Coh1 and Coh2 - The good, the bad and the ugly

CoH 1 felt more refined in the animation department. German SMGs actually had proper magazine movement while reloading and facial animations were a thing.

For example: Those SMG animations Relic added with The British Forces are horrendous. They are completely broken on sprinting units in combat.

Example #1:
Show Spoiler

Example #2:
Show Spoiler

CoH 1 felt more refined in the animation department. German SMGs actually had proper magazine movement while reloading and facial animations were a thing.

For example: Those SMG animations Relic added with The British Forces are horrendous. They are completely broken on sprinting units in combat.

Example #1:
Show Spoiler

Example #2:
Show Spoiler

Ahahaha, it is really bad novation. Have Relic save previous animations in the gamefiles? I believe it possible to change them.

P.S. May the force be with this german soldier with StG 44

CoH1 had far better doctrine design. The five-ability doctrines of CoH2 combined with call-in dominance means both that there is less room for interesting abilities like Radio Triangulation or Allied War Machine and that the latter would be extremely overpowered. CoH1 also had far better side upgrades choices.

CoH2 has significantly better mechanics in general. CoH1 had an excessive reliance on target tables, different health values for infantry, and different infantry damage types which made it extremely opaque and difficult to learn. Adding to this, while faction design in CoH2 could certainly be improved it is far above the nadir of CoH1 Brits.

Veterancy was a complete mess in CoH1. Kills-based veterancy heavily privileges powerful units over less powerful ones because they give less veterancy to the enemy, are more likely to get the last hit, and are easier to preserve. It also meant that support units rarely earned veterancy. While CoH2 doesn't entirely fix this (engineers should get disarm/mine damage xp!) moving to a damage-based system meant that units gain veterancy with regard to how useful they are, not how dangerous.

The non-traditional veterancy systems didn't work well either. Wehrmacht purchased veterancy devalued unit preservation and helped enable Zombie Grens while being relatively underpowered next to the veterancy of other factions. Panzer Elite veterancy heavily rewarded players for blobbing and the offensive/defensive choices often had clear answers while British veterancy required blobbing, was purchased to an extent, and was far too easily punished.

In my opinion, this is what CoH1's USA and Wehrmacht factions did well:

First, the factions had important underlying similarities

• both had access to front line infantry who could be upgraded in various ways (veterancy, bars, MP40, LMG42, etc.)
  
• both had access to MG teams, mortars, snipers, AT guns, medium tanks, tank destroyers, anti-infantry tanks, light vehicles
  
• both had engineers who could plant mines, sand bags, tank traps,barbed wire, MG nests, medic stations
  
• both had access to various artillery options, both units and off map abilities
  
• both had call in units
  

Secondly, even though there were many similar qualities shared between the factions, there were also many differences which is what made the game fun and unique:

• Infantry were better at different ranges, and capped at different speeds
  
• MG teams had different DPS, range, arcs, abilities
  
• Veterancy was obtained in two different ways, and Wehrmacht's focused on defensive upgrades and USA's on offensive
  
• Although they had units with similar roles, the units were vastly different (ostwind vs croc, M10s being fast, cheap, weak, vs panthers who were slower, stronger, healthier, and cost exactly 2x more)
  
• The differences of the factions played well with the factions strengths and weaknesses - Wehrmacht's factions helped its already potent late game, and helped stay alive early game (zeal, for the fatherland, propoganda war, bunker reinforce, etc), while USA's abilities often helped it counter this (strong artillery, strong early game support units)
  

I also feel that CoH1's call in mechanics were better for the following reasons:

• the cost only manpower, thus allowing the units to be integrated into strategies, rather than defining them (i.e., by replacing the need to tech)
  
• CoH1's call in units had strengths but obvious weaknesses that made using them a trade off, more so than say spamming M4C shermans
  

Some of these differences are:

• StuH: strong anti infantry tank, but it's relatively slow, no turret, and dies quickly to AT guns. It's also expensive (500 mp), forcing players to often continually play defensively as they sacrifice MP on the StuH rather than teching or purchasing more infantry units.
  
• Stormtroopers: in many ways a replacement for the grenadier. However, it is more expensive to buy, feeds more veterancy when it drops models, and costs TWICE as much population (8 population), which combined with CoH1's population system is a big deal
  
• Late game call ins: were potent, but important were expensive, and would always COMPLIMENT any strategy. Often in CoH2 these late game tanks must be carefully saved for in advance, sacrificing teching and late game units.
  

I think what CoH1 did better is that the call in units (specifically tanks) were specialized units. The StuH and Hetzers had 1 role, and no turrets. Many of the previously broken CoH2 call ins are all purpose units, like M4C, T34/85, or EZ8 shermans. In CoH2, I have seen many games where Soviets depend on M4C to win the game because the unit is so strong - in CoH1 however, a StuH is merely a support unit. Sure, it can win some games outright, but these are games that have already been won. While CoH2s units often allow players to skip tech entirely (why build T4 when you can spam call in EZ8s (I know this was fixed, just making a point)), where as in CoH1 the logic is more like: I will get a StuH so I can skip T3 and Pumas and go for more vet or T4. I will get a Hetzer to skip marder tech to get more infantry upgrades or panthers. The call in units fill the roles of units already in the tech of the army, but in different ways, allowing for the player to focus on different tech. In CoH2, the call ins define the tech, and replace the need for it.

Infantry call ins are too very situational and supportive, and spamming them is a no-no. Rangers are often a panic unit - if the enemy gets a Puma you may have to get rangers if you can't access AT. However, rangers are so expensive to reinforce, and can get out microed, that they are very situational, and therefore often rare. Same points apply to Airborne and Stormtroopers - the squads fill gaps in army composition to buy time for more teching possibilites. Compares this to CoH2, where units like Guards are so potent against all unit types that making several of them in any game is often a no-brainer. This unit doesn't compliment the army composition as much as it defines it. There are no inherent draw backs to them like high reinforcement cost or the like, and getting many of them allows for more aggressive play. The unit.

I think heavy tanks costing only manpower is good too. You can fit them into any late game composition. Important though, these tanks are slower than their CoH2 counterparts, and less lethal. In CoH2, a King Tiger often wipes 6 man squads, but this is unheard of in CoH1. Simply toning down the speed and lethal capabilities of these tanks allows them to be fuel-free in my opinion.

What CoH1 did well also: doctrine systems - highly different, highly complimentary to the armies, unique, and require decision making since they're non-linear.

The one thing I find CoH to be superior in was its engine. CoH2 engine is just so bad.

As it has become clear that Relic is thinking about COH3, i wanted to have a discussion about the good and the bad in both vcoh and coh2. It should not be about which game is better or about the details in balance, but about the broader picture. So please keep it civilized and don't derail it

My personal list is as follows:

Coh1 did better:
-strategic diversity
-vet only from kills
-more variety in vet (bought, shared, only on officer,…)
-ressource/territory system (small/middle/large mun and fuel, territory points not giving ressources)
-no abandoning
-sound of explosions & arty
-commander system (although a higher number (like 6 or 7) would be good)
-many global upgrades
-better house-counters
-input lag
-performance&optimization (although this is partly explained by worse graphics)
-no buyable commanders (im fine with buyable skins)
-visibility of your troops
-grenades ("sharper" feel)
-ressources below each other instead of next to each other
edit:
-multiple faction search
-dedicated 2v2 AT

Possible additions from DOW3 to coh3:
-nothing, for the love of god

This list is missing extremely important point of CoH1: Population depends on number of strategic point.
=>4v4 of CoH2 becomes nothing more but spamfest, cut off resource rewards zero effort, unbalanced maps (especially bigger team game).

Also super heavy tank can be called only once and extremely risky choice(reduce half of mp for 5 minutes), instead of no-brainer button.

I don't agree with some of your points, CoH looks more dark, grim and gritty, more realistic compared to CoH 2's bright/cartoonish looking graphics which are shared with DoW 3 as well.

And the Brits in CoH 2 were more mobile and thus better in many aspects, however the Brits in CoH are still unique as they have a mobile base and could tear down emplacements when needed, plus they had many unique vehicles which the current Brits don't have like the Kangaroo, the M7 Priest, the Staghound, Command Cromwell, Tetrach, Stuart and so forth, plus I believe they did Commandos, Artillery and Royal Engineers much, much better.

Overall to me CoH is a superior game in both feeling and playstyle, however, CoH 2 does improve and add a lot in the feature aspect which I respect and like. But if you had to make me choose between the 2 I would still choose CoH.

plus they had many unique vehicles which the current Brits don't have like the Kangaroo.....

You’ve just triggered my PTSD

plus they had many unique vehicles which the current Brits don't have like the Kangaroo

Good god. It had KT armor and if you put a piat squad in it and a sweeper squad, you couldn't stop it

the Staghound

Good god. It was so spammable and with the .50 cal upgrade it could suppress any infantry and with a vetted command tank it could penetrate a Panther lol

Must resist...

Objectively, and without a shadow of doubt, CoH1 did the following things better:
- Suppression mechanics
- Infantry squad animations
- Voice acting consistency
- Better tank-combat system
- Lack of a-moving LMGs
- Infantry snares/Clown cars
- No Tier0 infantry WFA factions

CoH1 did suppression way better. Yellow suppression is really moderate penalties that aim to allow you to pull back and recoup; if possible, with red suppression meaning that the squad is out of the fight.

In CoH2, suppression is too binary. If you aren't suppressed you can carry on and murder stuff from the front. If you get yellow suppression, you might as well consider that squad out of the fight. That's like a 0-1 transition, with nothing in-between.

Infantry models seemed to have unique animations when shooting it out. Granted, jumping out of cover ruined good micro invested in getting the units into cover positions in the first place. However, even when the units would stay put, you would see, e.g., Volksgrenadier models lean left and right to avoid fire, PGren models doing barrel rolls; little things like that.

In contrast, infantry models in CoH2 just stand upright throughout the entire duration of the fight like a candle, and cocking their bolt rifles robotically.

With respect to voice acting, all CoH1 factions were amazing; each faction had a theme (e.g., Starship Troopers for US), and each unit had different voice lines, e.g., for night missions, rain, etc etc. EFA and Brit voice acting is great, with a more gritty outlook (e.g., Soviet female driver out-of-control scream). However, USF and OKW voice-line delivery feels too cartoonish and one-dimensional

Tank movement felt more natural in CoH1. In CoH2, perhaps due to veterancy bonuses, some tanks have unnaturally high acceleration, etc. The armour/penetration system also felt better, forcing people to close in with medium tanks to finish off enemy tanks, rather than rely 100% on long-range TDs to do the entire job.

LMG DPS curve has been a blight to CoH2, since it literally rewards players for a-moving their squads to the enemy.

Infantry snares in CoH1 felt more rewarding, and were also (crucially) better balanced asymmetrically. Axis had access to the superior tanks, however only allies had access to any kind of snares. In CoH2, you can't really leave Axis without snares for too long, because they'll get wrecked by flamer clowncars. You also can't let allies without snares for long either, because they will get run over by heavy armor. Thus; everybody must get access to snares.

Sticky satchel was amazing in that it both required actual flanking and skill to pull off, and that the RNG effects of the satchel seemed to scale with amount of damage previously sustained by the enemy vehicle. Snares in CoH2 are prevalent; literally everywhere and, most annoyingly, binary. You're just above 75% and got snared? That's 50% speed penalty; you've been repeatedly snared and low health? That's s till the same, (steep) penalty.

USF and OKW teching still do a lot of things wrong. Even though both are supposed to support non-linear teching:
- They let their T0 infantry for way too long without support (no early indirect fire for OKW = MG spam). This is the reason why OKW STG Volks have to be OP for a good portion of the early game.
- USF Tiers aren't really self-sufficient (you can fix that by swapping AAHT with Stuart)
- OKW Tiers have nonsensical trade-offs (healing vs Luchs rush), and then T0 is forced to provide everything, anyway
- It's often prohibitively expensive to get both T1 and T2 up; especially for OKW. Soviets used to have this issue for their T1/T2 and T3/T4; somehow it got solved. Same for OST T3/T4 teching. It's high time this is also fixed for WFA factions.

CoH2 did the following better:
- Pathing
- Smoke mechanics
- Truesight
- Multiple QoL changes (e.g., reverse button)
- The fact that Relic, at least, tried to give units unique abilities (even copy-paste EFA Vet1 counts)

Indeed one of the big mistakes of the series beyond vanilla COH1 was making factions asymmetric in gimmicky ways. I like the blend of arcade and realism in COH but when fighting with my toy soldiers in WW2 sandbox maps I prefer it when the companies have vaguely realistic compositions with all forces having mortar and MG support and yes, snipers.

Differences in strength and capability and to some degree tier that they become available provide the contrast along with SOME other features like the bunkers they make and choice of light vehicles. I even liked the bought vet system in that it gave strategic investment choices notwithstanding its flaws.

Armourwise, I think the only difference is that in coh1 the border between front and rear was always in the middle, while in coh2 some vehicles have more frontal armour than rear one.

As for the callin thing, why don't we just put it in the "both game did it wrong" category instead of arguing which implementation was the worst one?

I would also add AI to that category. It's absolutely awful in both games and I say that knowing how hard it is to implement it well.

Is is really true that the front/back armor in COH2 is weighted towards more frontal? That is horrible!

I would have argued that the opposite should be the case (maybe 30% front, 70% rear) in order to at least attempt to model that side armor on a lot of the tanks with "super armor" really only had it on the front and not the sides. If you then think the side is too thin you can up the rear armor a bit. (Panthers were eminently penetratable if hit from the side. To model their side armor as a significant proportion of their frontal armor might be why some think them so cancerous, particularly when they could move fast.)

Re: AI - This is a really hard one to fix. The more complex you make a game the less likely you can make an AI that will function well. Terrain, cover, variable strengths of weapons, vet, vision, etc are all things that are hard enough for a "smart" human to consider, but hard to make algorithms to handle, and once you do, easy to counter once someone figures them out.

(Coming from a COH1 lover who really really wanted and still wants to love COH2. But just doesn't.)

COH1 (the good)- Vanilla balance is really close, and is that way through different levels of game skill and knowledge, though there are certainly points where the balance shits back and forth.

Vanilla does a great job of balance with many little differences adding up to a whole different feel in the two factions without having to add huge gimmicks. Both sides have MGs, mortars, tank destroyers, tanks, scout vehicles, HTs, etc, but they are slightly different ones, and often in different tiers.

I think the resource system and popcap system lends to a lot more strategic andtactical interplay. Popcap means there is another way to try and defeat your opponent (and a consequence to capturing/losing territory).

COH1 is really responsive. Is it just me? because I can't switch between the two without realizing I have to click a second time often for things to happen (throw grenades, dodge, etc.)

(the bad)
- Too much invisibility.
- A lot of brit and PE stuff. Some I find particularly galling.
- That PE can break the VP point system, or break a strat point in seconds that took much much longer to repair (the repair also had to be undisturbed or it reset).
- Snipers (the god forsaken mini game you had to play while playing COH)

COH2 (the good)
- trusihght,
- gaining veterancy from doing damage (though perhaps not from receiving damage)
- I especially like that you gain more veterancy for killing higher vets of a unit.
- QoL - seeing your units and their status, reverse button,

The bad -
Way too much difference for difference's sake. Which is why it took things they really wanted to avoid to try and add some balance, like adding a mortar to US, an MG to OKW, etc.

Too many skillplanes.

I forgot another aspect where I think COH1 was better... pacing.

While COH2 has improved, it had a really small "mid" game. In COH1 it was rare to have a 9 minute tank, which could only be done when focusing and on the right map, and even then you had to sacrifice a lot to get it and it could lose to things available in mid-game.

Most late games didn't start until 20 minutes in and in a very contested game and your mid game units were still quite necessary.

COH2 for years had a very short mid-game, in part because the late game was so lethal. But that also messed with the balance because the point system was still based on a 3 VP system with 500 points and 3 second ticks... IOW the game would last as long but since you reached late game so quickly much of the game had to be played in the "late game" phase. This makes late game imbalances feel even more pronounced.

Coh1 consisted of clicking around snipers in every gamemode. it was literally a minigame about who can get the other player's snipers.

all that fancy flanking mechanics (which i enjoyed) could be nullified by simply pump out permacloak snipers.

the arty spamfest in coh1 teamgames were much worse. the lategame minigame was about who is able to put a v1 on the calliopes or howitzers, mostly by trying to find a not-mined route with a bike, or who can kill the repair and medic bunkers more efficiently on the other side.

no, i don't miss that

the arty spamfest in coh1 teamgames were much worse. the lategame minigame was about who is able to put a v1 on the calliopes or howitzers, mostly by trying to find a not-mined route with a bike, or who can kill the repair and medic bunkers more efficiently on the other side.

no, i don't miss that

I still play a lot of team games and you are overstating it some. The artyfests existed for two reasons... On the axis side the mobility of the artillery, like stukas and hummels, (Stukas??? Did he say stukas? thank god such a cancerous unit doesn't exist in COH2! ) negated the ability to counter them with arty. Unless of course the other player sucked. The allied arty became dependent because invisible paks, hardened bunkers, suppressing MGs and perma-vet meant you absolutely had to be able to soften a target or force it to move in order to make any progress. But destroying was still more possible for axis than US. A v1 or 280mm would wipe any arty once you got vision. The same cannot be said for eliminating an 88, which I guess balanced for the recon and no-vision on-maps of the allies.

But you have the counters you seem to want right in COH2. You can counter the arty piece without shenanigans. But because of that it is impossible to keep static arty alive. Off-maps coupled with recon mean a destroyed investment, so no one makes them. So you are left with a mobile (mostly rocket) arty meta, and every side that doesn't have them cries until they get one.

I am a big ww2 history buff, and I hadn't heard much of Calliopes or Land Mattress until I saw them in the COH franchise. Allied artillery was excellent, accurate, responsive, and available in great supply. But that isn't modeled effectively in COH2.

An alternate proposal for COH3:

Balance it more for team play.

I know I know.... But hear me out.

Successful games today are built around some team play. And team games, even without balance, are still the most popular game modes in COH1 and 2, with far more player-hours.

And I say balance it for that because the community is more than capable of balancing a 1v1 mod and it is a lot easier to get 2 people to agree on using such a mod in competition than to get 4, 6 or 8 to agree on a mod for team modes.

alright, i added some great points to the list, keep them coming

Successful games today are built around some team play. And team games, even without balance, are still the most popular game modes in COH1 and 2, with far more player-hours.

3v3 and even moreso 4v4 has always been a clownfiesta between mostly incompetent players and that won't change. The basic formula of CoH is IMO perfect for 1v1 and 2v2, but with more players the "flow" of the game starts to fall apart

vCOH was just a lot more enjoyable all around to play. The community was a lot better and the balance was a lot better. I honestly don't remember getting as angry at that game as I do with this inconsistent mess of a sequel.