then the HUD: Players complaining about the flashy stuff. Or the ressources. I mean cmon guys. Do you still see that flashy stuff? I dont.
The ressis now have a different place. Ok. Why is this a Problem? Again ist different from vCoH but not bad! Just give it some time. You will get used to it in one hour of Play.

Relic really needs to fix the UI.

+ And all the other points mentioned.

I guess I'm in the minority when I say that I absolutely love blizzards and the chaos they cause.

I never liked vCoh, I never liked CoH1 in any way shape or form. I have 30 hours or so on record and none of it was fun.

I have over 250 hours on this game to date, and frankly if all these fixes you mention are going to be applied I might just quit. I didn't get this game to play CoH 1 with new units, I bought this game because of the squad-based action alongside with environmental hazards.

When a Blizzard shows up, I line up my artillery ready to fire at confirmed Fire Pit locations, I send out my Pioneers/CEs to lay mines and boobytrap locations. I call-in the units I've been saving for, safe in the knowledge that the enemy will not have LoS to see it coming. This, for me, adds a magnitude of depth and -entertainment- to casted games. Why isn't coh 1 an esports title, why does it not qualify as being entertaining to watch in states like S. Korea where gaming is a sport in its own right?

I can guarantee you that it has less to do with these "issues" you are citing, and more to do with entertainment value.

CoH1 is actually fun to watch, but after the 500th game you just go "Yeah. Seen it all." 10 M10s in a 3v3 charging at Panthers like tards is funny the first 50 times, then it gets stale. But losing an IS-2 to a PGren grenade because the Soviet didn't see it coming? Oh man, the tragedy.

This explains SO much....lol

Go learn to play COH and I mean REALLY get into it - then - come back to COH2 - then go re-read the multiple posts you've made defending this game in its current form.

I have to say - for somebody with relatively no experience in COH - you certainly are opinionated.

To me, CoH2 is much closer to DoW 2 than it is to CoH1

Well, there exactly lays my problem with CoH2. This one sentence probably concludes most of my critiques, sadly.

They really fucked with everything that gave CoH elegance and personality and ended up with an uninteresting mediocre hodgepodge of CoH superficiality.

The original had the feeling of a deep and intricate board game whereas CoH2 reminds me more of a slapdash CCG.

I would be depressed about the way CoH2 has turned out if I hadn't recently drifted away from gaming. Good timing I guess.

Its a vCoH/DoW2 hybrid with bells attached.

Was to be expected.

I don't see the DoW2 comparison at all.

I don't see the DoW2 comparison at all.

No? Look harder.

Its essentially and basically DoW2 elements which define this from vCoH.

Starting from such superficialmelements as UI layout where resources are listed horizontally across the UI bar as they are in DoW2 rather than vertically near the minimap as in vCoH to setup team suppression rates, to the (now removed) upkeep thresholds to a plethora of variances present in DoW2 but not in vCoH.

Perhaps you are not familiar with vCoH as well as DoW2 and assume those elements where in vCoH already?

This explains SO much....lol

Go learn to play COH and I mean REALLY get into it - then - come back to COH2 - then go re-read the multiple posts you've made defending this game in its current form.

I have to say - for somebody with relatively no experience in COH - you certainly are opinionated.

I feel strongly, that this game would fare much better if it was called something like "The Eastern Front" and just delete the 'Company of Heroes' monicre from its name.

I don't "think" that this game has to be like vCoH to be successful, frankly my view is that vCoH will be the downfall for this game we call CoH2. I love it in its current form, and every single person I've asked in-game and after matches has thus far agreed.

So, forget talking about US vs Wehr, Britts vs PElite. This information as about as useful as discussing Eldar vs Orks, or Space Marines vs Chaos. Sure, the superficial similarities are there (squad-based combat, exp and levelling up for squads, hardcounters, soft counters, upkeep and pop cap, resource management et al) but what you're doing is using an example from one game, and force-feeding it into this one.

vCoH was "critically acclaimed." It was not "Hugely popular" nor did it earn Relic titles like "most-played game of the year", nor can Relic boast about it beating Starcraft, their defacto rival in the RTS genre when it comes to fighting over the player/genre base.

CoH2 needs to be as similar from vCoH, as it needs to be different. The overt arguments of both you and several "venerated" vCoH community spokespeople only serves to prove my point.

Your whole argument now seems to be "Oh, you didn't play vCoH? well hello, bro, this is Company of Heroes -two- meaning you need the experience from the first! D'oh" Yes I realize that is a strawman, but it very accurately portrays your argument, does it not?

This is not a sequel in terms of a continuation. This is a sequel to vCoH as much as Shogun 2 is a sequel to Rome Total War. Same studio, same genre, same stylistic approach and atleast equal amounts of hard work. But I reiterate: This is NOT a continuation of vCoH, it is an evolution of its basic principles and ideas.

CoH2 is not perfect, indeed if it is released in its current state (in terms of unit balance, and their roles) it would flop. That's just my view, though. This is not to say that the changes are inborn from being different from vCoH, quite the contrary. This game needs to be different purely to be fresh and to allow newcomers some leniancy on the learning curve.

The game would not "fare much better," it would just get a lot less criticism from people like me and Nullist who really loved Company of Heroes and wish we could get another game that good. You're right that this is not a continuation of vCoH, but calling it an "evolution of its basic principles and ideas" is sort of vague. If CoH 2 is an evolution, then so is Dawn of War 2.

The basic point is that CoH 2 is quite different in a few ways and the ways in which it is different happens to break many of the things that people loved the most about vCoH, and in place we get a fairly mediocre to good RTS game that's nowhere near as tremendous as vCoH. This is disappointing because this is a sequel years later, when you'd think Relic would have the time to learn from vCoH, OF, and ToV, and take the best of everything (or in other words take the best of vCoH).

Company of heroes was "hugely popular". Maybe not in terms of SC2 but then again vCOH was completely different and groundbreaking.

To me, it just seems CoH 2 doesn't have the replay-ability... The new features aren't "new" enough and the old formula (which made vCoH amazing) just isn't there... I played vCoH beta aND I NEVER wanted to stop. In the open beta in CoH2 I am already tired of it. It makes me sad.