The main problem in coh2 for me

In coh2 you have to kill a whole lot of the enemy to win , thats the main problem , if we didnt have too much manpower the game would be better .

Basicly the developers / publisher want to teach the new guys ( kids mostly ) how to kill more efficiently , and that can be hard for new guys .

But trying to do that with one game is wrong , to kill more efficiently you have to play fps games as well and / or rpg shooters and know the killing equipment ( weapons , etc ) , and most dont know squat about the diferences between the military equipment they have acess in the games ( example : mgs , ats , tanks , etc )

Apparently , for a long , long time gaming its just a business for developers / publishers .

I cant blame them but , but they should listen to who plays the game a lot of hours and not the so called pro's .

i still think that coh2 has an excess of manpower .

If anybody starts to troll on this again I will swing the banhammer... Try to keep it serious please!

If anybody starts to troll on this again I will swing the banhammer... Try to keep it serious please!

i appreciate that , thanks a bunch .

It typically takes between 20-30 min to get to pop cap, how long would you suggest it should take?

I don't understand how manpower excess and FPS are linked. I don't think an excess of manpower is the issue, it's the way manpower is spent.

For example, all your economy in CoH 2 is from capture points and caches are a luxury, whereas DoW II makes sure that generators are a necessity so requisition (manpower) is spent regularly on economy which has the added effect of ensuring you can't just spam to win. The fact CoH 2 does not have this element means you have inherently more spammy gameplay as manpower only goes into your army. Same story with fuel, only spent on vehicles which means elite infantry are easy to purchase in large amounts as they only require one resource.

Comparing the two games is not ideal as they are both very different, but this has always been a striking thing I have found in CoH 2.

It typically takes between 20-30 min to get to pop cap, how long would you suggest it should take?

see it this way , if you got less manpower , units would cost less population .

Apologies, I seem to have worked through your OP in reverse order, because thats how I thought about your points, do bear with me.

I cant blame them but , but they should listen to who plays the game a lot of hours and not the so called pro's .

It depends on the kind of players you're looking at.

If you're the kind of player that sits defensively, then of course you're going to have a lot of manpower.

If, however, you're the kind of player that tries to attack strategically/carefully or tactially (which a lot of pros do) then you're going to actually run out of MP in the game.

Most of the pros are there because they know the game, they know when to attack, know the enemy's army and know the counters to certain strategies.

Oh and its the pros who put the most hours behind this game, you know, the people who's mission it is to improve, utilise every resource they have and theorycraft, not to mention stay in practice. It took me a long time to get good at CoH1, the more I found I watched the pros, the more I learned how to utilize my troops better and focus on many things at a time. Then I practiced by throwing time at it.

But trying to do that with one game is wrong , to kill more efficiently you have to play fps games as well and / or rpg shooters and know the killing equipment ( weapons , etc ) , and most dont know squat about the diferences between the military equipment they have acess in the games ( example : mgs , ats , tanks , etc )

IMO, its not a problem. In fact, this game has historical basis and if anything, it should encourage people to learn about the history. Thats one reason why they make WW2 games like CoH2 - to encourage people to learn the history behind the game instead of making new units like DOW2.

In coh2 you have to kill a whole lot of the enemy to win , thats the main problem , if we didnt have too much manpower the game would be better

.

CoH2, along with CoH1 is not about killing enemies. If you get a German MG team with 500 kills next to your base, or turtle around your base, racking up kills, then great! You have lots of vet 3/5 units but it isn't going to win the game for you.

CoH2 and CoH1 is all about map control. Nothing more nothing less. Killing and effectiveness of killing units comes in handy when you're contesting regions, but these are just tools for map control at the end of the day.

This is really highlighted in the VP version (the competitive version of the game) where you must contest the centre, no turtling, just fight for the centre.

I don't understand how manpower excess and FPS are linked. I don't think an excess of manpower is the issue, it's the way manpower is spent.

For example, all your economy in CoH 2 is from capture points and caches are a luxury, whereas DoW II makes sure that generators are a necessity so requisition (manpower) is spent regularly on economy which has the added effect of ensuring you can't just spam to win. The fact CoH 2 does not have this element means you have inherently more spammy gameplay as manpower only goes into your army. Same story with fuel, only spent on vehicles which means elite infantry are easy to purchase in large amounts as they only require one resource.

Comparing the two games is not ideal as they are both very different, but this has always been a striking thing I have found in CoH 2.

they are not so different in my opinion

because for me the only thing diferent in coh 2 from fps and rpgs shooters is that you work with your manpower ( put more troops and less caches or vice versa ) .

and in fps , rpgs shooters you worry less about those things .

so from this perspective the similarities are more numerous than the diferences , for example :

if you take the economic aspect of coh2 ( caches , or capuring important fuel or ammo points ) you get similar elements in both genres , regarding for example the troops tactical deployment accordingly to the situation , as it happens often in fps , rpgs shooters ( meaning cover , gaining high ground , building protection ) .

the only thing diferent between both genres is that in coh2 you work with combined arms in a large scale and in fps , rpgs shooters your work mostly with one man and his weapons .

Apologies, I seem to have worked through your OP in reverse order, because thats how I thought about your points, do bear with me.



It depends on the kind of players you're looking at.

If you're the kind of player that sits defensively, then of course you're going to have a lot of manpower.

If, however, you're the kind of player that tries to attack strategically/carefully or tactially (which a lot of pros do) then you're going to actually run out of MP in the game.

Most of the pros are there because they know the game, they know when to attack, know the enemy's army and know the counters to certain strategies.

Oh and its the pros who put the most hours behind this game, you know, the people who's mission it is to improve, utilise every resource they have and theorycraft, not to mention stay in practice. It took me a long time to get good at CoH1, the more I found I watched the pros, the more I learned how to utilize my troops better and focus on many things at a time. Then I practiced by throwing time at it.



IMO, its not a problem. In fact, this game has historical basis and if anything, it should encourage people to learn about the history. Thats one reason why they make WW2 games like CoH2 - to encourage people to learn the history behind the game instead of making new units like DOW2.

.

CoH2, along with CoH1 is not about killing enemies. If you get a German MG team with 500 kills next to your base, or turtle around your base, racking up kills, then great! You have lots of vet 3/5 units but it isn't going to win the game for you.

CoH2 and CoH1 is all about map control. Nothing more nothing less. Killing and effectiveness of killing units comes in handy when you're contesting regions, but these are just tools for map control at the end of the day.

This is really highlighted in the VP version (the competitive version of the game) where you must contest the centre, no turtling, just fight for the centre.

you made good points but i still disagree with you completely .

for gaming developers / publishers these days more killing equals more money .

and , btw , sega has more authority in the game development than most of you people think .

you made good points but i still disagree with you completely .

for gaming developers / publishers these days more killing equals more money .

and , btw , sega has more authority in the game development than most of you people think .

Hmm.... I don't know where you're coming from with killing = more money. Please elaborate?

The thing that drew me to CoH1/CoH2 was the strategy behind it. I think that goes with most of the pro's/decent players/everyone on this forum.

There are far better games for killing things if you wanted to do that than CoH1/CoH2.

And FTR, I wasn't too happy when CoH2 decided to release doctrines like Tiger Ace/Sov Industry for money.... considering I already paid $80 AUD for this game already... and from that, I think we know what kind of authority Sega has on this game. (That kind of BS actually made me quit for a year)

Although not everything SEGA has done has been terrible. If the game was released at its intended date instead of 3 months later, this game would have been an unrescuable train wreck. It still wasn't great, but it was at least playable.

i'm going to bring up dow2 since it uses the same mechanics but at a smaller scale.

in dow2, unit preservation is key and you generally only have 6-7 units in a match (1v1). as a result of less units maps are generally smaller and unit's roles are more defined (melee helps a lot here). most units also have active abilities (almost all require at least a modicum of skill and some require quite a lot as well as coordination between units) which means that each unit requires more micro then the average coh2 unit. in the essence(?) engine infantry squads are really the intended focus and where the interesting mechanics are. vehicles in general suck (they're more interesting in coh2 but there is too much RNG).

the focus on infantry (generally each faction has 3 stock vehicles out of ~~10 stock units) in dow2 in combination with most squads having active abilities means that dow2 is much faster paced and uses the engine mechanics better. dow2 has a bunch of unused stuff (like knockback and stuns as well as melee) that are not used and thus limits both the play options with infantry as well as the variety of things you will encounter. coh2 places at lot more focus on vehicles (generally half a faction's units are vehicles) with their weaker mechanics (pathing, stun, parts damage) and ends up being a more forgiving (and thus longer/slower paced) game as well as a less deep game.

i'm pretty sure i rambled badly there but hopefully i managed to stay on topic and people can understand what i wrote; i've very tired.

Can you try to rephrase exactly what you are trying to accomplish with this thread? Because it seems like you are jumping on 4 or 5 different things and comparing COH2 to entire other genres of games.

Are you saying there is too much manpower so this makes the games too long? And that casuals don't have that much time to play and that is why they aren't pros?

Are you saying the time investment is too much compared to shooters like CoD and RPGs like Mass Effect? And are you comparing using skill points and perks in such games to capturing resource points in CoH2?

Are you saying making players play this one game longer to become good makes Sega more money?

Your English is hazy so I am trying to get a better picture of what to respond to.

Hmm.... I don't know where you're coming from with killing = more money. Please elaborate?

The thing that drew me to CoH1/CoH2 was the strategy behind it. I think that goes with most of the pro's/decent players/everyone on this forum.

There are far better games for killing things if you wanted to do that than CoH1/CoH2.

And FTR, I wasn't too happy when CoH2 decided to release doctrines like Tiger Ace/Sov Industry for money.... considering I already paid $80 AUD for this game already... and from that, I think we know what kind of authority Sega has on this game. (That kind of BS actually made me quit for a year)

Although not everything SEGA has done has been terrible. If the game was released at its intended date instead of 3 months later, this game would have been an unrescuable train wreck. It still wasn't great, but it was at least playable.

im trying to say that games genres like rts , rpgs and fps where killing or destroying your opponent by means of weapons of somekind brings more money than other genres

Can you try to rephrase exactly what you are trying to accomplish with this thread? Because it seems like you are jumping on 4 or 5 different things and comparing COH2 to entire other genres of games.

Are you saying there is too much manpower so this makes the games too long? And that casuals don't have that much time to play and that is why they aren't pros?

Are you saying the time investment is too much compared to shooters like CoD and RPGs like Mass Effect? And are you comparing using skill points and perks in such games to capturing resource points in CoH2?

Are you saying making players play this one game longer to become good makes Sega more money?

Your English is hazy so I am trying to get a better picture of what to respond to.

im not trying accomplish anything , im just trying to show some issues that i think are relevant to discussion about coh2 .

I don't know about you, or some people but I barely ever float above 200 unless I need to save for a vehicle. In coh2 its very easy to lose units and it takes a lot to reinforce a larger army. In my opinion manpower levels are fine. Some units could use tweaking as far as manpower and reinforce costs go, but thats an entirely different matter.

If you want to keep the game at a good pacing, as well as even being remotely possible to field a good combined arms army I'd say you should rethink what you thought might be issues with manpower. Because currently its fine.

Edit: post was lost. It will be a resume.

So you are basically saying that you want to control less units cause it makes the game too hard ?
Manpower as a resource (fuel/muni) is fine. If you are talking about manpower as amount of unit are your control, i guess @Nuclear Arbitor made a good comparison with DoW2.

"see it this way , if you got less manpower , units would cost less population ."

If unit cost less popcap, you would had more manpower.

im trying to day that games genres like rts , rpgs and fps where killing or destroying your opponent by means of weapons of somekind brings more money than other genres

I think you have to give a better description of it. I get that English isn't your first language and I can live with it.

Because atm, platformer games like Mario, Pokemon and Sonic fit in your description (And yes, those make a lot of money, even today).

[breaths heavily]

.....

+1

Seriouly tho, CoH2 could really do with a Karma system.

OOOHH this thread hurts!

you're right the diversity and size can create a fairly steep learning curve, but i think it's well positioned compared to something like SC2. this isn't unique to the genre. someone a while a go posted the rationale between designing and balancing league of legends for the demographic that would essentially be the top 800-150 players in CoH2 and it provided a well argued account of psychological mastery and trickle down, i would suggest giving it a good mull through as a counter argument.

Edit: post was lost. It will be a resume.

So you are basically saying that you want to control less units cause it makes the game too hard ?
Manpower as a resource (fuel/muni) is fine. If you are talking about manpower as amount of unit are your control, i guess @Nuclear Arbitor made a good comparison with DoW2.



If unit cost less popcap, you would had more manpower.

yes , but not if you lower them both ( less pop cap and less manpower accordingly ).