Main Reason CoH2 Less Competitive than Original

However, I must agree with OP on this one. What you are describing is all good and well in theory, but as OP said its hard to destroy lets say Piv with Assault gun, or AT gun for that matter in the hands of a unskilled player. Why, well all he needs to do is click near tank destroyer or at gun, get little bit lucky with line of sight and it negates skill. Its difficult to manouver fixed gun vehicles to fight of noob. Even if the tank is seen from far away. You couldn't accidentally flank Marder in the hands of skilled player.
As MagpiesFlight said somewhere: "it takes enormous effort to defeat spamming noob" Because infantry isn't punished in the hands of unskilled player enough. Basically, he can cross roads, stand in open and come up close to infantry in cover with minimal loses.
I wont go into MG in the house supported by mortar, being a lot more viable option than using snipers, micro-ing your way to the house to drop molotov or nade that has very little effect.

It is far, far harder to flank an SU-85 with a P-IV than to beat a P-IV with an SU-85 right now. Even with the cone vision and AT-nade changes. An SU-85 with a spotter can reliably mangle two unvetted P-IVs. AT guns are a bit lackluster at the moment but supported properly and overlapping each other they do alright.

I agree with the bit about infantry and especially MGs in houses.

CoH2 = beginner friendly
vCoH = hard for beginners

And i totally agree with steph on this one, vCoH had so much depth and unfortunately CoH2 is no where near what vCoH is/was. That's why so many players are leaving the game after like 100+ games. I lost CoH2 mojo after i played in the last Langreskaya tourney, because i felt the soviet faction is way off. Ostheer plays well, but soviets feel like half assed faction that can only do 1 thing in order to win, while ostheer can try different approaches.

It is far, far harder to flank an SU-85 with a P-IV than to beat a P-IV with an SU-85 right now. Even with the cone vision and AT-nade changes. An SU-85 with a spotter can reliably mangle two unvetted P-IVs. AT guns are a bit lackluster at the moment but supported properly and overlapping each other they do alright.

I agree with the bit about infantry and especially MGs in houses.

No one said that SU85 wont destroy Piv, from distance and with spotter what I said is that its far to easy to make fixed gun destroyer or AT gun look like its being used by someone who has no clue.. Once it gets flanked, or needs to quickly reposition skill is negated and skilled player is made to look like their grandma is having a go at COH2...
With weird circling, etc.
Lets face it, not all maps are that open and If there is some destroyed tanks around, well attempts to micro become comical.

I'd make the point that while some of the issues you've touched on are correct, the effect they have on competitive CoH2 is not very big, a better title would be 'Main reasons CoH2 doesn't feel as polished as the original'.

Big things that kept the original very competitive were healthy ladders and regular big tournaments and the passionate community behind the game. While you might feel CoH2's game-play and meta-game is stale, this is also something that CoH1 suffered when the game was released originally, something that got better over time.

If Relic really want to push their game as seriously competitive it would have already been done in terms of funding and game support. The lack of patches close to the end of CoH1's life and lack of consistent investment of time and funds are more of a problem, but even then I don't even blame them for this. Anyone can say this kind of stuff should make a game better, but you can't say the same about doing it in a cost-efficient way that will guarantee more game sales and marketing, than investing time and funds into other things.

So CoH2 will get the time and commitment dedicated to it for what it's worth, and what it was always worth. A non-pro game that has a decent competitive casual community who like the fun game-play of an RTS whether it be 1v1's or 4v4's or comp stomps.

P.S: RNG is also not such a big issue, we see games like Dota2 with such things as '10% chance to crit for 300% damage' on Chaos Knight and I don't see that game doing too bad competitively.

If Relic really want to push their game as seriously competitive it would have already been done in terms of funding and game support. The lack of patches close to the end of CoH1's life and lack of consistent investment of time and funds are more of a problem, but even then I don't even blame them for this. Anyone can say this kind of stuff should make a game better, but you can't say the same about doing it in a cost-efficient way that will guarantee more game sales and marketing, than investing time and funds into other things.

So CoH2 will get the time and commitment dedicated to it for what it's worth, and what it was always worth. A non-pro game that has a decent competitive casual community who like the fun game-play of an RTS whether it be 1v1's or 4v4's or comp stomps.

I am not clear about this part. Are you saying that Relic never had the interest to make a better multiplayer game, their focus was on making a strong single player game? Or are you saying the game fan base never reached such size to support a greater investment in multiplayer by Relic?

+1 to Basilone. Unit response time while it has improved needs so much work. Units hitting the ground after every fire cracker goes off needs to go away. Units need to respond much better, everything does feel sluggish and that is infuriating when you are trying to micro a flank or do ANYTHING period. Like I said though it has improved a lot. This hit the dirt whenever helmut farts needs to be don and gone with.

Yeah but the thing is the early game RNG engagements seem much more impacting in comparison to CoH1 early game.

CoH1 = Faster engagements, more engagements, slower teching.
CoH2 = Slow engagements, fewer engagements, faster teching.

These RNG impacts in the early game can be sometimes be quite pivotal in conjunction with the teching speed of CoH2.

I fully agree. The early combat just seems dull and tactics seems less important as flanking and cover isnt as important anymore. Its more about stacking more guns. And as you say, the fast teching quikcly ends this combat anyways.

While I do agree that the game in this state doesn't feel as responsive as vcoh, we've got to remember that the original had it's issues as well.

Try not to use change as such a drastic need for the game, like it's "Do or Dead". For example, the release of opposing fronts. Hey, that was a huge change all at once, but, were the results all positive? NO! Anyone who played OF on release can agree, PE and Brits "ruined the game". Yet, as time went on, patches were applied, new strategies evolved, and it made the game different and more fun.

But, what I am trying to point out here is the positive competitive examples of coh2.

#1 Fighting over territory. Okay this sounds kind of self explanatory. But, compared to coh1, one had to stop capping and start firing to maybe capture a sector if the engagement is won. Now the defending unit has to push in to prevent. I think this is a huge +1.

#2 Teching. I'll be it, I did love the sweet T1 play of Coh1, but there were flaws. Pio spam, rifle spam, tank buster spam...come on. Right? You are punished alot more in Coh2 for not teching. This leads to quicker games, and less time wasted.

#3 Snipers. I know snipers are a whiny subject in the community now, but compared to coh1, I think it's an improvement in some aspects. You can't just walk wildly across the map cloaked to scout. You have to strategically use cover. That is strategic and competitive.

#4 Engine Damage. Over are the days of getting run over by pumas, armored cars, and M8s after a Faust or a sticky nade. Does this not increase the level of a awareness by the user microing the vehicle?

I can go on, but point stated. This game is young. Give it time to evolve, and it will surpass coh1. Look at starcraft 2 compared to Starcraft Broodwar for example.

I also want to add this for those who are blatantly bashing the balance of the game...
Compared to other RTS games, Coh is situational. It's not like the DPS or Unit speed is always the same like other games. You have to account for cover and whether or not a vehicle is on a road.

But the situational circumstances are what make this game what it is....You don't just gather minerals on your side of the map and then attack. You're neck and neck the whole game.

Anyway, that's my rant, love it or hate it. It is what it is.

Thanks for that Cryptacide. As a new player to the game, seeing all of these veterans talking smack about the new game was a little disheartening. I appreciate seeing a more positive outlook on the game.

Thanks for that Cryptacide. As a new player to the game, seeing all of these veterans talking smack about the new game was a little disheartening. I appreciate seeing a more positive outlook on the game.

No problem. I just hate seeing all of this negativity when this game really does have competitive potential. Leader boards are consistent with good players. It's not like we are drawing straws here. Especially when tournament rules dictate no use of bulletins.

While I do agree that the game in this state doesn't feel as responsive as vcoh, we've got to remember that the original had it's issues as well.

I think you missed the whole point, read the first paragraph again. I am talking about how the infantry freewill behavior and the incredibly clunky Assault Guns detract from your ability to micro better than your opponent and drastically slows the pace of the game. This is not an issue of glitches or shoddy pathing that is being ironed out, its a deliberate design element.

I also want to add this for those who are blatantly bashing the balance of the game...
Compared to other RTS games, Coh is situational. It's not like the DPS or Unit speed is always the same like other games. You have to account for cover and whether or not a vehicle is on a road.

Units deciding to do what they think is best to preserve their own meaningless virtual lives instead of what I commanded them to do has nothing to do with balance. Painfully slow paced tank destroyer gameplay also has nothing to do with balance. I don't see how any of that situational stuff you described has any correlation with the points I made. If the balance/bugs bothered me that much I would just stop playing until the game was patched a few more times, but this a design issue and needs to be discussed.

I just hate seeing all of this negativity when this game really does have competitive potential.

What is wrong with constructive criticism from time to time? I want the game to improve, so that is why I took the time to elaborate what I think the problems are. If I thought the game was garbage I would have made a "fuck COH2, uninstalling" thread. That said, when I see room for improvement I'm not going to be shy about it because I want the game 6 months down the road to be the best it possibly can.

I think you missed the whole point, read the first paragraph again. I am talking about how the infantry freewill behavior and the incredibly clunky Assault Guns detract from your ability to micro better than your opponent and drastically slows the pace of the game. This is not an issue of glitches or shoddy pathing that is being ironed out, its a deliberate design element.


Units deciding to do what they think is best to preserve their own meaningless virtual lives instead of what I commanded them to do has nothing to do with balance. Painfully slow paced tank destroyer gameplay also has nothing to do with balance. I don't see how any of that situational stuff you described has any correlation with the points I made. If the balance/bugs bothered me that much I would just stop playing until the game was patched a few more times, but this a design issue and needs to be discussed.


What is wrong with constructive criticism from time to time? I want the game to improve, so that is why I took the time to elaborate what I think the problems are. If I thought the game was garbage I would have made a "fuck COH2, uninstalling" thread. That said, when I see room for improvement I'm not going to be shy about it because I want the game 6 months down the road to be the best it possibly can.

Okay yes, stug assualt guns suck. But, Relic is balancing from the early game to the late game. I think the stug turns too slowly myself, much slower than the su-85, not a problem with making a point on that. Doesn't reduce the competitiveness of the game.

Like I said, responsiveness is an issue. I do agree reactionary movements by infantry to "avoid" ptrs shots, grenades, and flamethrowers are cheesing and cause problems with cover and DPS, are totally lame, and need adressing...doesn't mean it cannot be addressed. Do avoiding actions need to be caused every time? No. Give it time and like you said criticism, and hopefully a creative solution will be implemented.

Lastly, how can you have bad without the good...Nobody is going to complain about something they don't want. Nothing is wrong with constructive criticism. But, in my opinion, this is the #1 fan site for Coh2. Every other post is about something that sucks. How are we going to increase the player base like that. Just making my point.