Three ways to improve CoH2 from the Open Beta build

Well - I'm glad I cancelled my pre-order in the close Beta to be honest.

The open Beta was enough to reinforce my decision - I don't see any reason to pay the big bucks for a game on opening day that I feel is really broken.

I'll get it later when they patch it accordingly - and when it's $10 or $20 rather than the $50 or $60 they're asking.

Right now - in its current shape - COH2 just isn't fun or a strategic challenge - they've taken away from COH what made it stand apart - oddly enough they took them away to make the game more approachable - which I think is the problem - COH was successful DUE to it's strategic nature and specific impacts of choice rather than this generic-ized mess we see now with some "commanders" thrown in.

Anybody notice how the commanders are all generally the same? Arty strike of some type - check - big armored unit - check - AT inf - check....there's pretty much zero differentiation - thus channelizing the way you'll play the game - thus shortening it's life span.

That's why COH was great - you not only had to master a faction - you then had 3 distinct ways to play that faction - now - you don't.

That depends entirely on the faction you play in CoH2 and what you do with it.
The commanders at the moment "Add" to your army, they do not "Form" your army make-up as Doctrines in CoH1 did.
As Soviets you do not build a Rifle Command, Support Command, Mechanized Support Command and Tankoviy Batallion. You pick 2, and you stick to them. You might go for SU-85s and couple them with T-34/85s, that's 1 way to play the faction. You might get ISU-152 and instead couple that with T-70s and T-34/76s, that's another way. Perhaps you will get IS-2 and KV-8 and rely on ZiS Field Guns for Anti Infantry Barrage to counter Paks and Medium Tanks. All of these builds also inherently have a different mix of Cons and Engies. ISU-152 build requires less engies, as cons can repair. IS-2 requires less Cons because Shock Troops are readily available. T-34/85 requires less negies again because all vehicles get a 30 muni self-repair, allowing you to focus more on MGs and Mortar support, relying on the T-34s to be your brunt.

Seriously you seem completely lost to me, I don't know if you're bitching out of principle or because you actually have a gripe, but it seems painfully obvious that CoH1 is the game you should be playing and posting about, not CoH2 if you cancelled it in Closed Beta.

your comment fails in almost every way ...

1) you should judge an argment by the ideas it contains not by the way its been phrased

2) how on earth is the combination of the fanction of cover during blizzards combined with the commanders going to create an alternative for the dual command tree ? and how do y know that ? are you a dev ?

I have to interject on Riddler's behalf, just because your post is screaming some kind of denial.

1. One can only judge ideas, as far as one can comprehend them being expressed. The use of simplistic memes to raise an issue, memes that are over used (get the idea out of the room and kill it with fire - seen this one more times than I can count already, and only been on the forums for 2 hours) is something that draws question as to the depth of the argument.

2. Repeat this in English, I can't wrap my head around what you're trying to say.

Reading Tommy's post makes me happy on my decision to still play VCOH. I haven't played COH2 since the closed beta but I had lost all interest as a result of it. I just can't understand why the moved so far away from a winning platform.

All other companies that have a winning formula use it, rather than trying to create something different, and prosper. I just don't see COH2 lasting anywhere near as long as VCOH.

Reading Tommy's post makes me happy on my decision to still play VCOH. I haven't played COH2 since the closed beta but I had lost all interest as a result of it. I just can't understand why the moved so far away from a winning platform.

All other companies that have a winning formula use it, rather than trying to create something different, and prosper. I just don't see COH2 lasting anywhere near as long as VCOH.

What, like Call of Duty?
World of Warcraft?
Starcraft?
Do you -seriously- want Relic to pump out a baby VCoH once a year instead of taking a risk and trying out things that are completely and utterly new?

I applaud Relic for taking this risk, there are many things from a business perspective that they could/should/may have done in lieu of becoming a part of SEGA, and very few would fault them for pushing the release date of CoH2 down the line till 3rd/4th Q 2013.

Lets not forget CoHnline...

What, like Call of Duty?
World of Warcraft?
Starcraft?
Do you -seriously- want Relic to pump out a baby VCoH once a year instead of taking a risk and trying out things that are completely and utterly new?

Starcraft had a winning formula and blizzard deviated very little from it to create a sequel that [most] everyone is happy with. So yeah, I kinda wish Relic did something similar.

Starcraft had a winning formula and blizzard deviated very little from it to create a sequel that [most] everyone is happy with. So yeah, I kinda wish Relic did something similar.

That's your opinion.

My opinion is, that what Blizzard did was stale, boring and mainstream. And that furthermore, if Relic were to do the same with CoH2 I would be sorely dissapointed.

Everyone has an opinion.

I have to interject on Riddler's behalf, just because your post is screaming some kind of denial.

1. One can only judge ideas, as far as one can comprehend them being expressed. The use of simplistic memes to raise an issue, memes that are over used (get the idea out of the room and kill it with fire - seen this one more times than I can count already, and only been on the forums for 2 hours) is something that draws question as to the depth of the argument.

2. Repeat this in English, I can't wrap my head around what you're trying to say.

denial ??? Oh yeah i forgot the internet is full of supergeniuses who can detect denial and other traits by reading one post .

First of all i am longer in this forum than you and i dont really recall reading that certain phrase that many times unless you r only able to count your fingers .

Anyway to tackle your so called argument , you might have failed to notice it but Tommy has written a big text , the phrase you mentioned along with a few others is initially there to make reading the text easier , whats more its his personal opinion that is how he sees it and the bad thing is that he isnt wrong saying get the idea out of the room and kill it with a crossbow or whatever . Furthermore what you are actually doing is so faulty by all means of logic , i say this because tommy has written a big text with well thought and constructive criticism and you are judging it (the ideas ) by a few phrases which are there to bring the humorous element and which are not arguments or observed facts . Riddler went a step further and said that the critisism would be deemed by relic as not serious if you r using such phrases , right , and the fact that the OP took considerable time to write it and most of the dedicated players aggree with him suggests the opposit and if relic doesnt pay attention (which is not likely ) then so be it , it ll be on them not us .

2 you might want to read the text i am quoting in my first post because its a question , you normally cant comprehend a question of that sort unless you know the initial statement .

You might think i am obnoxious but i think you r a troll

Multiple commanders (>3) partially replace CoH1 commander tree-side decisions, especially when commanders are somewhat similar. Increasing the number of commanders creates more strategic opportunities. This resembles the CoH1 tree-side decision

Not really since you can take only 3 of them at a time and the changes they account for are not that big anyway whats more for germans doctrines have a very small impact on gameplay while for russians you loose whatever strategical advantage you may have since its almost mandatory to use your doctrines early on and even then with linearity of the progression and the lack of impact commanders have it still falls sort of replacing the old system . Granted that they could change it by adding more influencial abilities but they would need to change the whole philosophy behind the new system and i find that highly unlikely .

You might think i am obnoxious but i think you r a troll

*looks at kafrion's avatar*

Not really since you can take only 3 of them at a time and the changes they account for are not that big anyway whats more for germans doctrines have a very small impact on gameplay while for russians you loose whatever strategical advantage you may have since its almost mandatory to use your doctrines early on and even then with linearity of the progression and the lack of impact commanders have it still falls sort of replacing the old system . Granted that they could change it by adding more influencial abilities but they would need to change the whole philosophy behind the new system and i find that highly unlikely .

This is a bold statement as you havent seen all the commanders yet, even to the extent you might be able to pick more than 3 commanders for a single game. I dont think the aim is to replace the old system, rather then create a new, more simplistic, system. Still, this RESEMBLES CoH1.

But kafrion, misquoting a source (as you did) does not pass on the liability on to the reader of said quote. I asked you what you meant, because it is what -you- said.

My bad for not realizing that your statements and opinions are grounded on someone else's writing and not your own.

I'm puzzled as to what the rest of your post is all about, I'm sorry if I somehow offended you, I never said you were obnoxious, however.

That depends entirely on the faction you play in CoH2 and what you do with it.
The commanders at the moment "Add" to your army, they do not "Form" your army make-up as Doctrines in CoH1 did.
As Soviets you do not build a Rifle Command, Support Command, Mechanized Support Command and Tankoviy Batallion. You pick 2, and you stick to them. You might go for SU-85s and couple them with T-34/85s, that's 1 way to play the faction. You might get ISU-152 and instead couple that with T-70s and T-34/76s, that's another way. Perhaps you will get IS-2 and KV-8 and rely on ZiS Field Guns for Anti Infantry Barrage to counter Paks and Medium Tanks. All of these builds also inherently have a different mix of Cons and Engies. ISU-152 build requires less engies, as cons can repair. IS-2 requires less Cons because Shock Troops are readily available. T-34/85 requires less negies again because all vehicles get a 30 muni self-repair, allowing you to focus more on MGs and Mortar support, relying on the T-34s to be your brunt.

Seriously you seem completely lost to me, I don't know if you're bitching out of principle or because you actually have a gripe, but it seems painfully obvious that CoH1 is the game you should be playing and posting about, not CoH2 if you cancelled it in Closed Beta.

And care to explain the rather pathetic German Commanders too?

Right now - there's pretty much no difference in choice for the Germans, yes at this time the Soviet choices are minorly directive of play - but VERY minor - they're nowhere near as definitive as say an Airborne player was in vCOH - again, you completely miss my point.

In COH 1 the WAY you played was COMPLETELY defined by your Doctrine - no way would you spam inf if you went Armor doctrine - where as in COH2 - the doctrine makes considerably less - if ANY - change to the players gameplay.

THATS THE POINT.

Your post actually even reinforces my discussion - in COH1 the Doctrine was core - in this - as you say - "it adds". So instead of 3 very different ways of fighting with one army - you have 1 way that you can "add" to with marginal - if any difference to the way you play the game.

EXACTLY MY POINT ON WHY THE GAME IS BROKEN.

Seriously - if you're happy with it - then thats all that matters - though if you read on other discussions/forums, my opinion is hardly a unique one.

I think the real problem - besides the fact they completely killed the core of COH doctrines by HAVING to make them pointless due to the fact they planned on selling more DLC "commanders" and you don't want to have the "Pay to Win" thing going - so they made them all a joke rather than the core of play - but reagardless of that - the problem with COH2 is they changed things that quite simply DID NOT NEED CHANGING.

Example - why change the way the players were identified? Why no win loss records? Why no rank gained by victory over a higher ranked player? Why no LOSS of rank to a defeat to a lower ranked player? For any form of competitive play - be it ranked or just wanting to go after a higher ranked player, or risk losing a rank etc - it seemed pretty simple to keep a relatively simple system in place. It wasn't earth breaking or new or unique to COH - it's just part of ANY RTS....but no, had to change it.

These aren't things that needed any change at ALL - it was simply change for the sake of change.

I'm all for evolution and new gaming etc - but this is just change because they can, not because they should.

Now its obvious from the series of posts above that you like the game - great - enjoy it - but alot of COH1'ers see large flaws in it currently - some can be patched - some unfortunately can not.

What really amazes me is that the things they SHOULD have changed - like the archaic P2P connection they use for multiplayer - and for anybody that's played on the Beta - we all know what a winner that's proved to be...

So change things you shouldn't and ignore things you should looks to be COH2 all over for me.

So that said - I'll possibly pick this up on a steam sale for $10 in a few months time, most like the Xmas sales, and by then they'll have patched it to a playable state.

You pay a premium price for a premium product - and this is premium price - not product - so I'll wait it out.

I think a "pick your own abilities" doctrine system would have been better.

Assign point values to each ability, an overall point pool, and let people tailor their own Commanders.

Could lead to some minmaxing, but could be mitigated by slot command point values and "selection" point values dor each ability.

Hell, even let them choose their own portraits.

@UP
Impossibru,they will newver do that. Commander will be in DLC. MONEY MONEY MOAR MONEY.

Very good post Tommy.

I think the cover issue is the most important one. What makes COH unique is that cover really matters. It makes for semi-realistic gameplay too where running around in the open gets you slaughtered and having good cover actually lets you hold out till relieved.

It also rewards good positioning, by exploiting cover you should be able to win engagements where you're inferior, it should not only be about stat matchups and use of abilities.