Does CoH1 have a future?

...
1. 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.



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

1. how does the commander systems directly create stupid community? looking at post 112, Inverse's complaint is about lack of depth in core armies and the fact that relic tried to pour over some of depth into commanders which you can only equip 3 at a time. he's main point being lack of depth in the core armies, not the very fact of having multiple commanders. sure, commander system helps relic make money? that itself is not the problem. the problem was that it was implemented poorly in the beginning 'cept for partisan, which really shows what all commanders should've and could've been (unique, fun, and not OP at launch).

2. i agree. maybe some people who bash coh2 should do the same.

fuck off

+1 another solid post from a vcoh fan. Thank you for your valuable addition and expert insight into the topic at hand.

@generalch I know exactly what inverse is talking about, I just disagree with his assessment that coh2 lacks strategic depth. It doesn't. There are plenty of viable strategies in coh2 and plenty of important timings to know/hit.

But you're right. That's off topic. I still fail to see why coh1 and coh2 can't exist in harmony. Why won't the vcoh fans stop derailing threads on this site to crap on coh2? Just play whichever game you prefer and support the community of the other. Coh2 is the objectively more competitive game but coh1 could still have a bright future if people would stop QQing and trashing the coh2 community and do positive stuff for their game. It just boggles my mind why a handful of people seemingly enjoy sitting of the forums and actively whining about a game they don't even play.

I still fail to see why coh1 and coh2 can't exist in harmony. Why won't the vcoh fans stop derailing threads on this site to crap on coh2? Just play whichever game you prefer and support the community of the other.

Because CoH2 was and is a big disappointment for many CoH1 players. Besides that you can take a look at yourself.

I fail to so where this statement

Just ignore inverse when he says that coh2 lacks strategic depth.

is any better than this one, besides the politeness of course.

fuck off

Both are offensive and contain zero argumentation.

Because CoH2 was and is a big disappointment for many CoH1 players. Besides that you can take a look at yourself.

I fail to so where this statement



is any better than this one, besides the politeness of course.



Both are offensive and contain zero argumentation.

So just because a handful of people were disappointed in coh2 means those people should actively, over two years after the release of coh2, sit around and complain about the game instead of just playing coh1 or whatever other games they enjoy? Feels like I'm beating a dead horse but coh1 could/would still be successful if the community did positive things for their game, instead of crying about how bad coh2 is.

Also, you cherry picked one sentence from my post. Even that sentence was relevant to the discussion at hand. Nekron's post is literally useless and the definition of a shitpost. I guess it really offends him that coh2 is objectively more competitive than vcoh. Or something. I don't know.

The strife between coh1 and coh2 players has just never made sense to me. Both communities enjoy solid games for different reasons. Why don't we just agree to disagree and at the very least not trash each other's game... Or you know... Help the other community out. Plenty of people still play both games.

+1 another solid post from a vcoh fan. Thank you for your valuable addition and expert insight into the topic at hand.

@generalch I know exactly what inverse is talking about, I just disagree with his assessment that coh2 lacks strategic depth. It doesn't. There are plenty of viable strategies in coh2 and plenty of important timings to know/hit.

But you're right. That's off topic. I still fail to see why coh1 and coh2 can't exist in harmony. Why won't the vcoh fans stop derailing threads on this site to crap on coh2? Just play whichever game you prefer and support the community of the other. Coh2 is the objectively more competitive game but coh1 could still have a bright future if people would stop QQing and trashing the coh2 community and do positive stuff for their game. It just boggles my mind why a handful of people seemingly enjoy sitting of the forums and actively whining about a game they don't even play.

Great, why don´t you make the first step and leave this thread?

Great, why don´t you make the first step and leave this thread?

Guess that's what I get for trying to bring some positivity to this thread and this community - for trying to get people to realize that both games are good and that both can be successful and build off each other's success.

3/3 vcoh fanboys shit posting in their own thread.

GGWP bye.

CoH1 was far superior than this game for the first 2 years. If you were to change all of the CoH1 upgrades to max 25 fuel it would be a completely different game. Knowing when to get an upgrade made a huge difference. If you threw down a triage before getting a M8 it would delay your M8 another minute which could be a big deal. If you try and hold of triage too long you can be left with a bunch of low health ineffective rifle squads that are not strong enough to hold territory. Also there were decisions like do I lay mines, or get a shrek, or medbunker, etc. that were very important in 1v1. Even though CoH2 has mines, they worked very different so you can't really compare them. Then there was commander decisions. Do I get infantry now to lay a bunch of mines everywhere and drop some offmap, even though blitz is one of the weaker choices against blitz later in the game? That type of decision is pretty much dead since you have so much overlap in your own doctrines, plus the fact its usually hard to tell which one your opponent is using for the same reason. Then there was late game call-in tank spam. Even though I was dissatisfied with CoH2 for all those other reasons, this was the number one. Skip building tier tanks and spam Tigers, IS2, 85s, etc. late game. No mid game fuel decisions, boring as hell. Thankfully they fixed that so I'm going to be playing coh2 more now.

If you weren't playing CoH1 at a high competitive level I can see why the global upgrades issue Inverse talks about seems insignificant, but there are also some other elements that made 1v1 a better in vcoh besides just upgrades. There isn't really much point on debating someone calling vcoh the better competitive game, I'm not trying to convince anyone to go back to play coh1 (I haven't booted it myself in about 3 months), but considering the recent changes at Relic I think the chances are higher now than ever that they will try to change some of the things that coh1 did better.

So just because a handful of people were disappointed in coh2 means those people should actively, over two years after the release of coh2, sit around and complain about the game instead of just playing coh1 or whatever other games they enjoy? Feels like I'm beating a dead horse but coh1 could/would still be successful if the community did positive things for their game, instead of crying about how bad coh2 is.

Thats simple frustration and a feeling of helplessness i guess.

Some CoH1 players dislike CoH2 because it´s not the game they want it to be. Some problems CoH2 has were never a problem in CoH1. Relic wasn´t able to transfer the good things from CoH1 to CoH2 and eliminate what was bad.

And other problem is, that playing CoH1 isn´t an option anymore. CoH1 is dead from a competitive perspective since the unprofessional steam migration. It came with several new game breaking technical issues who made playing the game impossible. Relic did nothing to fix this issues for months and this made more and more people stop playing the game. After months there was a patch who fixed at least some problems but the community already dissolved. There were attempts to restore the community, all unsuccessful at the end. It´s hard to accept that a game you played for years is not longer supported and successor isn´t what you want it to be.

So this people can´t play CoH2 because they don´t like it, they can´t play CoH1 anymore because it´s a dead game from there perspective and there are not other similiar games out there. Thats a dead end.

Also, you cherry picked one sentence from my post.

And you ignored all points Inverse made.

The strife between coh1 and coh2 players has just never made sense to me. Both communities enjoy solid games for different reasons. Why don't we just agree to disagree and at the very least not trash each other's game... Or you know... Help the other community out. Plenty of people still play both games.

I agree. Maybe you will understand this one day when Relic abandoned CoH2 for DoW3, CoH 3 or what ever game.

There are constructive posts related to a CoH 1 CoH2 comparison, though. But very often the reaction is aggressive negative to such post. Many people don´t seem to distinguish between flame posts and constructive posts. It´s like you say CoH 1 is better then CoH2 in any way? Piss off.

Did aoe2 die when it lost literally ALL developer support and the only reliable way to play it online? Nope. Is it getting an officially sanctioned patched 15 years later? Yup. Hell, they even still have televised aoe1 tournaments in Asia. The people that loved aoe2 more than aoe3/aoe4 made their own lobby system, ELO system, tournaments, etc. I don't see why coh1 couldn't grow again, especially being on steam and still having minor relic support. Or go off and make your own lobby/match making system. It might not be easy, but if people want it badly enough they'll make it happen.

I absolutely understand how coh1 players feel. I was extremely hyped for ssbb back when it was about to come out. I played in numerous Ssbm tournaments and was wanting to love ssbb, but i just didn't enjoy it - it wasn't for me. Did I go around telling everyone who liked ssbb what a shit game they were playing? Nope. I played Ssbm and let them have their fun with ssbb.

Ssbm didn't die when Nintendo literally tried to stop them from hosting tournaments. And Ssbm players don't sit around telling ssbb/sm4sh players how shit their games are... They play Ssbm and it's still the most popular/competitive smash title. Plenty of people play multiple smash games just like people could play, enjoy, and support both coh games. In my opinion what's good for either community is good for both games and what's good for either game is good for the community/both games. If an outsider is interested in either game, comes here and sees nothing but constant hostility it'll probably push them away from either game rather than drawing them to one or both.

I never ignored inverse's posts, he's been saying the exact same things about global upgrades for the last 2 years. I just disagree with his opinion on the lack of strategic depth in coh2, there is plenty of strategic depth, just in a different way. Back when he played there may not have been, but the game is pretty much completely different at this point. Comparing launch to the state of the game now - relic has made immense progress.

Anyways, we're just going in circles at this point. But I still saddens me to see the community so torn rather than wanting the best for both games.

I've said it once and I'll say it one last time - coh1 will be as successful as the coh1 community wants it to be. But if they only spread negativity their beloved game will die, which will be a sad day for everyone on coh2.org. A lot of the coh1 guys are still valuable community members.

I just disagree with his opinion on the lack of strategic depth in coh2, there is plenty of strategic depth, just in a different way.

Care to elaborate? This is always the counter-argument, yet it hasn't once been supported with evidence.

Care to elaborate? This is always the counter-argument, yet it hasn't once been supported with evidence.

The sheer number of viable strategies available to all factions with the exception of USF. Also there are many different strategies specific to the different game modes. I know you don't like commanders but in my opinion it's a good system within the coh2 environment. On top of that relic is getting more creative with new commander abilities and working hard to redesign old commanders.

Bulletins are largely pointless right now, with a rework they could have a lot of strategic impact.

Tech timing and path is a super important decision in coh2 because of how expensive it is.

Anyways lunch time. Still 5 more hours in this car ride... Yay.

Did aoe2 die when it lost literally ALL developer support and the only reliable way to play it online? Nope. Is it getting an officially sanctioned patched 15 years later? Yup. Hell, they even still have televised aoe1 tournaments in Asia.

I've said it once and I'll say it one last time - coh1 will be as successful as the coh1 community wants it to be. But if they only spread negativity their beloved game will die, which will be a sad day for everyone on coh2.org. A lot of the coh1 guys are still valuable community members.

But Tommy and Rocky made awesome patches that were never officially sanctioned. Also OnkelSam, Whiteflash, and Spanky made tournament quality maps that were never added in to automatch. Tommy left because the community put in a ton of effort but Relic didn't seem to care, except for sponsoring SNF a few hundred bucks.

The sheer number of viable strategies available to all factions with the exception of USF. Also there are many different strategies specific to the different game modes. I know you don't like commanders but in my opinion it's a good system within the coh2 environment. On top of that relic is getting more creative with new commander abilities and working hard to redesign old commanders.

Bulletins are largely pointless right now, with a rework they could have a lot of strategic impact.

Tech timing and path is a super important decision in coh2 because of how expensive it is.

Anyways lunch time. Still 5 more hours in this car ride... Yay.

The problem with that is, in CoH2, "unit composition" and "strategy" are interchangeable, because your strategy is 100% unit decisions. There's a lot of variety there, but it's still just a single dimension of a strategy game. Like I said before, imagine if SC2 replaced all of its upgrades with slightly different variations of existing units. It would make the game objectively worse, because it would remove an entire dimension of strategic decision-making from the game. That's essentially what Relic did going from CoH1 to CoH2. Just building units, no matter how many units you can choose from, is not very interesting, there's really no way around it.

It's not about options, it's about decisions. The thought processes behind choosing unit A vs. unit B and choosing a unit vs. an upgrade are extremely different. CoH2 only requires that players think in terms of the former, even though the latter is equally important and oftentimes far more interesting. A unit A vs. unit B vs. upgrade 1 vs. upgrade 2 decision is far more challenging, and more interesting, than a simple unit A vs. unit B decision. It's the removal of that type of decision that I'm talking about when I say CoH2 lacks strategic depth. People underestimate how much something so seemingly simple can improve RTS games. It's a big reason why games like SC2 are so successful. Having to decide between a handful of units, higher tech, or a handful of upgrades at any given time is interesting and challenging, it's fun to play with and fun to watch. And there's really no reason why CoH2 couldn't have that same layer of decision-making, at the very least to the extent that CoH1 had it. Nothing in the game currently matches that dynamic.

I have no problem with commanders, I just don't think they should be central to strategy like they are in CoH2, because it removes a lot of player flexibility. If your commander is necessary for your strategy to succeed, once you've picked it you're locked in, and you're extremely limited in terms of modifying your gameplan since the game's variety is locked into these groups of units that you can only choose one of per game.

I started playing CoH1 EiRR mod. It is epic. If someone want to join pm me.

But Tommy and Rocky made awesome patches that were never officially sanctioned. Also OnkelSam, Whiteflash, and Spanky made tournament quality maps that were never added in to automatch. Tommy left because the community put in a ton of effort but Relic didn't seem to care, except for sponsoring SNF a few hundred bucks.

I think you missed the whole point of my post. I was giving examples of games succeeding with no developer support. If the patches were/are so epic the community could just adopt that patch and use it, if they wanted to. It's exactly what aoe2 did - aoe3 even did it for a while if my memory serves. A whole subsection of the smash community has done it with project M. The bottom line is that you in no way need developer support for a game to succeed. Yet coh1 still has minor developer support and seems to be dying a slow painful death because those that claim to care so much don't do anything to help their game.

I dunno. Maybe relic would sue... But I doubt it unless people were trying to make profit off of a coh1 mod.

Coh1 may have had more granular strategic decision making but coh2 still has a lot of very important decision making. I'm not opposed to relic adding more global upgrades. I don't want to see a system like sc2 has because it's very binary. I get upgrades now my units are better but my upgrades are 100% counteracted by my opponents upgrades because they are literally the exact same things. I've played plenty of RTS games with these style upgrades. I think you're over estimating how interesting they actually are. Maybe at first they're cool but ultimately they just become a part of a perfectly optimized build order that players can blindly follow because it ends up being more efficient than anything else. The best part of coh2, and really the entire coh franchise in my opinion is the emphasis on proper tactical game play. It's why I play coh2 and not sc2 or aoe2 or wc3 or any other RTS out there. If I want to out strategy some one ill go play eu4 or a war game.

With respect to tactical decision making I believe that coh2 is a bit better than coh1, which is a big reason I prefer it. But still no one has answered why both games can't exist in harmony... I'm pretty sure they could, and I think it'd be a big step forward for both communities.

can we please close this thread to many noobs here they talk bullshit

it was a question to relic and not for wanna be low bobs and coh2 fanboys. thx

can we please close this thread to many noobs here they talk bullshit

it was a question to relic and not for wanna be low bobs and coh2 fanboys. thx

Your quality posts never fail to blow me away

can we please close this thread to many noobs here they talk bullshit

it was a question to relic and not for wanna be low bobs and coh2 fanboys. thx

Please leave the thread until you have something constructive to say. In case you didn't notice there are those of us here that are trying to have a mature discussion. People like you are the reason coh1 won't have a future, if things don't change.

Please leave the thread until you have something constructive to say. In case you didn't notice there are those of us here that are trying to have a mature discussion. People like you are the reason coh1 won't have a future, if things don't change.

Let´s look at your mature discussion:

P.S. Coh2 snipers are way more fun/fair/interesting than vcoh. You have to be careful to micro your sniper around cover instead of just LOL YOLO IM CLOAKED EVERYWHERE NO MICRO NEEDED DERP DERP coin flip oops I missed my countersnipe because fuck rng that's why.

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.

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.

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.

3/3 vcoh fanboys shit posting in their own thread.

GGWP bye.

Not only arrogant, but also immature.

I think you missed the whole point of my post. I was giving examples of games succeeding with no developer support. If the patches were/are so epic the community could just adopt that patch and use it, if they wanted to. It's exactly what aoe2 did - aoe3 even did it for a while if my memory serves. A whole subsection of the smash community has done it with project M. The bottom line is that you in no way need developer support for a game to succeed. Yet coh1 still has minor developer support and seems to be dying a slow painful death because those that claim to care so much don't do anything to help their game.

It's probably because those games had almost nothing comparable to them. The playerbase stuck with the game because there were simply no decent alternatives.

The step from aoe2 to aoe3 or cncg to cnc3 was so much larger than the one from coh1 to coh2. In the two cohs you're playing basically the same maps in almost the same engine with pretty much the same units. It's also why so many people are negative about coh2, for a game with so many similarities it has has only worsened gameplay (according to those people). Yet the game is supported by Relic and is obviously meant to replace coh1, and finally seems to be improving. It's also worth noting that the competitive community of coh1 was never as big as the games you mentioned, which in itself is almost the biggest limiting factor already.

Coh1 may have had more granular strategic decision making but coh2 still has a lot of very important decision making. I'm not opposed to relic adding more global upgrades. I don't want to see a system like sc2 has because it's very binary. I get upgrades now my units are better but my upgrades are 100% counteracted by my opponents upgrades because they are literally the exact same things. I've played plenty of RTS games with these style upgrades. I think you're over estimating how interesting they actually are. Maybe at first they're cool but ultimately they just become a part of a perfectly optimized build order that players can blindly follow because it ends up being more efficient than anything else. The best part of coh2, and really the entire coh franchise in my opinion is the emphasis on proper tactical game play. It's why I play coh2 and not sc2 or aoe2 or wc3 or any other RTS out there. If I want to out strategy some one ill go play eu4 or a war game.

I think you're completely wrong here. Anyone who has even slightly played games like sc(2) knows there is no perfect build, no ideal strategy. The 'binary' upgrades have a massive impact on the game not only in the straight up fights between units but also in how players approach the game both tactically and strategically. I can give plenty examples of how these work out in sc2 but also in coh1.

Besides, how different are these upgrades really from coh2? Can you honestly say that upgrades in coh2 aren't just straight up buffs pretty much all the time? All the strategic choices come down to whether the resources you spend on them are worth it, pretty much exactly like those other 'binary' upgrades.

On the note on snipers, they work almost entirely the same way as in coh1, only easier because now there is less chance of a countersnipe.