Relic wanted feedback for CoH1 vs CoH2

Company of Heroes Online 2.0, with better balance, and also free if possible.

The original COHO was about to become the next LoL for the RTS Genre, with the way player figures went and how well received it was. It was a shame THQ went bankrupt before it could be continued.

I want the design of COH1 with gameplay of COH2(except target tables, fuck them). With vaulting and true sight included. Make snipers like COH2 and not COH1.

EDIT: COHO2 would actually be a great idea if they want to do COH3. (Just no hero units please)

Lets all agree that vcoh >>>>> coh2 campaign wise

my two cents:

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

Voice Acting, gritty look and feel, campaign

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

True sight, unit shields in the top right corner, obs mode

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

commander design way better, DLC business model, campaign, performance

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

let's just go to the next one because I like everything apart from...

If you could, what you would cut from COH2

the DLC business model, Bulletins, CALLINS way more efficient vs Teching, bad design like Tiger ace (balance?), noob friendly abilities like demo charges and 1click abilities that wipe stuff and vet 5 system. Lack of variety for the Western Front Armies, bad faction design (reused stuff in OKW from OST), bad RNG (abandon feature), penetration & bounces up close

What would you wnat to carry forward from COH2

everything apart from ^

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

Esports, Specmode and Lan from the get go, build for a competitive enviroment while still keeping the the core fun gameplay, factions being able to deal with every sort of situation (anti garrison, indirect fire) -> no faction should be at a disatvantage because of a certain map or a certain timestamp in the middle of a game (e.g. vet 5 vs maxed out vet 3 squads).

We'd also love to hear what your favorite way to play either game is. Do you play mainly team games, competitive 1v1, competitively or casually, comp stomps, modded games, etc.?

campaign and teamgames + compstomps to get into the right mood and athmosphere, and then competitive 1v1 und 2v2 mainly

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

Most of what needed to be said has been said; the poor changes to resource points, the unnecessary population limit, lack of side tech, poor doctrine design etc.

However, something I feel is definitely worth mentioning, and really gets to the heart of the matter, is the level of strategic depth of Coh1 vs coh2. See, Coh1 was just a more complex strategy game with less margin for error. Cut-off play was a massive part of the strategy in Coh1, the humble strategic point served as a major tactical contention zone, focusing the carnage of the early-mid game. It was slashed in coh2, mainly due to the changes to resource points. Whereas in coh1 you had to be connected to munitions and fuel points in order to get munitions and fuel, in coh2 all points gave a resource of one kind or another. This made cut-offs not as big a deal, as you were still at least getting some resources from your connected points. Games that really should have ended when players messed up in the first engagement are prolonged because of it. This is compounded by call-in meta, which simply shouldn’t exist. I like come backs as much as the next guy, but please make call-ins require tech. No one wants to feel that they won solely because of a gimic strategy.

One of the other big problems of coh2 was that not all factions had access to the essentials. All factions should have access to building clearing, smoke, mortars etc. There’s no shame in making a faction less unique if it means that they actually play well and have strategic depth. It makes them easier to balance as well, which taxes your support for the game less in the long run.

But never let it be underestimated how important those side tech options were either. When playing US in Coh1 you actually had to think really hard about where to invest you fuel. It’s not like in Coh2 where the only real decision is what vehicle you want to buy, in coh1 you had to decide between side tech, supply yard upgrades, regular tech and vehicles. It was the same with PE and Wehr, it made for much richer gameplay and strategy.

And finally, obviously doctrines need to return to their old ways. Its not that I had so much of an issue with Micro transactions, or repetition, but the linearity and the blandness of the commanders is the really shortfall. The commanders didn’t encompass a central idea like they did in coh1. When you were playing defensive in Coh1, your strategy was fundamentally different from when you were playing terror or blitzkrieg. In coh2, you merely pick commanders because they have the best abilities, with no strategy in mind. One of the biggest improvements Coh3 could make over coh2 would be to include well thought out commanders, that integrate well into the core faction.

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

Well firstly, bringing back the PE would be awesome. Here are some ideas I created for going about doing that: https://www.coh2.org/topic/58911/ideas-for-the-missing-6th-faction

Some of the doctrines in this really highlight the level of thought and integration that needs to go into commanders.

Having said this, I think really the most sensible way of improving the coh formula would be taking another look at the weather dynamics. Cold Tech wasn’t a bad idea, it just wasn’t implemented very well. There were two reasons for this:

1.The Impacts of weather were game changing, far too severe.

You need to moderate how much of an impact weather should have on the game. Units dying on retreat because of freezing to death was frustratingly annoying as the player really could do very little about it. The reductions to line of sight were excessive and slowed down gameplay. The fact that there was very little warning either and the effects didn't come into play moderately. How much better would it have been if LOS was reduced gradually and stayed at its worst for a few seconds before gradually getting better again. Likewise for the other effects.

2.There were not enough ways for players to adapt to the weather and mitigate its effects.

Being able to build bonfires, jump into buildings/halftracks and hide in green cover was simply not enough. What you could have done, taking Soviets as an example, would be to introduce a side-tech in the HQ called ‘Improved Logistics’. For a manpower and fuel cost, it unlocks squad upgrades that improve the squad’s effectiveness in snowy conditions. Squad upgrade examples include:

‘Winter Boots’ - which allows squads to move at normal speed when walking through deep snow (20 munitions)

‘Winter Coats’ – increases the length of time it takes for units to freeze by 100% (50 munitions)

‘Improved awareness’ – eliminates LOS penalty during blizzards (35 munitions)

This is just an example. Crucially upgrades like this give players the option of mitigating the effects of weather, but at the cost of resources. This adds another level to the strategy of the game, as players must decide whether they should wait out the storm and capitalize on the break in the weather using the resources they saved, or should they use the weather to their advantage, investing in the winter upgrades to get the upper hand for the time being. It would add another layer to their strategy.

Another way Coh could improve would be by taking night and day into account. I’ve only ever come across one game that has attempted this, Panzers Phase 2. It didn’t really do it very well, but Coh could implement it far better. Much the same way that Cold Tech works, players would have the choice of investing in upgrades that augment their armies at night. Headlights on tanks and vehicles for a munitions cost, which increase their line of sight, but the headlights can be seen through fog of war. These headlights can be turned off and on for a cheeky flank or ambush. Flare gun side tech options for infantry squads. Spot light emplacements. Search lights upgrades for Halftracks. Artillery flares. The list really goes on. Again, players have to decide to either wait out the night, ignoring the night time upgrades, or use the night to their advantage in order to get the upper hand. It would increase the strategic depth of the game. You could even go as far as to create commanders specifically designed for being used at night.

The bottom line

Everything I mentioned above is important but I think the most important thing or relic to bear in mind when creating coh3 is not to diverge too far away from the originals. Stay ww2. Stay away from the pacific. Keep all the core mechanics. Keep the art style, the sound style, the gameplay. Just perfect what Coh1 and Coh2 got right. That’s all you would need to do to make a great coh. Focus on the small details of the sound effects, the UI, the faction design, the commander design. Don’t try invest in this new fancy game feature that sucks up a lot of resources and is at risk of being hated. Perfect cold tech and night time mechanics, perhaps enter Africa, but other than that don’t go too crazy.

If they want to make a COH3, I would like it that they make co-op modes like in StarCraft 2. Gives non-comp players something to do and helps maintain the playerbase(co-op players are more than competitive ladder players combined)

More emphasis on 2v2s or team gameplay in general. 1v1 shouldn't HAVE to dictate the direction of the game for all modes

More emphasis on 2v2s or team gameplay in general. 1v1 shouldn't HAVE to dictate the direction of the game for all modes

There is a big business argument for balancing around 3v3 and 4v4. Even with a game balanced for 1v1 there are far more player hours on the larger team formats. We are no longer in 2005 and since then not only has the competitive gaming industry grown, but it is now focused on team games.

Lets all agree that vcoh >>>>> coh2 campaign wise

meh i like that campaign, u kill both germans and soviets so im realy enjoy that lel

There is a big business argument for balancing around 3v3 and 4v4. Even with a game balanced for 1v1 there are far more player hours on the larger team formats. We are no longer in 2005 and since then not only has the competitive gaming industry grown, but it is now focused on team games.

Might be worth noting that for that to be the case, the game has to be DESIGNED with those modes in sight. The current resource system (number of strategic points and number of resource types) and winning conditions (mostly 3 VPs) in conjunction with plenty of more other elements (map size, unit speed and transportation, combat pacing, retreat distances, resource/tech speed/timing, popcap, etc.) makes the big team game focus "impossible" at the moment.

You will have to scrap out what you associate COH with, in order to accommodate for a game design with those modes. There was some intention with some map specifics capture resources (healing/repair stations, retreat/reinforce/call in point, vision, etc.) but it felt they didn't work too much on it.

2v2 has always been fine, IMO, unless you take into account specific imba units (which are also in 1v1). Biggest problem has been maps, specially ones which are focused to be part of 1v1/3v3 but then they are also included on the 2v2 rotation.

Are you sure you don't mean what a tiny fraction of players who call themselves the community think is important?

There seems to be a vibe that their business model should be:

1) Make 1v1 perfect
2) Appeal to competitive players
3) Magic
4) Sell loads of games
5) Swim in dosh

That's the impression I get on these types of forums. Maybe I'm wrong. But it's a self perpetuating fantasy.

People watch eSports because they play the games, they don't play games because someone plays eSports. eSports are just reinforcement. Brand awareness. eSports makes literally no sense to someone who doesn't own the game.

As far as I'm aware the game box definitely lists 8 player games as a feature. And people want to play big games. They don't want to play creepy 1v1s with randoms. They want to play with their friends in bigger games. The culture of turning noses up at what most players want to do is just that... culture. And that's going to have to change if the game is going to be popular and for Relic to have any reason to care about it's development long-term.

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

The campaign, some voice acting, commander system.

?Relic:What could be improved on COH1 that COH2 did and did not deliver.

This is a really confusing sentence; I'll assume you are asking "what could be improved on in COH1 that was not addressed in COH2"

Customization hotkeys, dual monitor support, general optimization of the game, customization of UI, rewind in replays, balance for larger team games, state of balance/number of bugs at release, piss poor patching process (frequency, quality of patches, the shear number of bugs reintroduced patch after patch).

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

The campaign, sound design, fluid tactical game play.

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

True sight, sound design, capture points, AA single player campaign, unit icons in the upper right corner, reverse button for vehicles, vaulting, unit skins, leaderboards, observation mode, sniper play.

?Relic: If you could, what you would cut from COH2

Dominance of indirect fire, stagnant game play.

?Relic:What would you want to carry forward from COH2

Pretty much everything outside of the points mentioned above. Additionally, I would want to keep the profanity filter.

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

Automatch for mods and customized games, CO-OP games, theater of war, E-sports, balance for larger team games

?Relic:We'd also love to hear what your favorite way to play either game is. Do you play mainly team games, competitive 1v1, competitively or casually, comp stomps, modded games, etc.?

Team games, casual.

That's the impression I get on these types of forums. Maybe I'm wrong. But it's a self perpetuating fantasy.

IMO: it all depends on how the game is designed. If it's meant to be a 4v4+ game with an artificial 1v1 slap into it or the other way round... That's up to Relic. In the case of the current CoH model, you could give those modes other incentives rather than sheer 1v1 unit balance.

People watch eSports because they play the games, they don't play games because someone plays eSports. eSports are just reinforcement. Brand awareness. eSports makes literally no sense to someone who doesn't own the game.

Not necessarily true. I followed SC2 for quite some time before buying the game. Drop it before 2nd expansion but still followed the scene. I don't have CS but from time to time i look at tournaments. Occasionally i look at other games such as fighting games or other FPS.
In a similar way to real sports, you don't need to practice it to enjoy watching it.

As far as I'm aware the game box definitely lists 8 player games as a feature. And people want to play big games. They don't want to play creepy 1v1s with randoms. They want to play with their friends in bigger games. The culture of turning noses up at what most players want to do is just that... culture. And that's going to have to change if the game is going to be popular and for Relic to have any reason to care about it's development long-term.

1-Golden age of the RTS genre has long gone. Most people who tend to play previously RTS have gravitate towards MOBAs.

2-Check any other RTS game released and look at the numbers. Not just copies sold but number of people playing. The only ones which have a decent pop are SC2, AoE and CoH. Trying to re-invent the wheel is not gonna make the game to magically sell (see execution with DoW3). In fact we are seeing more and more "remastered" versions which are selling greatly (AoE2 and now the incoming SC1). If EA didn't kill WestWood we could had seen probably some kind of CnC game.

3-Teamgames modes has to be enjoyable first, balanced second, cause you can't really balance it. Seeing that Blizzard really hit it with it's CoOP mode, i would say they should aim for this if they want to catter to the masses.

I get asked this a lot when I stream, and recent shoutbox conversations have prompted me to sit down and flesh out what exactly I find lacking in the game, and why. I don't bash CoH2 for the sake of bashing it; I've played Company of Heroes for over 5 years, I participated in the CoH2 alpha, beta, and two playtests at Relic's offices. I've talked to developers, engaged in discussions with other top players. I've put a hell of a lot of time into CoH and CoH2 because I want the game to be amazing. But despite all that, I still find it lacking. This is why.

The biggest thing missing for me in CoH2 is the potential for strategic depth. If you compare vCoH to CoH2 strategically, a lot of it is extremely similar. Both games have factions with four tiers and similar progression through those tiers. The Soviets have to build T1 or T2 before they can build T3/T4, just like the Americans. The Ostheer need to upgrade their HQ in order to build subsequent tiers, just like Wehrmacht. In terms of straight tech progression, both games are extremely alike.

The big difference, however, comes from global upgrades. Upgrades are interesting because they provide another entirely different layer of strategic depth to a game. When your game has upgrades, you give your players a lot of choices to make.

Let's generalize things and say you have two infantry units on the field right now. Each infantry unit costs as much as an upgrade for those infantry units that can greatly increase the strength of all infantry units on the field. Therefore, when you have enough money to build another infantry unit, you also have enough money to upgrade your infantry. However, the upgrade takes a long time to complete, and it means you sacrifice an infantry unit in order to complete it.

In this situation, you as the player have to make a decision. In this instance, it's rather simplistic; it's a binary decision between building a unit and purchasing an upgrade. If you build the unit, your on-field presence will be greater now but diminished in the future. Why? Because you've invested in a unit that gives you function and utility now, at the expense of investing in future tech (the upgrade) that will make your infantry stronger as the game progresses. Alternatively, if you purchase the upgrade, your on-field presence will be weaker now but stronger in the future, because while the upgrade is completing you will have less actual units on the field to do stuff with.

When you apply this scenario to an actual game, you can fairly clearly see how each decision can have serious implications. If you build the unit and your opponent attacks you right away, that unit pays off immensely because it gives you additional firepower against the attack that you would not have had otherwise. If you build the unit and your opponent techs instead, however, you need to get some use out of the unit (by gaining map control or attacking your opponent yourself) because your opponent is going to be ahead in tech. Conversely, if you purchase the upgrade and your opponent attacks, you will have less units available to defend and could be overrun. If your opponent doesn't attack, however, you've managed to get away with your tech unpunished, and will have superior infantry later on in the game.

Furthermore, you're never presented with a simple binary choice. There are numerous upgrades that you have to prioritize, balancing those against building units and making sure you have what you need to fend off your enemy's aggression. The more upgrades that are available, the more choices you have to make, and the more difficult it becomes to successfully balance the two facets of the game. It becomes exponentially more difficult to execute successfully, and it gives players a far wider array of viable options.

You can also base timing attacks on upgrades, since the strongest you as a player are at any point in the game is the moment right after a major upgrade or tech advancement completes. That is the moment you want to attack, because it gives your opponent the least amount of time possible to complete his own tech or field additional units.

This is the main difference between vCoH and CoH2 in my mind, and the main reason why I don't find CoH2 to be all that interesting a strategy game. In CoH2, you still have to make these decisions to a certain extent. You have to decide between building units out of your current tier or investing time and money into another tier in the hopes that your opponent either won't attack you until that next tier is built or won't have the units necessary to overrun you before the next tier comes online. But that's pretty much where the similarities end. There is a distinct lack of global upgrades in CoH2, and global upgrades are the real catalysts of this important strategic decision-making. There's no purchasable veterancy, no expensive rifle upgrades (only extremely cheap and quick conscript upgrades), no supply yard upgrades, nothing significant and expensive that can be purchased over more units or another tech building. It makes the game feel extremely linear to me. You build a tech building, then build a certain amount of units from that building, then build the next tech building, and so on.

Relic seems interested in mitigating this to a certain extent with purchasable commanders. The recently added commander that allows for a version of purchasable veterancy is one that comes to mind immediately. This is, in my opinion, a poor way to fix problems that exist in the core game. I shouldn't have to pay money in order to have access to general strategic options, or in order to fix deficiencies in the game I already paid full price for.

This is my biggest issue with CoH2. Again, it is my opinion, and I am hopeful that future expansions and content releases will be able to fix the issues I described above. But in its current state, this is what I mean when I say CoH2 lacks elements of strategy that were present in vCoH. I'm not saying CoH2 has no strategy, or takes no skill, or any nonsense like that. I just think it is a simplified take on a game that did a remarkable job of striking a balance between the importance of strategic decision-making and the impact of tactical plays. That balance, I feel, does not exist in CoH2.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/12973/strategy-in-company-of-heroes-2

https://www.coh2.org/topic/12973/strategy-in-company-of-heroes-2

And it's all just as true and accurate as it was three and a half years ago, despite everything that has happened since.

And it's all just as true and accurate as it was three and a half years ago, despite everything that has happened since.

3 new factions have dropped since, still with few global upgrades. relic pls

The Inverse post has some very good pieces, but it is a little bit dated relative to the many changes, including the expansions which do have at least some global upgrades and the limited number of commanders released for newer armies. If you haven't read it though I do recommend it, very good stuff. Global upgrades should be the starting point for COH3.

The inability to make COH2 feel like a gritty WWII battle is what made COH1 always better for me. No matter how many times I played COH1 I always felt like it was a real battle unfolding. COH2 misses that with its gimmicky play and nod to campaign units with the inclusion of everything and the kitchen sink. COH is best when players are executing well timed flanks and complex battles, and worse when tanks/arty are one shotting units beyond visible range.

Flexibility in factions is also missing from COH2, even in later factions, like the Brits. Factions should always have basic infantry, flames/sweepers, suppression platforms, and indirect fire, and these should be available early. These units should always obey the COH style of play, mobile with vet as a reward, and never be most effective when ignored. Mines should come with every faction, but might be different within a faction. Off map strikes that track units should be avoided, and gimmicky wipe mechanics never designed.

I would like to see a COH3 launch with 4 factions: a defensive German, an offensive mechanized German, a flexible Allied, and an offensive Allied faction.

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.

So that's why Ciez and some guys vanished lol

It all makes sense now.

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?

AMEN BROTHER!!!!

Despite community manager kyle and other Relic employees coming to San Fran for GDC & other business, we've never talked about balanced or how to make an esports scene. Despite myself being one of coh2's top players and streamers, we've never talked. Despite my decade worth of experience in esports, including a specialty in rts esports scenes, we've never talked.

Relic knows best and asking randos on their official forums (since we all know everyone hangs out there and not coh2org) will obviously give them better advice than coh2's top tier players and community members. You'd think they would be humbled from DoW3's flop but alas. Relic would be wise to heed what philosopher Lamar once said, "bitch sit down, be humble."

The biggest sin is Relic is asking what the community thinks. A true visionary TELLS you what to think. However when you can't get basic balanced right, does it really matter if you have a visionary vision.

Are you sure you don't mean what a tiny fraction of players who call themselves the community think is important?

There seems to be a vibe that their business model should be:

1) Make 1v1 perfect
2) Appeal to competitive players
3) Magic
4) Sell loads of games
5) Swim in dosh

That's the impression I get on these types of forums. Maybe I'm wrong. But it's a self perpetuating fantasy.

People watch eSports because they play the games, they don't play games because someone plays eSports. eSports are just reinforcement. Brand awareness. eSports makes literally no sense to someone who doesn't own the game.

As far as I'm aware the game box definitely lists 8 player games as a feature. And people want to play big games. They don't want to play creepy 1v1s with randoms. They want to play with their friends in bigger games. The culture of turning noses up at what most players want to do is just that... culture. And that's going to have to change if the game is going to be popular and for Relic to have any reason to care about it's development long-term.

I don't want to be mean but you're wrong. Look at the top games, LoL, CSGO, Overwatch, ect, they all have thriving esports scenes. In regards to RTS, SC2 is the king with a healthy esports scene. Simply put there is a direct correlation between size of esports scene and size of profits. Last time i checked these games are real and not some "fantasy"

If people only watch games they play, I didn't know there are sooo many soccer, football, and basketball players out there. While there is a burden of knowledge to understanding a game, visually a random viewer can understand the basics. In regards to coh2, you have army men and tanks shooting at each other. Not too complex.

Lastly if we use SC1 & SC2 as a case study, you can appeal to the masses while also having a highly compepetive esports scene. The main reason why SC2 had problems with their casual scene is because they gutted custom games & mods. Even still SC2 is kicking COH2's ass. It ain't even a comparison. Back to CoH2, it is very easy to get a 4v4 casual game going so there is 0 reason why creating a balance esport game would kill or hurt the 4v4s. The balance from 1v1s would trickle down, creating an overall balanced game.