General Questions and Information concerning CoH2

So, There are quite a few questions here that have been answered in a lot of different places, but sporadically and under-whelmingly.

I am a CoH (1) vet and considering buying CoH2, but when I say buying im coming from the perspective of a competitive player that buys a game to get into it for an extended period of time. I am phasing out of SC2 that, although being a game I love, has become irritating to play due to some of the changes included in the expansion.

That said, I will try and be precise with the questions, enough so that hopefully others can find questions they too would like responses to here. If you want to answer one, Thank You in advance.

Questions

Commanders: Commanders are an obvious enough change, but how do they operate in comparison to the tree system?

It used to be that you decided to counter the other players tree with yours, or even possibly force them into a particular tree with yours. It was quite deep and very enjoyable.

In CoH2 are commanders picked before the game and if so, how much impact can they have to a match? It's disconcerting that some players would have access to commanders other players do not and that one commander's ability to counter another can't be circumvented through strategic thinking as you've already picked your commander before entering the game.

Playable factions and match-ups: What are they currently? Are PE/Brits even in the game?

As far as I know there are 3 allied camps and 2 axis which means an axis player has to prepare for a total of 3 match-ups whereas an allied player only prepares for 2... In a highly competitive scene, that is a bit rubbish (in my opinion).

Changes to the original factions: What changes have Americans/Brits/Germans/PE gone through? Do any of the factions play significantly different than they used to; ie: has tech changed, are all the tier 1 units the same and deployable in the same fashion, or is this a completely new game?

Balance/Support: I am reading quite a few posts concerning balance issues with the Russians, specifically the MG squad. It is to be expected that there are balance issues, but after Relic went bottom up what sort of support are we expecting for the game? Who is actively patching and balancing?


Thanks, and hopefully someone finds this post useful.

Commanders are still sometimes picked to counter what your opponent does, but the difference between the commanders is fairly minimal in certain cases so really what you're picking is, as Soviets, whether you want Guards Rifle to counter your opponent. The impact of doctrines is moderate - what's mostly important is having a doctrine that has what you need, rather than having the best doctrine. It's not quite pay to win yet.

Playable factions are Germany and Russia. No PE/Brits thank christ.

There are none of the original factions still in the game (no Americans/Wehrmacht). Really you should watch some shoutcasts buddy

Balance: Relic will probably actively patch the game (they've promised to at least).

I'm slowly getting mad that there is still no balancepatch, but on the other hand I don't want that they overnerf something so that it is never seen... So for Patches: I still have some hope.

Besides that, CoH2 is probably not what you are looking for.

COMMANDERS:
You can unlock commanders by playing the game, the disurbing part is that you have to buy some of them (they call it DLC) and others are simply not avaible if you didnt preorder/ there is a E3 Commander. (But untill now they don't seem to be op, and you don't have to counter a Commander.)

Before you start a Automatch you can choose 3 Commanders. Ingame you can pick 1 of these 3 Commanders. Compared to CoH1 they are linear, the tree has no branches. You cant choose.

But really, take the time to watch some streams before buying this game. (I guess you wont buy it afterwards ).

P.S. This might be important for you too: There are NO Leaderboards, no Lobbys. (It is said that they will be implemented... at some point. You maybe want to at least wait untill then.

Balance/Support: I am reading quite a few posts concerning balance issues with the Russians, specifically the MG squad. It is to be expected that there are balance issues, but after Relic went bottom up what sort of support are we expecting for the game? Who is actively patching and balancing?


Thanks, and hopefully someone finds this post useful.

Relic is still in business, their publisher thq went bankrupt, but relic was bought by sega. They will actively support the game. Even if you like it less than vcoh, it is still a great game. It is not like sc1 to sc2, it is a completely new game using the same(but updated) engine with similar mechanics. The balance whining is still there and always will be, but not to worry I am sure relic will fix most of the stuff that really is off.
IMO:
Biggest improvement: true sight Biggest downgrade:doctrines to commanders

Wow this is really news to me... no Americans or Werhmacht? That is unbelievable, it was such a good base, it was balanced... it was CoH?

I understand they wanted a new game, but to remove the base just seems outrageous. I think that alone turns me off of the game as a single match-up is not enough unfortunately.

I suppose the upside would be that it makes balancing much easier as they only need to obtain a 50/50 win ratio between races to be considered balanced.

Edit: I've been watching streams and some casts, specifically i always liked youre material Tycho, but i just never even thought they would get rid of Amer/Werh... even after never seeing them played, it just didn't even exist in my head as a possibility.

Secondly, giving certain commanders to certain players; certain abilities to certain players, and other no, is unheard of in competitive gaming.

That is utterly disappointing. I appreciate all the information.

Ostheer kinda plays like Wehrmacht and the Soviets kinda play like US. At least when they fix the current cheesy stuff. They function the same as US/Wehr in certain areas and variate in others but their base concept is very similar to the vCoH factions.

When you're talking about US/Wehr you're probably thinking about the MGs and flanking early game play of vCoH. That does no (yet?) really exist here. But I hope we'll reach it.

And yeah, they removed the old factions because this game plays on the eastern front (Moscow, Stalingrad) whereas CoH1 plays on the western front (France, Belgium).

Ostheer kinda plays like Wehrmacht and the Soviets kinda play like US. At least when they fix the current cheesy stuff. They function the same as US/Wehr in certain areas and variate in others but their base concept is very similar to the vCoH factions.

When you're talking about US/Wehr you're probably thinking about the MGs and flanking early game play of vCoH. That does no (yet?) really exist here. But I hope we'll reach it.

And yeah, they removed the old factions because this game plays on the eastern front (Moscow, Stalingrad) whereas CoH1 plays on the western front (France, Belgium).

Yes, that is precisely what I am envisioning, the way the game developed was so... perfect. Now i know that sounds outlandish as nothing is perfect nor was CoH, but the games developed (Between US/Werh) so beautifully. Opening rax or support center were both viable and the Germans, although a little less varient could open straight pios if they so desired.

Mid-game deveoped well with tiers as did late game with call-ins.

From what ive been reading, it seems that the openings are stale and there is an unobservable line between mid and late game, ie no late game.

Is that the case?

ALso, them being historically accurate is appreciated, especially for the history peeps, but in multiplayer, i figured maybe they had gotten the msg that a competitive environment trumps historical accuracy, as far a long term survival of a competitive RTS environment is concerned.

US/Werh was the best part of CoH undoubtedly, but I want to relive that epicness in a new engine... i dunno.

As a coh vet, I cannot tell you Soviets v Ostheer is as great as wher v US, but I can tell you it is a great game.

It seems to me that your opinion has been formed by reading the balance forums, which is a terrible idea. It is full of whiners who have no idea what their talking about who often only play one faction(not everyone is that way, most are), and this game is very far from historically accurate despite what forum residents may say about citing historical accuracy. If you want a good idea about whether or not to play, I would recommend watching a few shoutcasts and then deciding.

I reccomend:
Almost any sunday night fights
http://www.youtube.com/user/COH2ORG/videos

TFN from the recent tourney
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZlTFhuyQfFuVgjdq0jUqLR7SLn7nUxZz

And if you want a decent idea of how strategy plays out, Inverse is where its at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZweAcueZjg

commanders in this game are not supporting out play, they are countering enemy units, for example, if the german player goes some flamer HT, it's obvious that soviet player MUST go guards doc, otherwise he's screwed.

Commanders in CoH2 are all about countering some stuff, i totally dislike current commander/doctrine changes

Secondly, giving certain commanders to certain players; certain abilities to certain players, and other no, is unheard of in competitive gaming.

That is utterly disappointing. I appreciate all the information.

I had the same opinion as you at first, but someone compared this to PE/Brit expansion, people who didn't buy the expansion, still had to play vs. PE or Brits, it's not really an advantage it's just if you prefer having more diversity you can pay for it but if you don't pay, you still have as much chance as other players to win.

I reccomend:
Almost any sunday night fights
http://www.youtube.com/user/COH2ORG/videos

TFN from the recent tourney
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZlTFhuyQfFuVgjdq0jUqLR7SLn7nUxZz

And if you want a decent idea of how strategy plays out, Inverse is where its at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZweAcueZjg

You can also follow live games on Twitch:

http://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Company%20of%20Heroes%202


I do recommend buying the game even though it's not as good as I thought it would be, for now.

So, There are quite a few questions here that have been answered in a lot of different places, but sporadically and under-whelmingly.


.....................

Playable factions and match-ups: What are they currently? Are PE/Brits even in the game?

Parts are...."Button"...Mortar Half Track...Sprint...'Hull down'.... equivalencies of Bren-on-Bren etc

Changes to the original factions: What changes have Americans/Brits/Germans/PE gone through? Do any of the factions play significantly different than they used to; ie: has tech changed, are all the tier 1 units the same and deployable in the same fashion, or is this a completely new game?

No US nor Brits, bcs (curiously?) , they did not participate at battles like Khursk, Stalingrad, etc, AFAIK

Thanks, and hopefully you will find this post useful.(quotation adapted]

Slightly scary, actually

I had the same opinion as you at first, but someone compared this to PE/Brit expansion, people who didn't buy the expansion, still had to play vs. PE or Brits, it's not really an advantage it's just if you prefer having more diversity you can pay for it but if you don't pay, you still have as much chance as other players to win.

It is good to hear, and the positive reflection on the game is nice to have, right now my mind is full of "why on earth did they... but i hate the fact that they... oh dear lord how could they....".

As far as commanders go, do you see it expanding the late game diversity? I remember that the doctrines changed, in some cases quite drastically, your late game strategy, unit comp, and play style. An american having gone airborne played out vastly different from an american having gone armor. The same can be said for a german having gone defensive vs blitz.

I really enjoyed that type of mid - late game diversity. Is that prevalent in the game?

I'm watching more games, but i seem to see a lot of T34 spam, so much so im asking myself whether or not it is the only russian tank in the game...? Out of Germans, i havent seen much more than Gren spam(ish). The lack of early support unit play (mortors/snipers) is also concerning...

It is good to hear, and the positive reflection on the game is nice to have, right now my mind is full of "why on earth did they... but i hate the fact that they... oh dear lord how could they....".

As far as commanders go, do you see it expanding the late game diversity? I remember that the doctrines changed, in some cases quite drastically, your late game strategy, unit comp, and play style. An american having gone airborne played out vastly different from an american having gone armor. The same can be said for a german having gone defensive vs blitz.

I really enjoyed that type of mid - late game diversity. Is that prevalent in the game?

I'm watching more games, but i seem to see a lot of T34 spam, so much so im asking myself whether or not it is the only russian tank in the game...? Out of Germans, i havent seen much more than Gren spam(ish). The lack of early support unit play (mortors/snipers) is also concerning...

As a multiplayer ONLY game - COH2 is a $60 game that asking $45 too much.

Some have even gone as far to say as though the game - currently - feels similar in nature to a F2P title.

Currently - as a MULTYPLAYER TITLE - the game has severe issues.

As a COMPETITIVE mutiplayer title - it's outright broken.

There are several things that can salvage this title - and as many will say - COH1 wasn't perfect on launch either - and thats true, however there are things with COH2 - namely the Commanders - that can't be fixed as they are intrinsic to the DLC nature that Relic has chosen to pursue - essentially they CAN'T make Commanders as strong as Doctrines if they also intend to SELL those Doctrines - they have to be rather mundane to almost irrelevant to gameplay (i.e. watch any 1v1 from the streamers here, see how many Wher players even bother picking a Doctrine any more - you'll see it's become an irrelevant choice due to their nature of DLC based sales) - if they WERE actually of strong use - then the issue of PAY TO WIN becomes relevant.

SO - if you liked COH1 due to the harder element that the Doctrine brought to the game and the way the Doctrine actually played a strong strategic part of the game - not only in counters but in your entire gameplay - COH2's deviation here has made the game a complete fail - 0/10 - unfixable title.

IF you can overlook this fault - then there are the patchable ones - such as the following:

- No match making ability (it's Random only)
- No match making lobby (so you can't evaluate team members, ping, PC performance etc)
- No rankings (there's an "XP" rank which has no reflection of the actual player ability as XP is earned in both winning AND losing or from in game achievements - think Call of Duty essentially).
- No ladders.
- No custom game ability (you can't pick the map, game type, weather conditions etc).

So right there - all the most BASIC elements of multiplayer DO NOT CURRENTLY exist.

Relic are "working on it" - however this should have been Day 1 available - there was no reason to reinvent the multiplayer wheel from COH1 here - but yet somebody thought it was a bright idea.

As far as balance of units/factions go - that'll always fluctuate over time and Relic have a good history of addressing balance and patching. There's also a very limited number of playable maps at this time - again - that'll come.

That all said though - this minute - COH2 is NOT a good competitive multiplayer game. If you review the recent tournament plays - the Russian faction is significantly ahead of the German faction in win/loss ratio IN THE HANDS OF PRO LEVEL PLAYERS.

Given ALL that - being asked to part with $60 for a game that's honestly half baked at this point in time - and when its actually baked is missing primary ingredients from COH1 that'll never be part of the game (COH2)....I refuse to pay a premium price for a sub premium product.

The way COH2 has deviated, becoming a more "forgiving" strategic play via the use of less defining doctrines, XP for all players (i.e. nobody is a "loser"), ranks that are of insignificance etc - even when they do patch it - and cut the price significantly - it still will never be as fun as COH due to these foundation decisions that were made.

Personally, your best bet is to watch a lot of online play and work out for yourself if what you're seeing in play is worth your hard earned cash.

As a multiplayer ONLY game - COH2 is a $60 game that asking $45 too much.

Good thing the game isn't a multiplayer only game. That may be the part of the game you care about most, but it's not the only part of the game. That's like ordering a pizza and then complaining that you could buy pineapple yourself for less money.

I'm on a pizza kick at the moment.



To the OP's post.

Commanders

You select 3 Commanders to take into the game with you, everyone can only pick three. That way you aren't fully committed to any one particular strategy until later into the match. This allows for some of the same flexibility that CoH had while still providing a pre-game tactical element.


Factions

As people have pointed out we launched with 2 factions (Soviets and Germans) which is how many that the original game had at launch. More may be on the way, but we haven't announced anything yet.

The single player campaign in Soviet only, but the Theater of War mode which is new in CoH 2 is playable from both sides.


Balance

We didn't go out of business our publisher did. SEGA bought us and we'll continue to support the game going forward. 7 years on we're still supporting the original game, so we'll happily be working on CoH 2 for a long time.

Good thing the game isn't a multiplayer only game. That may be the part of the game you care about most, but it's not the only part of the game. That's like ordering a pizza and then complaining that you could buy pineapple yourself for less money.

I'm on a pizza kick at the moment.



To the OP's post.

Commanders

You select 3 Commanders to take into the game with you, everyone can only pick three. That way you aren't fully committed to any one particular strategy until later into the match. This allows for some of the same flexibility that CoH had while still providing a pre-game tactical element.


Factions

As people have pointed out we launched with 2 factions (Soviets and Germans) which is how many that the original game had at launch. More may be on the way, but we haven't announced anything yet.

The single player campaign in Soviet only, but the Theater of War mode which is new in CoH 2 is playable from both sides.


Balance

We didn't go out of business our publisher did. SEGA bought us and we'll continue to support the game going forward. 7 years on we're still supporting the original game, so we'll happily be working on CoH 2 for a long time.

I really appreciate you taking the time, as well as everyone else, to respond to the post with an informative answer, I can understand that reading through these forums as a developer is not by any means easy; people can be quite critical of a product these days, myself included.

I think everyone knows how much we loved the original; it changed everything, and you've heard it a million times. But, I do agree with one of the previous posters in stating that there was no reason to reinvent the wheel here.

The game ships with an outstanding amount of single player content that is more a "full game" than most "full games" are these days, but it still stands to be mentioned that some of the choices Reilc has made concerning multiplayer are questionable, if not, downright confusing.

You must know that the longevity of an RTS is found not in the abundance of its contents but in the diversity of play uncovered in its basic foundation.

DLC and Pre-order Commanders worked against this in two ways even before the game was released; it destroyed the illusion of a level playing field straight out and then consequentially destroyed the illusion that commanders mattered when we were told not to worry, that the playing field was level whether we had them or not.

It is competition that kept CoH alive and the lack there of that killed CoH-online. I thought something significant had been taken from that experience.

I do quite like the idea that you describe Noun, flexibility and pregame tactical elements, but is something that I don't have because i didn't pre-order really worthy of being called a "tactical element"?

I believe in Relic's ability to balance; I do. However, what dreams I had of Relic understanding how to create and foster a competitive environment, and appreciate that it is said environment that has kept Relic in business, are beginning to fade into simple memories.

Did you all want to create the Homefront of RTS, with all its bells and whistles, or the Counter Strike, with all its simplicity. I know a few people who played the former for a week and countless who have played the latter for over ten years.

Sometimes I ask myself whether the brilliance that was CoH was a simple fluke of ingenious proportions.

It is good to hear, and the positive reflection on the game is nice to have, right now my mind is full of "why on earth did they... but i hate the fact that they... oh dear lord how could they....".

As far as commanders go, do you see it expanding the late game diversity? I remember that the doctrines changed, in some cases quite drastically, your late game strategy, unit comp, and play style. An american having gone airborne played out vastly different from an american having gone armor. The same can be said for a german having gone defensive vs blitz.

I really enjoyed that type of mid - late game diversity. Is that prevalent in the game?

I'm watching more games, but i seem to see a lot of T34 spam, so much so im asking myself whether or not it is the only russian tank in the game...? Out of Germans, i havent seen much more than Gren spam(ish). The lack of early support unit play (mortors/snipers) is also concerning...

I find that the commanders is more to help your own general strategy or to help you counter your opponents own general strategy. Meaning that whatever commander your opponent chose, it doesn't really matter, what really matter is the way your opponent is playing, infantry heavy, tank heavy, aggressive or more defensive etc... Your opponent will probably have done the same, by going with a commander that helps is preferred style of play. So I would say commanders are not as important as doctrines were in the original COH, they just add different tools to help you with your own style of play in general.

I don't have any of the extra commanders and I'm currently 41-38 (no ladder but I manually keep track of my win/loss record)

Good thing the game isn't a multiplayer only game. That may be the part of the game you care about most, but it's not the only part of the game. That's like ordering a pizza and then complaining that you could buy pineapple yourself for less money.

I'm on a pizza kick at the moment.

Noun - thanks for the input here - as you would have seen the OPs original post stating they were looking for a competition grade online game - using SC2 as their reference - that's where I was making my input from - multiplayer only.

I'm sure the game has a great single player element - but for me - it's of no interest.

And as you rightly said - you have to make the game for everybody - not just the online players, so I understand that.

Unfortunately for me and my wants/needs from an online experience - COH2 in its current form just doesn't do it for me yet.

I'm sure your team is working hard to make gamers like me happy and I appreciate that - Relic has always supported its product in the past and I can't see why that'd change - so I'm sure one day I'll own a COH2 that I and you are both equally happy with.

Noun - thanks for the input here - as you would have seen the OPs original post stating they were looking for a competition grade online game - using SC2 as their reference - that's where I was making my input from - multiplayer only.

I'm sure the game has a great single player element - but for me - it's of no interest.

And as you rightly said - you have to make the game for everybody - not just the online players, so I understand that.

Unfortunately for me and my wants/needs from an online experience - COH2 in its current form just doesn't do it for me yet.

I'm sure your team is working hard to make gamers like me happy and I appreciate that - Relic has always supported its product in the past and I can't see why that'd change - so I'm sure one day I'll own a COH2 that I and you are both equally happy with.

I also agree that the game can and will develop positively.

I would also like to give Relic my money, but when i buy an RTS, it cant be helped that I, and others are judging the game alongside SC2. It IS the most competitive RTS, and arguably the only truly competitive RTS at the moment.

How has Relic not asked itself the simple question of "What keeps a game like SC alive for so long?"

SC2 and CoH are drastically different, but that was also what made CoH so successful. The play was different, the pace was different, and the tactical mindset that it required was different; all of which were stellar for the game, Relic, and the RTS community.

So, what happened?

Inadequate planning, lack of understanding of the RTS community, income streams, and years spent on projects that were meant to make quick money rather than foster a following...

Starcraft 2 is still (after 12 years) the worlds most competitive RTS and vast swaths of players continue to play it not because it offers something it didn't already offer in the past, but because it offers precisely what if offered in the past.

See, they understand that the only reason they can release expansions every 2 years into infinity is because the game is competitive. And they never even had to add a race!

Relic's mistaken assessment of the value of competition is only too apparent, and painful in many ways to a gamer who saw gold in the original.

I also agree that the game can and will develop positively.

I would also like to give Relic my money, but when i buy an RTS, it cant be helped that I, and others are judging the game alongside SC2. It IS the most competitive RTS, and arguably the only truly competitive RTS at the moment.

How has Relic not asked itself the simple question of "What keeps a game like SC alive for so long?"

SC2 and CoH are drastically different, but that was also what made CoH so successful. The play was different, the pace was different, and the tactical mindset that it required was different; all of which were stellar for the game, Relic, and the RTS community.

So, what happened?

Inadequate planning, lack of understanding of the RTS community, income streams, and years spent on projects that were meant to make quick money rather than foster a following...

Starcraft 2 is still (after 12 years) the worlds most competitive RTS and vast swaths of players continue to play it not because it offers something it didn't already offer in the past, but because it offers precisely what if offered in the past.

See, they understand that the only reason they can release expansions every 2 years into infinity is because the game is competitive. And they never even had to add a race!

Relic's mistaken assessment of the value of competition is only too apparent, and painful in many ways to a gamer who saw gold in the original.

Well, to be honest. What makes Starcraft is just the 8 years it existed before CoH.

Don't get me wrong, SC is a good game and i played it like a lot and still play SC2 from time to time.

At the time SC came out, there was not a huge amount of competitors and SCs fast gameplay and decent balanced made it popular and those competitive.

What people need to get is, that not the game itself is the reason it is competitive but the fame it has. There are a lot of players playing the game. Those you have a huge "casual" crowd that watches tournaments and stream, which leads to sponsors getting interested into top-players and tournaments to advertise their products.

That is all a cause of the "easy to learn, hard to master" gameplay of SC. Everyone can understand how things work quite easy and what unit does how much damage and has what life and what armor and so on.
CoH is not as friendly to beginners as SC and those it will not attract the amount of players that SC does. Also the competitive SC scene was established for about 6 years when CoH hit the field. Players are attracted by games that have a big competitive scene already.

For CoH2 to compete with SC2 in terms of competitive scene, there has to be a lot of things going wrong in SC2, no matter how good CoH2 is. That's just how it is.

Well, to be honest. What makes Starcraft is just the 8 years it existed before CoH.

Don't get me wrong, SC is a good game and i played it like a lot and still play SC2 from time to time.

At the time SC came out, there was not a huge amount of competitors and SCs fast gameplay and decent balanced made it popular and those competitive.

What people need to get is, that not the game itself is the reason it is competitive but the fame it has. There are a lot of players playing the game. Those you have a huge "casual" crowd that watches tournaments and stream, which leads to sponsors getting interested into top-players and tournaments to advertise their products.

That is all a cause of the "easy to learn, hard to master" gameplay of SC. Everyone can understand how things work quite easy and what unit does how much damage and has what life and what armor and so on.
CoH is not as friendly to beginners as SC and those it will not attract the amount of players that SC does. Also the competitive SC scene was established for about 6 years when CoH hit the field. Players are attracted by games that have a big competitive scene already.

For CoH2 to compete with SC2 in terms of competitive scene, there has to be a lot of things going wrong in SC2, no matter how good CoH2 is. That's just how it is.

You make a lot of good points. SC has a gigantic casual community to support a large viewership.

I would say though that there is something to be taken from the simplicity of the game and something more to be taken from how little they changed the base when introducing a "new" title.

I don't think CoH would ever be as popular as SC, but I also don't believe that mutes the point that a competitive scene, albiet a small one, is what keeps a game alive and Relic's choices have been anything but in line with the idea of fostering a healthy competitive community.