Why some historical resemblance matters

I see lots of people make points and counter points about something not being historically accurate and then a reply that this game can't be historically accurate as it is an RTS not a comp sim war game. This is true, but it's no excuse to not use historical parameters to help dial in theme and asymmetric balance. What I am trying to say is sometimes doing things that aren't just not historical but actually completely 100% anti-historical is nonsense and should not be defended with "well we have to forsake accuracy for balance". Rather than just stabbing in the dark with unit values and then tuning they should try to get all their comparative data right not in absolute terms but in relative terms among other common units. Then we could get rid of ridiculous things like an SU-76 being same penetration as SU-85 and 34/76 having worse armor/hp than PIV ausf G despite being better armored with its famous 60° front armor slope.

This all happens because it seems like Relic just makes educated guesses at where values should be and makes the decisions almost in a vacuum then they start tweaking and tweaking and tweaking each unit without referencing it to its peers to get the game play not be game breaking based upon feedback. As they keep tweaking, you get to points where many weapon/unit comparisons don't make any logical sense. They should use weapons data from field tests to determine comparative accuracy and penetration between all armor and their guns then tweak cost and mobility/special abilities to get them into the right spot for their respective faction.

historical resemblance is what's supposed to make this a WWII game, as opposed to cowboys and indians native americans.

basically you should have actual things from WWII and they should preform similarly to how they preformed in WWII.

This is a WWII game where armies order units one at a time to shoot each other for control of flagpoles.

You realism people already murdered the art direction of COH2 don't mess with anything else

There are some core unit problems that make realism difficult. OKW and OST being in 1944/45 with some units having futuristic abilities make such absurdities as the SU76 penetration necessary for the game to be competitive.

If you wanted realism, the stock Russian tank for that time period would be the T34/85 and the TD would be the SU100. Germans wouldn't have CAS, the USF would have CAS and it would be really cheap. One shot from a Panther that hits any US tank would knock it out, but a Firefly would do the same to the Panther. In a game like this, micro wouldn't matter as much.

There is a mod for the game that is a lot more realistic. Search for "Spearhead" in the mod shop. Most people won't like it.

This is just dawn of war, WW2 edition. The sooner you come to terms with that the better. Balance and variety will trump realism every time. And I like it that way.

This is just dawn of war, WW2 edition. The sooner you come to terms with that the better. Balance and variety will trump realism every time. And I like it that way.

I thought dawn of war was coh(that's what people complaining about dow 2 told me)?

I thought dawn of war was coh(that's what people complaining about dow 2 told me)?

They are both secretly Impossible Creatures

(I've never played the latter, but they probably aren't)

You can never be truly historically accurate in a video game...

Therefore a history game like COH2 should not try to be exactly like WW2, it's a video game... The game should encourage the player to read up on the real history, not become a boring book that's historically accurate down to the letter...

What's more important about history anyways? learning all these little facts about tanks and vehicles? or learning the strategies and difficulties each of these great nation's armies faced and had to overcome when fighting. (or didn't overcome in the German's case)

For myself, i'd definitely have to say the latter.

Since this is predominantly a strategy game, even though 60 degree sloped armor played a vital role in technological advancement of tanks, it is not a lesson that really applies directly to strategy. It applies to a game like War-thunder or World of Tanks

Units shouldn't act exactly the way they did back then because COH2 and world war 2 are very different things... despite the number 2

balance should be based off of a factions strategical relationship to another faction within the game so the fight isn't "Who has better tanks or technology?" but instead, "Who has the better strategy & tactics? Who can respond better to the chaos on the battlefield? Who is a better commander?"

Sorry i kinda "Blah"-ed my first thoughts all over the keyboard and might have gotten off topic ^^;

though i supposed it's no different than what others do on this website x.x;

If we want realistic small arms, then machine guns should wipe everything from long range, and semi-automatic rifles would kill anyone with bolt-action/SMG, and in close quaters SMG´s and instant kill flamers would dominate everyone, flamers could even disable enemy tanks

I feel like OP's point was not full historical accuracy, more a greater historical feel and grasp of the period of engagement. Although balance will always dictate there being a few units that perform ahistorically(in terms of role, due to roster deficits) each of the armies should be represent the equipment available for them at the time, which we can roughly state as early 1945. Manpower and Production deficits are, of course, mostly ignored for balance reasons.
TLR - CoH 2 should try to be a little more accurate composition and equipment wise while remaining mechanically the same.

I feel like OP's point was not full historical accuracy, more a greater historical feel and grasp of the period of engagement. Although balance will always dictate there being a few units that perform ahistorically(in terms of role, due to roster deficits) each of the armies should be represent the equipment available for them at the time, which we can roughly state as early 1945. Manpower and Production deficits are, of course, mostly ignored for balance reasons.
TLR - CoH 2 should try to be a little more accurate composition and equipment wise while remaining mechanically the same.

Thank you for comprehending what I wrote. I literally said we can't be exactly historically accurate because of balance and gameplay considerations. Otherwise a Sherman would die to 1 successful shot from a tiger and there would be 5 T34/76's for every P4. I just want it to resemble history so that there is at least a comparative basis for performance.

Some of the tanks in the game have never seen actual combat or been in service so...

Many people try to use "historical inaccurate" to defend their argument, which is poor and non-constructive.

Remember that all units in this game has participated battle at least one.


However, this is not simulation game, but rather, arcade game about WW2. Lots of RTS are Arcade Game, and not Simulation: C&C, SC, BR, Blitzkrieg, and more.

So I rather not see the argument "historical inaccurate" when it comes to balance or gameplay. But this game campaign is another matter.

I agree with you OP but now it is too late anyway.

If you want play more realistic game play Men of War: Assault Squad 2 with mods.

i like the historical aspect of vcoh. you had weak tanks on allied sides but could choose allied war machine to reflect the masses of tanks. you had bought vet to reflect the better training. you had for the fatherland to reflect the high skills in defending. you had paras who could reinforce everywhere to reflect the airborne operations. list goes on forever, you get it.
units cant be historical, but you can create abilitys which FEELS more historical then..

If we want realistic small arms, then machine guns should wipe everything from long range, and semi-automatic rifles would kill anyone with bolt-action/SMG, and in close quaters SMG´s and instant kill flamers would dominate everyone, flamers could even disable enemy tanks

Blitzkrieg mod

This game ignoring even basic logic and physics, how we can talk about historicity?

I would be satisfied if T 34 76 had slightly greater speed and faster rotation as hull and turret and acceleration. Ostheer sniper had 50 health and pioneers had line of sight as regular infantry. OKW infantry had no veterancy that provide additional view