Relic wanted feedback for CoH1 vs CoH2

i would by the book

but yeah after dow 3 and the abysmal support of coh2,i dont have much faith in coh 3

Oh there will be a CoH3, most certainly after the failure of DOW3. The entire emphasize switch back to Company of Heroes after the failed launch of DOW3 is enough of an indicator that Relic is already looking forward.

Considering Relic's record of launching games with so much potential but always f*cking up this potential, makes me worry too.

The archives of this forum are a testament to the very questions that are being asked by Relic here.

I could write a book on this topic. But after the way Relic burned through its greatest community contributors without any consideration or remorse (like Tommy, 12azor, IpKai, etc.), why should I bother?

Bcs they deserve a second chance and you shouldn't stay in the past

It's called wisdom, Hooli. Most of the questions asked in the OP were answered specifically and in great detail back during the COH2 beta in these very forums. Marcus and I personally gathered and organized a group of top COH1 players and community contributors to provide feedback before the launch of COH2. Our private feedback forums are still there to see as a log of this interaction, and Relic can still access them.

Those of us that love the beauty of the core Company of Heroes design achievement saw time and time again how our feedback was ignored, how a flawed business model was prioritized over make-or-break gameplay issues. The COH2 commander system is a perfect example.

We've seen the incredible enthusiasm of these community members crushed as their interactions with Relic inevitably go south. We've seen Relic churn through "beta feedback groups" like chopped liver, opting to discard the current group if they don't like what they hear, only to be surprised that the next group has the exact same complaints.

I have written the following multiple times in the past. The following could've been written in 2013.

What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on

The original factions. Wehrmacht v Americans was (and still is) a well thought out, well designed, and well executed game matchup.

What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver

Veterancy. There's a lot of debate over CoH1 wehrmacht vet. In my opinion it was a critical component of the game's design. It is what really created the 'asymmetric warfare' that is often truncated to just 'asymmetry' and taken out of context. In CoH1 there were different goals of gameplay: Americans sought to deny Wehrmacht fuel and drain VPs. Wehrmacht sought to deny VPs and obtain fuel. Americans had the VP game, Wehrmacht had the fuel game. Killing american units gained Wehrmacht nothing (except resource advantage of course), but feeding american units veterancy was a risk. Likewise, though Americans often held the resource and map control advantage by default, they had to invest those resources carefully. The impact of BARs had a great deal to do with Wehrmacht fuel income: Will the BARs be met with grens and PAKs or with Pumas? Because afterall superior american resources didn't have to always mean faster/more vehicles or tanks.

With CoH2's resource and veterancy system being homogenized across all factions, this dynamic disappears. Everyone is equally competing for the same style of vet, and the value of resources and VPs are normalized. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is certainly a departure from something that CoH1 did very well.

Supply Yard, Kampfgruppe Center, BARs, demo unlock, sherman upgun, etc. Side upgrades, global upgrades, etc. These were more or less cut from CoH2, but they were crucial components to setting the pace and flow of the game. It is not so simple as just having upgrades for units, but more about providing players with meaningful investments that could make or break their strategy. A Wehrmacht player in CoH1 could easily overinvest in veterancy (in the wrong units even) and get overrun. An American player could dump fuel into fully upgrading their riflemen and be unable to handle a fast Puma. This is a very important aspect of gameplay that engages players beyond their level of micro.

Snipers. CoH1 had a problem with the effectiveness of multiple snipers. CoH2 managed to curtail the dominance of snipers through an entirely different approach. However, I think there could've been better routes of managing the issue. Squads hit by a sniper should be immune/missable by snipers for a few seconds. (I called the applied effect 'heads down!' in a mod once.) Multiple snipers firing on one squad would have diminishing returns of results. However, multiple snipers being microed to hit different squads would still be powerful. I think this is a better route that the popular 'reverse Zeal' of the community mods. The threat of snipers is their sight and damage output.

What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel (balance, commander design, campaign, etc.)

Faction and map design. The depth that the ORIGINAL factions had to compete with each other.
The kinds of resource points that maps were composed of were also much more flexible and dynamic in CoH1 than in CoH2. I struggle to see how maps in CoH2 can ever be improved without having at least the option for low, medium, and high resource points, strategic cutoffs with no resources, etc. Having to juggle custom maps AND mod tools to recreate CoH1 style maps is a little frustrating.

What you love about COH2 - its best features (campaign, faction design, TrueSight, commanders, etc.), whatever you feel they may be

The abandon mechanic. It was a really great idea and it may have worked well for CoH2, but in a lot of ways it just never panned out well. However, the abandon mechanic was the perfect prescription for a component of CoH1 gameplay: jeep and bike pushing. Had the abandoned critical been relegated to units like kubelwagens (or motorbikes, kettenkrads, jeeps, etc.), those light vehicles with unprotected, unarmored drivers, wouldn't be able to push units in cover around recklessly.

The vault mechanic. It's awesome and was a much needed mechanic. However its only caveat is that it was based entirely on executing an animation on an object, which requires a manual command. If there had been a way to have a 'vault-move' that automatically factors in vaults, or vaulting on retreat, it would've been perfect.

Truesight is great. However, like vaulting, there are a few things that have undermined the mechanic. It works great for objects like hedgerows and tall walls that tanks can crush. However, buildings (especially collapsed ones), certain trees, groves, and other uncrushable objects didn't quite utilize the mechanic very well. One of the first things I did when mod tools were released was to remove the sight blocking tag of a wide range of objects. It made many maps much more playable without sacrificing the truesight mechanic, which still applied wonderfully to hedgerows and tall walls. (Angoville, compared to Minsk Pocket, is the perfect case study for this.)

If you could, what you would cut from COH2

It's not that there are things from CoH2 that should be cut, it's more that there are many things that should not have been cut from CoH2. The business model that carried CoH2 through THQ's ultimate demise and SEGA's acquisition is a very real wound.

What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

There are a few Quality of Life type features to CoH2 that are nice, such as being able to reinforce all selected infantry squads at once.

Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short - where in your opinion is the untapped potential?

The untapped potential is everything...

Both games would benefit from being able to bind your own damned keys.

Bcs they deserve an Nth chance and you shouldn't stay in the past

?

if coh3 has no reconnect feature i will lose my cool

Another item that I wanted was to stay in the future - trophies, huge weapons that can be picked up (machine guns, grenad launchers, guns) and especially tanks. It's very cool and fun

It will all depend on the graphics and animation.

if it looks like DoW3 - RIP

1. Atmosphere. Coh1 is much more beautiful and atmosphere. Just compare mortar and 105-s shells explosions from coh1 to coh2. Coh1 looks like real war while coh2 looks like a cartoon. Also units voice - coh1 is much much better.
2. Units panel in right up corner, truesight, units micro features like vehile moving back and etc.
3. Map design / balance / commanders / tier 0-4 upgrades
4. Truesight / micro buttons / campaigns.
5. A. All useless commanders with repeated abilities from one to another. Coh2 needs less commanders (3-5) for each faction with much better commanders design and number of abilities.
B. Several bad designed maps.
6. Factions / campaigns - from coh 2. Atmosphere and general maps/commanders/factions balance - from coh1.

Coh1 has much better atmosphere, map/commanders/faction balance and also coh1 is much more competitive in 1v1. As for me I remember much great comebacks in coh1 rather than in coh2. I think the reason is in cammanders design and faction design and abilities. In coh1 probably all commanders have an opportunity to call in a good late game tanks without fuel. That fact leaves an opportunity to win for player who is back at early and middle game. Also less number of commanders with bigger number of abilities makes ppl think on new possible tactics and counter tactics. Coh2 is much friendly to learn to play but that leads to blobs and simple build orders and starts. My best coh game: coh1 atmosphere + coh2 units micro features + "average" commanders design (3-5 for each faction is enough with higher number of abilities and unique units/features) + better map design.

Suggestions for future game mechanics:
A) munitions for all units, that will decrease during the fight. For example, mg in a house has 2-4 belts. After munition is over you need to get you mg to base to reinforce the munition. Same thing for tanks. That just another game plane.
B) standard off map reinforcement for player who is loosing ( in 1v1, for example when Player has less then 50 VPs). That feature will provide more intrigue for late game. Generally it could look like as battle group ability from infantry commander in coh1.
C) units evaluation . For example your standard p4 should has its commander name and rank. going through clashes (from game to game) commander will achieve higher ranks and tank crew will get "acieves". That feature will not influence game mechanics but provide more enjoy for stat hunters. Received achieves could be placed as decals on tanks.
D) bigger number of playing modes with/without friends and opponents.

Thanks.

Coh2 succeeds based on better controllability and more refined game mechanics.

It horribly messed up how the factions are designed and the game plays out.


CoH1 still has:
- much better and more diverse veterancy systems (except brits)
- better faction design, with clearly defined playstyles. Coh2 is a mess of reworks and forgotten units/mechanics
- better resource system
- commander system that is meaningful and not weighed down by bloat

CoH2 has:
- units control better; reverse, better use of cover, better ai, units dont run around like headless chickens
- capping circles, vaulting, truesight. new mechanics that add depth
- less frustrating gameplay mechanics like perma cloak snipers, abilities that completely negate suppresion, and the pop cap system that made comebacks much harder


Really CoH2 has the gameplay about right. For CoH3 they just need to tweak things like garrisons. For the meat of the game they need to take cues from coh1 and come with a fully fleshed out commander system, well designed factions, and more emphasis on side techs and upgrades, besides just adding more units.

Hope they look into house combat as well

It's called wisdom, Hooli. Most of the questions asked in the OP were answered specifically and in great detail back during the COH2 beta in these very forums. Marcus and I personally gathered and organized a group of top COH1 players and community contributors to provide feedback before the launch of COH2. Our private feedback forums are still there to see as a log of this interaction, and Relic can still access them.

Those of us that love the beauty of the core Company of Heroes design achievement saw time and time again how our feedback was ignored, how a flawed business model was prioritized over make-or-break gameplay issues. The COH2 commander system is a perfect example.

We've seen the incredible enthusiasm of these community members crushed as their interactions with Relic inevitably go south. We've seen Relic churn through "beta feedback groups" like chopped liver, opting to discard the current group if they don't like what they hear, only to be surprised that the next group has the exact same complaints.

Maybe they learned from their mistake, out of conversations i had with multiple relic members i got the feeling they are going to act differently this time. I think there is a high chance that they will listen more. Especially given the fact that they recently started listening to feesback for patches for coh2. Lets give them a second chance and have a little bit of hope for ourselves, all though i can imagen this must be hard for you :/

I keep writing this post and it keeps getting deleted asking me to sign in.

TL;DR I love CoH1 and CoH2. Came back to CoH2 recently after about 400 hours when it came out.

This game is awful to play. There's just too much of everything at every level. CoH is about the intuitive low-level stuff. That's what got me into it. Positioning, resources, map control, line of sight, tanks are tanks, mgs are mgs, suppression.. all intuitive. Great.

So the high-level stuff needs to be radically simplified.

I don't want to do a Master's Degree... I want to play a game.

It's called wisdom, Hooli. Most of the questions asked in the OP were answered specifically and in great detail back during the COH2 beta in these very forums. Marcus and I personally gathered and organized a group of top COH1 players and community contributors to provide feedback before the launch of COH2. Our private feedback forums are still there to see as a log of this interaction, and Relic can still access them.

Those of us that love the beauty of the core Company of Heroes design achievement saw time and time again how our feedback was ignored, how a flawed business model was prioritized over make-or-break gameplay issues. The COH2 commander system is a perfect example.

We've seen the incredible enthusiasm of these community members crushed as their interactions with Relic inevitably go south. We've seen Relic churn through "beta feedback groups" like chopped liver, opting to discard the current group if they don't like what they hear, only to be surprised that the next group has the exact same complaints.

+1

I could write a book just about the mapping situation in COH franchise. I did write a summary before COH2 was released in an attempt to stem the flow of garbage maps (ladder map lists as well) and to try to help Relic understand what needs to happen with COH maps of the future https://www.coh2.org/guides/5478/worldbuilding-with-whiteflash and while small elements of Relic understood the problem, it never got prioritized, absorbed or implemented as it needed to, this issue still haunts us today in a lot of ways.

Another small post i wrote (which could have been massively expanded on) was the commander system. https://www.coh2.org/topic/11064/commander-overlap-a-serious-problem
If you read thru every page and see the mountains of support and lack of response from Relic youll get the point.

I love you Relic, I always will for COH1 and Homeworld. But its bittersweet.

I think there is some hope Relic learned what went wrong with COH3 and make a better game next time. There is very little to no hope that they will work with community to fix their game in a meaningful way after it releases. If COH3 comes out and you don't like it get the refund while you can, its not going to improve significantly over time. Nothing has with COH. Even when they eventually get some things right (like remove blizzards) its completely negated by the fact that they introduce new garbage ass factions.

It really is hilarious that this cycle has been repeating for over 4 years now where the old guard gets shit on by Relic, new blood comes along and think they are in tight with Relic and things will be better next time, realize the old timers were right, and so on. A huge chunk of the starting staffers here had interacted with Relic devs for over a year, whether it was organizing events, making the last patch, investigating cheating reports for them, and more. Then someone who has been on staff here for 3 months and has Kyle on their steam friends thinks they will become the new community liaison messiah and prove to Ami, Tommy, Sepha, Razor, Aimstrong, Marucs, etc. that they just didn't know what they were doing. I remember Ciez was one of the first people to say that the old school guys were assholes yada yada yada let me be the bridge...and now he is like 10 generations removed from the Relic inner circle at this point. Its futile people, when history repeats itself every 3-5 months for 4 years its time to take a fucking hint.

It must be said though that relic has MASSIVELY improved coh2 since release. So there may be hope.

It must be said though that relic has MASSIVELY improved coh2 since release. So there may be hope.

+1 it has been improved massively since release

The hope lies in their future actions. Talk. Is. Cheap.

Id love to work on COH again if it were worth doing, Relic acting as they were during the 2.602 COH1 patch would be ideal.

It will be up to Relic to make serious positive and intelligently managed decisions. If they focus on the wrong things again it may well be the end of the COH franchise, if they make the right decisions we might see a COH game that rivals any Esports game out there and COH will be more popular than it ever has been. Its in their hands.

Preamble
This post contains a little criticism, praise of CoH-spirit awesomeness and a suggestion for added revenue.

But before I start: I don't mean to push Relic away or be un-civil, but we simply have to address the elephant in the room if we are to present honest, constructive criticism; the single biggest issue with CoH2 was the business model. I am not a prude or entitled (e.g. I don't mind Paradox's business model, I do want companies to make money on me from good products and continued game-support) but Commanders in CoH2 completely broke my heart and trust.

I will take a good, hard look at CoH3, but I cannot buy before I have a good idea of what it is. If it looks like another micro-DLC platform that messes with multiplayer, I will be all over every board ever indexed by Google, presenting arguments on why not to buy that game.

If Relic makes another tight game in the spirit of vCoH, the opposite is also true, of course. I am not saying this to "threaten" Relic, that would be pathetic. I'm simply trying to say aloud, that for many of us, the CoH franchise is fiercely a love/hate relationship. Fiercely.

I love this franchise and put my money where my mouth is, but I have become an angry, tight-pursed man

People I've read and agreed the most with
Imperial Dane (never thought I'd say that) #40
Highfiveeeee
ZombiFrancis

What you loved about COH1 that COH2 didn't quite deliver on
- CoH2 took away tech-choices and strategy, leaving only tactics. The system where most resource-points give every resource, takes away the ability to choke your opponent. Controlling certain areas of the map has become less important than just having a big percentage of the map. That's not very interesting and it doesn't force players to make long term choices and set goals.
Having some resource points and supply connections is much more interesting.
- Investments (BARs, SY upgrades, Wehrmacht veterancy - just read Inverse's posts, he's way smarter than me).
- Vertical UI, not horizontal.

What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did not deliver
- Introduce close quarters combat (bayonets and shovels, helmet-bashing, earbiting - you name it). Don't make it OP, silly or game-changing, just have it there. Don't have the soldiers stand 2 yards from each other aiming and firing. You can do better - we can have more fun.
- Fortifying houses and house-clearing combat.
- Make soldiers with AT use their rifles and pull out their AT when they need it. Rocket-infantry is just sooo Dune 2.
- Removal of emplacement-factions.

What you love about COH1 - Where did it excel
- The best part was Riflemen vs. HMGs - suppression, cover and flanks. Punishing blobs and rewarding flanks is what I want the most out of this franchise (and what makes the gameplay itself downright beautiful). Please do not give any infantry a counter-suppression or almost-free suppression-resistance ability. Embrace the CoH franchise core mechanics, don't negate them.
- The infantry/car to armoured vehicle to real tank ladder was awesome.
The introduction of too many un-armoured vehicles (e.g. with Panzer Elite) was IMO a mistake and a disappointing lack of trust in your own product and game mechanics.

What you love about COH2 - its best features
All the new technology: truesight, disbanded vehicles, capping areas, reverse-button and handbrakes, vaulting, units rolling in from off-map. Maybe not heavy snow or mud in multiplayer though

If you could, what you would cut from COH2
- Commanders (multiplayer micro-DLCs of any kind)
- Commanders (multiplayer micro-DLCs of any kind, whatsoever)
- Commanders (no really, I mean it; multiplayer micro-DLCs of any kind)
- Vehicles infantry can shoot from (this was true for the CoH1 'Roo too, technically). It is stupid, has never happened in real life and is very hard to balance. At the very least, limit it to the vehicle standing still.

What would you want to carry forward from COH2
- its best features?

Where possibly both COH1 or COH2 fell short
- You@relic are not proud enough of your core mechanics; suppression, armour that goes "pling!", firing-cones, cover-types, retreat and replenish, resource-sectors etc. They are not annoying constraints, they are mana from heaven.
- Make it so the clearly better player can win somewhat early, but equal players can play a long match. If you want a death-match, please don't arm the combatants with pillows.
- I know CoH was made as an alternative to Starcraft's mathematical-BO basement-dwelling life-choking E-sports nerd-mentality, but maybe embrace what a superior product you have here. You've taken away the hardcore mathematical BOs and introduced a decision-based RTS with RNG mitigation. That's awesome!! Embrace it or work on a different game. CoH is INCREDIBLY audience-friendly; cultivate it and combine it with leaderboards and tournaments.
- Build fun, high quality, story-drive single-player campaigns and a modding community around it.
How much money would you make, if you had a series with heroes like Sgt. Rock (I seem to remember others called BIG and Yankee, but I can't find them on teh interwebs), where some of the money could be donated to tournaments if the p(l)ayer so chose (having two different products on steam with the same content, paying 1 extra $ for 2 donated to the next tourney)? Combine them with in-game comics for story-telling rather than boring briefings. Get that hype going! Have fun with propaganda from all factions. Be edgy.
- A better system for patches. Again, I believe Inverse had a suggestion some time back.
- Both games had call-in meta's which made players unhappy.
- Please remove all one-hit squad-wipers. In a game all about unit preservation, it looks disingenuous.

Your favorite way to play either game
- I played all modes, but by far enjoy 1v1 the most - both as audience and as a player.

Random Suggestions
- Be very, very open about your business model for CoH3. Make us want to support your efforts for a healthy multiplayer community. Be open about not supporting efforts which does not make you money; we are not stupid (well, with a few exceptions of course).
- From the players' perspective, CoH is NOT a WWII-history inspired franchise - it is a movie-and-comics-inspired franchise.
CoH2 took a really wrong turn when it wanted to be a history-lesson. Whenever the German commanders start talking, be it single-player briefing or in-game announcements, I wonder why nobody in the CoH2-production tried to protect this game. Every time they talk, it's like a bad dream where my GF suddenly has a penis. Please don't.
I get my WWII history fixes elsewhere. CoH lends itself to thrills; again, please embrace your own awesomeness. I know it is not easy to go back on a choice you've made in the past, but I'm convinced this issue is make or break.
- Bonus Info: Canadian or US citizens probably haven't heard German dubbing of movies, but many European kids grew up with John Wayne saying "Hände hoch!" on certain TV-channels. In CoH1, German soldiers sounded like that and it was so awesome and nostalgic. Perhaps try for that again? There must be a big pool of high-quality voice-actor material to choose from.
- My suggestion for a simple gameplay rules-of-thumb;
--Have one faction defensive and one faction aggressive in the early-game (infantry, flanks vs. MGs and such).
--Have one faction aggressive with a better (or aggression-rewarded) anti-infantry vehicle and another defensive with better anti-vehicle weapons in the mid-game. Or something like that.
--Don't have a pre-set aggressive-defensive tank-gameplay for the late-game.
It should be possible to have 4 factions that adhere to these basic rules. From that, the players should be able to develop their own metas.
- Consider only allowing one faction per side in leaderboard multiplayer (2v2+). It would be so much easier to balance.

Every time they talk, it's like a bad dream where my GF suddenly has a penis. Please don't.

This man speaks words of wisdom.

I also liked the visual vehicle damage they had in the Alpha and the more in depth vehicle damage possibilities.