Three ways to improve CoH2 from the Open Beta build

Make cover important again, and lots of other nice things will follow afterwards. Positioning will become important again, the skill ceiling will be raised, games will become more interesting...etc.

To me, this is the crucial point, I partially agree with you on the UI layout (though I can live with it) though I don't agree about the commander doctrines. (after all how is decreased infantry building time more exciting than those mines you mentioned?)

For me there's so much going for this game, like the dynamic Infantry v armor battles we see now, that it pains me to see this lack of vCoh style maneuver in it as well. The latter combined with the new passive cap ability would rock so much.

You're wasting your time here. They wont change shit. You gotta get use to the shit and in the end maybe you will love it.

I agree with you 100%, Tommy. Great write-up and well argued! Here's to hoping Relic will take some of these suggestions.

i think there is another thing that is worth mentioning:

in vCoH, the MG/Bike combo was relatively popular among higher skilled players. the reason for that is that you were able to scout for the MG, and push units around if they tried to flank it.

similarly, the jeep could be used to push volks out of cover when trying to flank, to gain an advantage in the ensuing engagement.

this mechanic, that is enabling players to effectively out-micro opponents, is, at least in my opinion, completely absent from CoH2.
there is no more pushing units around to win an engagement you would otherwise not have a chance in. neither in early, nor in late game.

while the circle strafing mechanic might still work to some extent, it has been notably toned down (reverse button making it easier to simply get out, tanks moving erraticly off roads/when giving multiple movement orders etc.).

i just feel that CoH2 is even less about micro than CoH was.

(mind you, i am not saying "bring pushing units around back"... i simply want to see that i can win an engagement with better micro, rather than sending my units in, watching the fight, and then retreat)

yet now it's just whoever gets the luckiest crits.

^^

They way I feel about the gameplay right now, is that I don't get rewarded for having better micro then my opponent. As purlictor said, it's just about who gets the most/luckiest crits.

They way I feel about the gameplay right now, is that I don't get rewarded for having better micro then my opponent. As purlictor said, it's just about who gets the most/luckiest crits.

+1 for gen

+1 for tommy

I agree totally cover needs to be strengthened and mean something and buildings nerfed...

But the vehicle pushing is just silly, unless you want to move COH to a more CPM-fest, yes it rewards fast clickers, but it's also pretty easy to do and doesn't take THAT much skill. A well-executed 4 or 4 way flank where you don't lose a squad takes a lot more skillful, meaningful micro and right now THAT kind of play isn't rewarded. Shift right clicking a jeep or bike around an enemy unit is NOT skill. It's exploiting the pathing routines for profit.

I think medium vehicles and up should be able to push...If u want to push some squads out of cover with an HT, go ahead and take the risk of being stickied. Tanks obviously ought to be able to just demolish anyone's cover and push infantry around. It's more balanced with med vehicles and up as fausts/at nades can counter it. No more light vehicle pushing, it's just a stupid, unrealistic and pretty OP mechanic.

again, my post was not about the pushing mechanic, but about micro not contributing anything to the outcome of a battle. in coh2, if you have about 30 APM, there is pretty much nothing you could do better with 60, 90, or 120 APM.

my first post pretty much sums up WHY we hate it (you basically send your units to fight, have nothing to do but watch the fight, and then you either win, or you don't. no amount of additional micro will increase your chances, as opposed to vCoH where there was a lot of stuff you could do to increase your chances to win an engagement).

Snadbags, some fallne trees, logs, standing trees should provide green cover, and infantry units should stick very close to cover, not that inf stands 1 metre away from green cover and get insta pin from MG

This sums it up extremely well.

For me however the structural change from Doctrine to the "Commander" that we've seen really is a key issue that's severely broken to the point I don't think it can be rectified with a patch.

The problem is as the OP indicated - in COH1 - the Doctrine defined the player - the tactics - everything. The doctrine used was essentially where a game was won or lost - it defined the whole WAY you played the game.

Now - I find myself seeing some blinking light on the bottom of the screen indicating I can chose a Commander. I think to myself - "oh - that's nice" - and then continue to ignore it and play without even choosing one - because quite frankly it makes absolutely no difference to how I play the game.

THIS IS BROKEN.

Whats worse - it makes me uninterested in the game strategically - I'm not thinking ahead of what direction my opponent is going to take and plan a counter etc, or how I can exploit their Doctrine etc - it makes ABSOLUTELY no difference anymore.

The reason they did this was obvious in today's DLC world of continuing revenue from games initially purchased - if they made the Commanders actually worth a d@mn strategically - players who paid for that DLC that was "good" would have an advantage over a Vanilla player who did not chose to "Pay to win".

So while ensuring that the DLC paying player wouldn't have an edge - they effectively made the whole system useless to make sure of it.

This makes me really sad in that Sega/Relic have basically hamstrung and handicapped the game to the point where it's a terrible strategic experience all so they could get an extra $1 for some DLC that might entertain some 12 year old because now his soldiers look "cool" in their new uniforms or now I have "on field" artillery vs a bomb dropped by some magic DLC plane that effectively does the same thing, it's just a "cool/bling" element.

This EXTREMELY short sightedness has limited the lifespan of the game incredibly.

Instead of making a rock solid game that doesn't require DLC - where it's all there - ready to go, making Doctrine/Command tree's that you can base your whole strategic play on - ensuring a large fan base continues to play the game for many more years, enticing new players to join in and buy it....Sega/Relic went for the "low lying" DLC fruit - get some easy $ upfront, but in the long run the game dies off relatively quickly, thus losing long term sales.

Well done Relic/Sega - you lost me as a customer with this decision.

This sums it up extremely well.

For me however the structural change from Doctrine to the "Commander" that we've seen really is a key issue that's severely broken to the point I don't think it can be rectified with a patch.

The problem is as the OP indicated - in COH1 - the Doctrine defined the player - the tactics - everything. The doctrine used was essentially where a game was won or lost - it defined the whole WAY you played the game.

Now - I find myself seeing some blinking light on the bottom of the screen indicating I can chose a Commander. I think to myself - "oh - that's nice" - and then continue to ignore it and play without even choosing one - because quite frankly it makes absolutely no difference to how I play the game.

THIS IS BROKEN.

Whats worse - it makes me uninterested in the game strategically - I'm not thinking ahead of what direction my opponent is going to take and plan a counter etc, or how I can exploit their Doctrine etc - it makes ABSOLUTELY no difference anymore.

The reason they did this was obvious in today's DLC world of continuing revenue from games initially purchased - if they made the Commanders actually worth a d@mn strategically - players who paid for that DLC that was "good" would have an advantage over a Vanilla player who did not chose to "Pay to win".

So while ensuring that the DLC paying player wouldn't have an edge - they effectively made the whole system useless to make sure of it.

This makes me really sad in that Sega/Relic have basically hamstrung and handicapped the game to the point where it's a terrible strategic experience all so they could get an extra $1 for some DLC that might entertain some 12 year old because now his soldiers look "cool" in their new uniforms or now I have "on field" artillery vs a bomb dropped by some magic DLC plane that effectively does the same thing, it's just a "cool/bling" element.

This EXTREMELY short sightedness has limited the lifespan of the game incredibly.

Instead of making a rock solid game that doesn't require DLC - where it's all there - ready to go, making Doctrine/Command tree's that you can base your whole strategic play on - ensuring a large fan base continues to play the game for many more years, enticing new players to join in and buy it....Sega/Relic went for the "low lying" DLC fruit - get some easy $ upfront, but in the long run the game dies off relatively quickly, thus losing long term sales.

Well done Relic/Sega - you lost me as a customer with this decision.

i totally disagree with you here mate. yes commanders arn't as powerful as doctrines, but the game being decided by doctrines is stupid. oh i outplayed my opponent but chose the "wrong" doctrine, so i lose? fuck that.

the commanders are much better, they just need some tweaking to make sure they have useful stuff on every layer (aka the HT mine is stupid). the commanders should be there to support your style of play.

right now they're too weak (mainly german commanders, not the russian ones really). but i dont want the doctrines we had in vcoh back at all. doctrines made too much impact on the game's outcome

@PingPing, you do realize it was THQ who influenced any DLC plans? Sega joined them right at the end, when the beta started and release was near. You've got that wrong.

I agree with all of Tommy's points, these are changes I would welcome with open arms.

i totally disagree with you here mate. yes commanders arn't as powerful as doctrines, but the game being decided by doctrines is stupid. oh i outplayed my opponent but chose the "wrong" doctrine, so i lose? fuck that.

the commanders are much better, they just need some tweaking to make sure they have useful stuff on every layer (aka the HT mine is stupid). the commanders should be there to support your style of play.

right now they're too weak (mainly german commanders, not the russian ones really). but i dont want the doctrines we had in vcoh back at all. doctrines made too much impact on the game's outcome

Well - that's your opinion - a question - how'd you play vs US Airborne in COH1 if you went Blitz as a Wher player? How'd you play vs a US Armor player if you'd gone Blitz also?

See my point yet mate?

There's a lot more to simply losing because you were out played - maybe you lack the experience to understand that.

Also - within the Doctrine you had to make strategic decisions on point allocation - do I go for a King Tiger or do I go for a Firestorm?

If you can't see how the Doctrine system was such a structural foundation to your play style - then there's really nothing to discuss here - enjoy your Commander and your new gameplay, more power to you.

@PingPing, you do realize it was THQ who influenced any DLC plans? Sega joined them right at the end, when the beta started and release was near. You've got that wrong.

I agree with all of Tommy's points, these are changes I would welcome with open arms.

Doesn't really matter who made the decision - it's a poor one.

Well - that's your opinion - a question - how'd you play vs US Airborne in COH1 if you went Blitz as a Wher player? How'd you play vs a US Armor player if you'd gone Blitz also?

See my point yet mate?

There's a lot more to simply losing because you were out played - maybe you lack the experience to understand that.

Also - within the Doctrine you had to make strategic decisions on point allocation - do I go for a King Tiger or do I go for a Firestorm?

If you can't see how the Doctrine system was such a structural foundation to your play style - then there's really nothing to discuss here - enjoy your Commander and your new gameplay, more power to you.

i'll freely admit i was not a great vcoh player.

the choice of point allocation in doctrines is replaced by the fact you can pick any 3 commanders with a loadout and bulletins. not sure if this particular idea is better or worse, just different.

i'll freely admit i was not a great vcoh player.

the choice of point allocation in doctrines is replaced by the fact you can pick any 3 commanders with a loadout and bulletins. not sure if this particular idea is better or worse, just different.

Monkey - if you get the chance and the Steam servers fix themselves - I'd thoroughly recommend you give COH1 a go in regards to the strategic play and see how rewarding it is/was vs what they've done in COH2.

COH1 it was a really big thing when you made that Doctrine decision - in COH2 it pretty makes no difference at all.

You're not penalized for making the wrong call - yet you're not rewarded for making the right one either.

It just doesn't make it as much fun for me when all the vanilla units will win you the game regardless of the Commander based ones.

I'll have to admit that PingPing is right. It was a money making decision by THQ to structure the commanders in this fashion and I am part of the problem by pre-ordering the game. And I'm really worried that on the one hand the commanders will all be generic and non decisive towards victory but on the other hand there might be one DLC commander for 2$ that has an OP or broken unit that isn't patched for 2 weeks.

Regarding doctrines in CoH2, i find doctrines useful as you do get abilities, units and who doesnt like some ARTY?!?!?!

I'm seeing a lot of german players use that recon plane to see what you are building...I think that makes a difference for someone that isn't using it...maybe not a big deal in 1on1, but it helps in 2on2. Also...if you think an Elephant is completely useless in a tight game, or the ISU 25...I'm lost. Pingping has lost me. I was never a good Airborne player but those pickups sure came in handy. COH2 has some nice arty...who doesn't like arty? Soviets...bombing runs..... strafes like the ABs did. The commanders don't have as many abilities compared to the 6 you got with vCOH but 5 is ok with some passive. The vCOH ones were pretty much all important, but why should picking the correct thing make you lose the game? If you are better...you'll win. Some games you really needed that Persing tank over the calls... but hey...this isn't vCOH. What if you went the route of Pershing and the Calls would have been better? A lot of the pros didn't choose the Doctrine until late anyhow unless they planned on using Raid or Storms.