The game IS a click fest now

OK I tried this long form, but here's the TLDR, in the hopes that I get a more direct response

1. I cannot believe that some people think the micro requirement in this game is too high. Sorry. Compared to SC2 or any MOBA, the mechanical burden of this game is fairly low.

2. I don't see how it's a bad thing that infantry are required to move to stay clear of grenades, aside from COH1 players being upset that it's different from what they've come to expect. Can someone explain this to me?

3. with Mortars, snipers, MGs, AT Guns, and vehicles all placing a much higher premium on positioning than micro (even, I'd contest, Scout Cars and the T70) I feel that it's quite obvious that positioning is important.

I see other issues as being peripheral to the argument.

Also undostrescuatro I don't see how that statement was at all constructive. As someone else in this thread pointed out (I believe?) the grouping/clumping behavior of squads, and their tendency to seek out cover while moving, are major causes of infantry pathing inconsistencies. And Relic has already addressed some of the input delay and units "dancing" when attacked.

COH2 is still click free compare to many RTS game

OK I tried this long form, but here's the TLDR, in the hopes that I get a more direct response

1. I cannot believe that some people think the micro requirement in this game is too high. Sorry. Compared to SC2 or any MOBA, the mechanical burden of this game is fairly low.

2. I don't see how it's a bad thing that infantry are required to move to stay clear of grenades, aside from COH1 players being upset that it's different from what they've come to expect. Can someone explain this to me?

3. with Mortars, snipers, MGs, AT Guns, and vehicles all placing a much higher premium on positioning than micro (even, I'd contest, Scout Cars and the T70) I feel that it's quite obvious that positioning is important.

I see other issues as being peripheral to the argument.

Also undostrescuatro I don't see how that statement was at all constructive. As someone else in this thread pointed out (I believe?) the grouping/clumping behavior of squads, and their tendency to seek out cover while moving, are major causes of infantry pathing inconsistencies. And Relic has already addressed some of the input delay and units "dancing" when attacked.

I agree with you and you know how to write properly and make a good point... you're the man.

OK I tried this long form, but here's the TLDR, in the hopes that I get a more direct response

1. I cannot believe that some people think the micro requirement in this game is too high. Sorry. Compared to SC2 or any MOBA, the mechanical burden of this game is fairly low.

2. I don't see how it's a bad thing that infantry are required to move to stay clear of grenades, aside from COH1 players being upset that it's different from what they've come to expect. Can someone explain this to me?

3. with Mortars, snipers, MGs, AT Guns, and vehicles all placing a much higher premium on positioning than micro (even, I'd contest, Scout Cars and the T70) I feel that it's quite obvious that positioning is important.

I see other issues as being peripheral to the argument.

Also undostrescuatro I don't see how that statement was at all constructive. As someone else in this thread pointed out (I believe?) the grouping/clumping behavior of squads, and their tendency to seek out cover while moving, are major causes of infantry pathing inconsistencies. And Relic has already addressed some of the input delay and units "dancing" when attacked.

1) CoH2 isnt any moba ( which i doubt has more micro than RTS cause its only 4 hotkeys and only one unit at any time ) or a successor to SC2 so i dont really understand your point . CoHs key characteristic was a methodical approach and a calm pace without too much clicking . CoH2s is not so yes people do have evry right to bitch about it .

2) I do see plenty bad with it because that is eesentially the early game or at least 70% of it . Furthermore , we told you what we expected so i wont bother rewriting any of it .

3 Mortars are an artillery piece it doesnt have any particular micro and doesnt require much skill to use it , snipers are infamously the most micro intensive unit you are likely to find in coh games the only positioning you need to do is to place behind your troops , the only vehicles that require good positioning are assult guns , otherwise tanks are purely units depent on micro , atm only mgs place more vallue on positioning rather than micro and in this patch along with many other units they suck

4 ) tell that to all my grens whom i retreat before the mollie is thrown and end up loosing a model or 2

Proper positioning allows you to soft retreat away from a molotov BEFORE it is thrown. Proper positioning also punishes someone who loses DPS and a cover advantage to close in and throw a molotov.

1) CoH2 isnt any moba ( which i doubt has more micro than RTS cause its only 4 hotkeys and only one unit at any time ) or a successor to SC2 so i dont really understand your point . CoHs key characteristic was a methodical approach and a calm pace without too much clicking . CoH2s is not so yes people do have evry right to bitch about it .

I fail to see your point. More people have played DOTA 2 or SC2 or probably even a C&C game than played vCOH, so it's more likely that a person coming into this game will be familiar with games with higher micro requirements than COH2. Which, as I've said, has quite low micro requirements relative to the importance of positioning as it is. And pathing/unit responsiveness improvements (which many people seem to want, myself included) would directly increase the value and importance of micro.

In my opinion, COH2 is a methodical game. MOBAs cane be frenetic as players dance their hero around jockeying for a good position to launch their abilities without, in turn, getting caught in their enemy's, while in SC2 the greater your ability to individually control as many units as possible means that there's no real cap to the benefits of micro. There are quite real caps to micro's benefits in COH2 due to tank turn radii, backup, and pathing, to say nothing of how infantry units' squad behavior effects their movement patterns (also, weapons which cannot be fired on the move like MGs, M0rtars and the LMG42 as a for instance

2) I do see plenty bad with it because that is eesentially the early game or at least 70% of it . Furthermore , we told you what we expected so i wont bother rewriting any of it .

So you want the main thing that people do in the early game to be less rewarding of mechanical skill? I don't get that. I want to know why people playing a real time strategy game want there to be a requirement for less than the like 60APM required to dodge 'nades that have like a 2-3 second throw time with an animation. Grenade balance is one thing (rifle nades don't telegraph as well as Molotove, timers, throw distances, wind ups may need tweaking, grenades may need a damage reduction from cover) but things like that can be improved upon while keeping the early game interesting without lowering the micro requirements.

Again, the pathing and unit responsiveness improvements that people want will only make fine unit control (read: micro) more important and easier at all stages of the game (to a point, since there will still be tank turret turn radii, turnaround times, speed moving backwards vs forwards, setup weapons etc so the mechanical skill ceiling will still be pretty low for an RTS).

TLDR here I fail to understand why people aren't ok with an infantry situation that has a great equalizer like grenades. It sounds like the system from vCOH gave a huge defender's advantage, which sounds kind of bad from the perspective of the slippery slope/snowballing. I get wanting cover to play a bigger role, but the current grenade/building dynamic seems to insinuate to me that Relic *wants* grenades to force the enemy to be mobile or lose models in their squads, no?

3 Mortars are an artillery piece it doesnt have any particular micro and doesnt require much skill to use it , snipers are infamously the most micro intensive unit you are likely to find in coh games the only positioning you need to do is to place behind your troops , the only vehicles that require good positioning are assult guns , otherwise tanks are purely units depent on micro , atm only mgs place more vallue on positioning rather than micro and in this patch along with many other units they suck

OK so this one requires 2 separate responses:

1. Mortars, MGs and snipers are all units that can easily be caught out of position. This means that for them especially, positioning is vastly more important than micro, since (aside from snipers) they cannot be microed anyways. Sneaking squads/halftracks/scoutcars behind enemy lines (a matter of the position of the support weapon vs units that can protect it) is like, the way to deal with support weapons, aside from overwhelming MGs with a human wave. Positioning matters a lot to these low-micro units

2. Vehicles again rely on positioning more tnan micro. They turn and respond too slowly (with some exceptions like the Ostwind and T70 for instance) to really be "microed" that effectively. SU85's cannot really be microed, just set up to cover one another. Mines can be planted to protect them, making the positioning of the mines and the assault guns far more important than a player's ability to react with them (which is limited by the turn radius, more fixed gun, and slow acceleration). Compare this to Hellions in SC2, or Colossus cliff dancing, or the Immortal/Warp Prism drop play, or individually blinking Stalkers to the back of an army to preserve them.

With vehicles, being "just" close enough to their target to attack it, or being positioned such that they can easily break line of sight with their target (with as little movement as possible) is more important than being able to click around with them really fast.

There is a little bit of micro involved in circle strafing units with no turrets and slow turn radii (like PIVs and SU85s or T70s and AT guns) but unit/mine positioning can drastically reduce the likelihood or effectiveness of these tactics. Again, meaning that positioning and preparation are still way more important than micro

4 ) tell that to all my grens whom i retreat before the mollie is thrown and end up loosing a model or 2

sounds like an issue more with needed improvements on the retreat pathing or unit responsiveness which means that more ability to micro would actually improve the outcome there, unless I'm missing something (?) Also, see DanielD's post:

Proper positioning allows you to soft retreat away from a molotov BEFORE it is thrown. Proper positioning also punishes someone who loses DPS and a cover advantage to close in and throw a molotov. {/quote]

OK I tried this long form, but here's the TLDR, in the hopes that I get a more direct response

1. I cannot believe that some people think the micro requirement in this game is too high. Sorry. Compared to SC2 or any MOBA, the mechanical burden of this game is fairly low.

2. I don't see how it's a bad thing that infantry are required to move to stay clear of grenades, aside from COH1 players being upset that it's different from what they've come to expect. Can someone explain this to me?

3. with Mortars, snipers, MGs, AT Guns, and vehicles all placing a much higher premium on positioning than micro (even, I'd contest, Scout Cars and the T70) I feel that it's quite obvious that positioning is important.

I see other issues as being peripheral to the argument.

Also undostrescuatro I don't see how that statement was at all constructive. As someone else in this thread pointed out (I believe?) the grouping/clumping behavior of squads, and their tendency to seek out cover while moving, are major causes of infantry pathing inconsistencies. And Relic has already addressed some of the input delay and units "dancing" when attacked.

I wrote a summary of what I think is the current problem with this games "clickiness" on the previous page. I think it adresses most of your questions.

In short: Tacticly positioning and moving your infantry has been made less important and moving them arround, throwing grenades and using abilities is now more important. Aside from the fact that a lot of people find that a less interesting way of playing it gives the infantrycombat an entirely different and less realistic feal.

I understand your argument but disagree that ability timing and active troop movement is the less interesting mechanical choice. And I feel like no one is really touching any of my core points. "it worked differently in vCoH, I liked it better" is not compelling to me, nor are pleas or contentions that less micro requirements would somehow improve the game.

It's not just the grenade mechanics that people are complaining about, it's how the cover system and increased resources encourage and enable over use of clickable abilities.

Someone else mentioned it but in CoH if you had a unit in heavy cover and someone tried to rush that unit through red cover, the rushing unit would normally take heavy damage before it had a chance to throw the grenade, making it a risky proposition at best and possibly a complete waste of resources. In CoH2 assaults like this are common and usually end up favoring the rushing unit. That ends up meaning that positioning your unit in heavy cover was less important than babysitting it and making sure you dodge the incoming grenade so you don't completely lose an engagement you should have had the upper hand in to begin with.

Also the fact that standard strat points provide munitions and fuel means that there are more munitions available in general which makes using an ability less of a strategic decision as you're more than likely still going to have munitions available later for key upgrades. Obviously this won't be true if you're losing complete map control or spamming the ability in every engagement but it's still more common than in CoH where a decision to throw a grenade had better pay off as you were possibly delaying crucial upgrades later in the game.

It's also insanely frustrating when your own squad moves to squat in the molotov you just threw, or you dodge the molotov and then watch your grens move on their own back into the flames.

Because winning a fight by positioning your troops better instead of walking through red cover and throwing a nade into the defending squad is more appealing to some people.

If we are to compare just vCoH and CoH2 - then yes the games has become more arcady, more DOWish if you will.
CoH2 does hoever require more tactics then most other RTS games.

But let's face it:


While I do prefer the more tactical and strategic approach of vCoh (and lament its demise) the game designers have simply chosen a different tack for CoH2.


Every single unit has special abilities (either form the start, unlocked via upgrades or unlocked at vet1).
Using these to maximum effect is now an integral and extremely important part of the game.

On the other hand many formerly vital parts vCoH were (in all probability) intentionally not integrated into CoH2.
Just to name one example:
Shaping the battlefield to fit your strategy due to deployment of barbed wire, sandbags and tank traps is now gone or has a negligible impact in most games.


But as I said at the beginning: It's a new game.

Because winning a fight by positioning your troops better instead of walking through red cover and throwing a nade into the defending squad is more appealing to some people.

So then cover bonuses might need to be looked at. I see that as a much different issue than micro/unit control. My feeling (that more active unit control is a good thing) actively supports changes like that, as it makes intelligent usage of units more important. I don't see how "cover needs tweaked" equals "coh2 is a click fest" though.

So then cover bonuses might need to be looked at. I see that as a much different issue than micro/unit control. My feeling (that more active unit control is a good thing) actively supports changes like that, as it makes intelligent usage of units more important. I don't see how "cover needs tweaked" equals "coh2 is a click fest" though.

There was a bit more to infanty fights then just cover and positioning.

Are you familiar with the volks-riflemen dynamic of CoH1?

I understand your argument but disagree that ability timing and active troop movement is the less interesting mechanical choice. And I feel like no one is really touching any of my core points. "it worked differently in vCoH, I liked it better" is not compelling to me, nor are pleas or contentions that less micro requirements would somehow improve the game.

Timing or movement in itself isnt a problem, those were important aspects of vCOH as well. The problem is that the reduced lethality of infantry has made good use of cower less important, thus encouraging more running arround, charging head on, while givig tactical movement and positioning less impotance.

Its a very different style of gameplay, mowing away from the more realistic aproach of vCOH and more in the direction of "spellcasting" of games we dont wat to compare it with. It shifts the focus from the more chess style stratgic/tactical focus, to the more reflex and speed oriented pinnball kind of play, while none of the games being at any of the extremes of course.

I started playing vCOH while in the army, against others in my squad when we had spare time, and what struck us was how intuitive it all was for us, who had a good understanding of companysized combatoperations, having participated in a lot ourselves. This isnt as true for COH2, and that makes an understanding of basic tactics and those aspects less important, while favouring the "clickers" more.

Im not saying that one path is better than the other, but what I, and obviously a lot of others, seems to preffer.

In regards to the "positioning" of infantry units vs. grenades. The amount of "clickiness" or "micro" that the use of grenades adds is negligible unless you are in the mindset of "I'm going to send my infantry to this cover here and they should have the advantage". Instead think ahead. OK so if I move my infantry to this light cover first, wait for them to throw a nade, then move to the adjacent green cover, I'll be have the upper hand as I'll have lured them into wasting munitions and I'll also be in superior cover. As opposed to moving them into the green cover immediately and trying to fight it out from there.

The purpose of a grenade is to flush troops out from cover (hopefully killing a few in the process). Cover in this game is directional also, which means if a rifle nade lands on the side of the cover your guys are on, that stone wall isn't going to stop those metal fragments.

The only thing grenades add is tactical depth to the game. God forbid you have to click 2, 3, or 4 more times to dodge them.

The only thing grenades add is tactical depth to the game. God forbid you have to click 2, 3, or 4 more times to dodge them.

True, but unfortunately:
1) Input lag
2) Stupid unit cohesion/behavior
3) Lack of consistent audio warnings
all take a huge bite out of that.

Right but isn't that an argument in favor of *more* micro?

Right but isn't that an argument in favor of *more* micro?

I didnt say it wasnt. Or that it is.

I personally like the amount of micro required at this point in time.

I don't have too many issues with input lag or "poor unit cohesion" tbh. Occasionally I'll run into the issue with units coming under fire or nearby mortar shells landing, but it kinds of add to the visceral feel of the game. Makes me feel like my troops are going "OH F**K" and responding somewhat realistically to their surroundings.

That being said I do have WTF moments every few games, but nothing is perfect.

Timing or movement in itself isnt a problem, those were important aspects of vCOH as well. The problem is that the reduced lethality of infantry has made good use of cower less important, thus encouraging more running arround, charging head on, while givig tactical movement and positioning less impotance.

Its a very different style of gameplay, mowing away from the more realistic aproach of vCOH and more in the direction of "spellcasting" of games we dont wat to compare it with. It shifts the focus from the more chess style stratgic/tactical focus, to the more reflex and speed oriented pinnball kind of play, while none of the games being at any of the extremes of course.

I started playing vCOH while in the army, against others in my squad when we had spare time, and what struck us was how intuitive it all was for us, who had a good understanding of companysized combatoperations, having participated in a lot ourselves. This isnt as true for COH2, and that makes an understanding of basic tactics and those aspects less important, while favouring the "clickers" more.

Im not saying that one path is better than the other, but what I, and obviously a lot of others, seems to preffer.

i agree with this. i do remember voch trowing grenades and asaulting enemies upfront was not a smart choise. in coh2 it seems like an engagement requirement.

also the DOW gameplay should be reserved to dawn of war. not coh2

and wayward,. relic history with vehicle pathing is a fact. not an opinion.