Does CoH1 have a future?

I come back every few months, watch a bunch of replays, and play a few 1v1s. Every time I try to get into it, and I can't, because it's so fucking one-dimensional. From a macro perspective, the game really hasn't changed. It's still a really interesting game if you're into micro, and a really boring game if you're into strategy. Maybe balance has improved, I don't know, and I honestly don't care, because balance isn't going to convince me to play the game or not.

I watch CoH2 replays and try to approach them from the same perspective I approached CoH1 games when I was making videos, and it's impossible. All there is to talk about is "he saw this unit so he built this other unit, then he saw a different unit and built something else". It's all units units units, the only variety is in units, there's literally nothing else from a strategic perspective. Sure, the micro is interesting, but that's just a single dimension of the game, and it's not enough to make the entire experience enjoyable. If you removed upgrades from SC2 and replaced them with a thousand different units that were minor variations of existing units and a few dozen active abilities, do you really think it would make the game better?

There's nothing objectively better gameplay-wise in CoH2. Every so-called improvement can be viewed as positive or negative based on your perspective regarding RTS games. That's the entire point I was trying to make here.

Isn't every RTS ever about making units to counter other units...

basically you wrote a super long post to say you prefer coh1 because that's your opinion. grats. You're entitled to it. Just like the tens of thousands of us that prefer coh2 for any myriad of reasons.

But back on topic, if the coh1 community wants coh1 to have a future - do something about it other than repeatedly bitch and moan about coh2. It was old 3 weeks after release. We're pushing 3 years now. Move on.

Wanna know what happened with the aoe2 community when aoe3 was released and the msn gaming zone was shut down? They made their own balance patch. Their own lobby system/website, their own ladders, their own tournaments etc etc. and now 15 years later they're getting an officially sanctioned expansion.

Coh1 and coh2 are both good games respectively. If you guys want coh1 to survive/thrive then do something about it already.

Isn't every RTS ever about making units to counter other units...

That actually explains a lot.

That actually explains a lot.

Great post, +1 would read again.

Maybe you can enlighten me as to how this post is at all relevant to the topic at hand and not a poorly veiled attempt to insult me?

Thanks for proving my point though.

Just that if that's what you think strategy in RTS games is about, it makes sense that you have a hard time understanding why most top CoH1 players don't like CoH2.

I come back every few months, watch a bunch of replays, and play a few 1v1s. Every time I try to get into it, and I can't, because it's so fucking one-dimensional. From a macro perspective, the game really hasn't changed. It's still a really interesting game if you're into micro, and a really boring game if you're into strategy. Maybe balance has improved, I don't know, and I honestly don't care, because balance isn't going to convince me to play the game or not.

I watch CoH2 replays and try to approach them from the same perspective I approached CoH1 games when I was making videos, and it's impossible. All there is to talk about is "he saw this unit so he built this other unit, then he saw a different unit and built something else". It's all units units units, the only variety is in units, there's literally nothing else from a strategic perspective. Sure, the micro is interesting, but that's just a single dimension of the game, and it's not enough to make the entire experience enjoyable. If you removed upgrades from SC2 and replaced them with a thousand different units that were minor variations of existing units and a few dozen active abilities, do you really think it would make the game better?

There's nothing objectively better gameplay-wise in CoH2. Every so-called improvement can be viewed as positive or negative based on your perspective regarding RTS games. That's the entire point I was trying to make here.

What exactly do you mean by "Strategy"? Because to be quite honest if you're looking for a strategy game using units at the company/platoon/squad level you completely misunderstand the meaning of the word "Strategy". Now...if you're talking tactics well then there's....

Mines? Demos? Bunkers? Wire? Tank Traps? Smoke? Sweepers? Cutoffs? Seems like these are non "units" that promote tactics. What about tactics that require teamwork? For instance, coordinating an attack which requires scouting...pre attack bombardment...smoke...combined arms...timing...etc. Defending an area requires the same sort of committment to teamwork and tactics.

Granted all the above are similar in Coh1 and Coh2, but to state 1 is great and 2 is not seems....weird?

Tactics is how you use the units you have; where you position them, how you micro them, what abilities you use and when. Strategy is everything else.

Both CoH1 and CoH2 emphasize tactics more than traditional RTS games. CoH2, however, takes that emphasis to a ridiculous extreme. Emphasizing one aspect of play over another is fine, but emphasizing one at the total expense of the other makes a game horribly one-dimensional and stale.

CoH1 had a wide variety of global upgrades for three of its four factions that greatly improved the game's strategic depth, and gave players an extra layer of decision-making beyond simply choosing which unit to build next. The one faction that doesn't is also, by no coincidence, the widely-accepted worst-designed faction in the history of Company of Heroes.

From a tactical perspective, CoH2 has far more options and far more variety than CoH1 ever had. But an interesting tactical game with boring strategy, or alternatively an interesting strategic game with boring tactics, makes for a poor RTS.

Ok, what kind of things are you looking for to improve the use of strategy as you define it? I'm trying to get a handle on your criticisms here.

Thanks.

Just that if that's what you think strategy in RTS games is about, it makes sense that you have a hard time understanding why most top CoH1 players don't like CoH2.

Apparently you lost to a rank 5000+ 1v1 player. Probably why you have a hard time understanding why people like Coh2.

I was a rank 1 master sc2 player, never made GM, game was too hard for me. Top aoe3 player, decent enough wc3 player... Blah blah. I realize there's a lot more to RTS than just building units. There's also a lot more to coh2 than just building units.

If you can't realize the sarcasm in my initial post I think I'm wasting my time talking with you. As usual. You'd think I would have learned my lesson by now honestly. Yet another decent thread being derailed by the great Inverse and his shitposting.

As I said before, vcoh could still be a successful game. Just do like the dota, aoe2, ssbm, cs 1.6, etc communities did. Go do positive stuff for your game instead of griping about games you don't play.

The baseline has always been proper global upgrades. Anything to spend fuel on besides buildings and units. Without that, it's only ever going to be a decision of which unit is best for any given situation.

The baseline has always been proper global upgrades. Anything to spend fuel on besides buildings and units. Without that, it's only ever going to be a decision of which unit is best for any given situation.

As I recall, there weren't that many of those in Coh1 (Wehr veterancy, American BARS, Squad sizes for Panzer Elite). It's been awhile so forgive me if I'm forgetting some. If anything, Coh2 has more variety in upgrades (although granted they aren't global in nature). Still....if I want all my riflemen to carry BARS it's possible. And forgive me for asking...how exactly does making something a global upgrade like these improve strategy in your opinion?

Meanwhile, wouldn't you agree that the vast # of commanders you can choose from in Coh2 vs. Coh1 increases strategy?

There were 7 upgrades for Americans (BARs, grenades, stickies, demo charges, supply yard upgrades x2, Sherman upgun) and 12 for Wehrmacht (4 vet options x 3 levels per option). PE's upgrades were somewhere between those two. The cheapest upgrades in terms of fuel costs were stickies at 25 fuel and vet 1 upgrades at 30 fuel.

Compare to CoH2. Soviets have 3 upgrades (healing, Molotovs, AT grenades) one of which has no fuel cost, and USF has 3 upgrades, soon to be 2 (grenades, bazookas, BARs). OKW and Wehrmacht have 0 upgrades. Furthermore, the most expensive upgrades in terms of fuel costs are USF grenades at 25 fuel and Soviet Molotovs/AT grenades at 20 fuel.

Not only are there far less options for upgrades in CoH2, those options are also all as expensive as the cheapest options in CoH1. Keep in mind as well that this is CoH2, where units and tech tiers are far more expensive than in CoH1, which makes the decision to purchase these upgrades even less consequential since they are far less expensive relative to other tech options.

I've written a lot about why this is such a problem, but the summary is that sufficiently meaningful global upgrades exponentially increase the number of options available to players by forcing really interesting decisions about timings and opportunity costs.

CoH2's way around this deficiency is, as you said, to pile on commanders. But the problem with throwing variety into commanders is you can only choose three per game, and once you've selected one you're locked in. In CoH1, with the exception of some niche strategies, the game's strategic variety came from its core units, and commanders acted as supplements to those core units. Therefore you were able to be very flexible regardless of your commander choice because you had an interesting and strategically viable combination of units and upgrades to choose from no matter what. In CoH2, there's a lot of powerful units in commanders, but the core units are relatively bland and there's no proper upgrades to add variety. Therefore commanders dictate strategy, because there's so little flexibility possible once they've been locked in.

CoH1's upgrades made that game what it is, just like CoH2's commanders make it what it is. I personally think, for the reasons above, that the CoH1 approach yielded more interesting and dynamic play. I also see no reason why that extra element couldn't be added to CoH2, as I feel it would drastically improve the game.

But back on topic, if the coh1 community wants coh1 to have a future - do something about it other than repeatedly bitch and moan about coh2.

Eastern Front is preparing a steam public release in the near future. We need to replace some models and then we'll make the game accessible for everyone.

Depending on feedback we can integrate changes to improve vanilla gameplay, and provide an official patching platform for company of Heroes. Since we're faster on testing and releasing patches, this could provide a much needed update for CoH 1.

Thats what I have to say. The project took too much time but its one of the few remaining chances for CoH1 to extend its life.

Does CoH1 have a future? Yep, its called CoH2.

Does CoH1 have a future? Yep, its called CoH2.

QFT.

Coh2 tournies have seen better prize pools and significantly higher viewer counts than vcoh tournies. I don't see why both games couldn't succeed simultaneously though. It happens in plenty of other cases - ssbm/ssbb/sm4sh being a good example.

Meanwhile, wouldn't you agree that the vast # of commanders you can choose from in Coh2 vs. Coh1 increases strategy?

It breaks the game.

It breaks the game.

how?

--------------------------

wait. so as soviet (rank ~200 2v2 and top 3v3/4v4 games) i have tried

1. con heavy
2. con mixed with t1
3. con mixed with t2
4. t1 heavy
5. t2 heavy
6. CE mixed with t1
7. CE mixed with t2
8. CE heavy with heavy emphasis on 1 flame car.
etc etc

are those different strategies or just tactics?

how?

--------------------------

wait. so as soviet (rank ~200 2v2 and top 3v3/4v4 games) i have tried

1. con heavy
2. con mixed with t1
3. con mixed with t2
4. t1 heavy
5. t2 heavy
6. CE mixed with t1
7. CE mixed with t2
8. CE heavy with heavy emphasis on 1 flame car.
etc etc

are those different strategies or just tactics?

Strategies, with the specific ways you use your units on the map to achieve victory being your tactics.

Playing con heavy is a strategy, flanking a mg or controlling a house is a tactic.

Just ignore inverse when he says that coh2 lacks strategic depth. He has no clue what he's talking about. Overall there are a lot of viable strategies in coh2. Except maybe USF. They're pretty one dimensional right now.

Does CoH1 have a future? Yep, its called CoH2.

fuck off

Just ignore inverse when he says that coh2 lacks strategic depth. He has no clue what he's talking about. Overall there are a lot of viable strategies in coh2. Except maybe USF. They're pretty one dimensional right now.

So you are unable to discuss, because you don´t understand what he is talking about.

how?

by creating a community, which lacks the understanding of gameplay issues. Inverse explained it in the above post, why multible commanders are a bad idea. However they are good for making money, because the customers are proud to waste their money on them.

coh2 has 2/4 factions having snipers just like coh1 no? i have never played OF.

Maybe you should play coh like half a year in automatch to understand, why coh1 players are complaining about coh2.

Also this thread has derailed into coh1 vs. coh2 discussions, which is offtopic.