Still worth investing time and energy into COH2?

Explain it to me again, this time provide some specific examples of the plethora of builds that have potential that haven't been tried yet?

On a general note you should read this article from a pro gamer - one section being about previously 'undiscovered' strategies or tactics that emerge from games where maverick players find a specific way of using a unit or ability that others haven't considered (think jeep pushes in coh1) http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

A couple of thoughts in Coh2 - I played a 2v2 recently where we drove the Germans back to their base taking both fuels - I was so confident I built a howitzer mid map to finish them off along side my katushka but out of the blue the they came back strong with heavy scripts and 4 T34's and crushed us despite my vetted units and varied army

I asked them how it was done and they explained they were using the rapid conscription ability in the commanders - something I have ignored as a gimmick ability. This allowed them to negate the attrition I have inflicted upon them.

Another area I neglect is many of the vet 1 abilities - have you used snipers incendiary shot perhaps with a sniper spam build and muni points? What about trip wires or booby traps?

Just because you cant imagine the strategies doesn't mean they aren't there

CoH2 has broken plenty of new ground, with many new RTS elements.

The problem you are referring to is people expecting CoH2 to be an elaborate vCoH patch, rather than a standalone. They could have just transplanted the same exact system, as Blizzard did with SC2 from SC. Now THERE is a game that hasnt broken any new ground. Same shit, different package.

Its not as honed as vCoH was at the end, but that was a result of years of balancing and patching. No rational reason not to expect continous improvement of CoH2 towards that same edge.

Arguably Relic is in a much stronger place now with Sega, who have taken RTS under their wing in the industry with Creative Assembly as well.

I have to disagree that COH2 broke plenty of new ground. There are some nice innovations and evolutions, but In my opponion its nothing like what we saw when COH was first released.


COH2 mainly uses mechanics and principles introduced in COH, but where vCOH has had several years to improve and perfect theese, they seem to have started from scratch with a lot of theese in COH2, like MGs and flanking. Playing COH2, I miss a lot of features from the oroginal COH, even without expansions, and at the same timw few incentives not to return to vCOH.

Again, I think the problem is that the game does little new, while doing the old less good than the well polished original, in a lot of players oppinions.

I havent plaie SC2, but my impression is that it pretty much recreates rhe original with only minor improvements and changes. COH2, in my oppinion, neither recreates vCOH, or does much thruly groundbreaking, thus keeping vCOH relevant. Its not as much criticism of COH2 as a testament to how excelent vCOH is, and how talented the oroginal team must have been.

"Those good ole Golden Days when everything was better"

To be completely and brutally honest, vCoH didn't break as much new ground as you think.

DoW frankly was the first to come out with many of the developments in RTS that you probably, falsely, attribute to CoH.

Thats where Relic brought evolution to the genre in its most profound sense, because the genre itself was so stagnant and copy/paste at the time.

In DoW (2004), not CoH (2006), which came out later and merely emulated those same advancements.

You are accrediting the wrong game for those genre related progressions.

As far as I am concerned, as related specifically to Relic games, the evolution is clear.
DoW->CoH->DoW2->Coh2.
Each game has incrementally built upon the ground broken by its predecessor, consistently and nigh systematically.

I fully expect a DoW3, eventually, to continue this heritage and line of progression. Almost certainly it will include destructable terrain, a similar objective/resource/VP based MP, Commanders/Doctrines, similar asymmetric pairings between factions, and something resembling the recently introduced Cold-Tech and an even better "True-Sight" system (I would anticipate a unit specific view system, rather than the shared LoS in the current True-Sight").

Do you mind elaborating on what you mean by the "Meta is still wide open"

Explain to me all different wide open possibilities of the meta in CoH2.

Devs balance game internally > test it with wide range of gamers > Release it to public > and in short while game needs patch..... what happens in longer time? Someone discovers that camo on/off will give so much exp to unit that it 2 shots Sherman, or that you can suicide your M8 and win the game, etc..........

Whats confusing there?

You cant say the meta is established in a game where only a handful of people even barely understand/remember/comprehend the actual stat/mechanic spread in its entirety.

There are probably like 10 people on Earth who "really" know what is going on (atleast 2 of which are Balance Devs), if even that many. I certainly don't count into that though my Coh2 knowledge is better than most.

This is an immensely complex and complicated game. We have barely BEGUN to seriously explore the full potential meta this game has to offer. This compounded by the fact this game is still undergoing its first cycle of really serious core balance/bug adjustments. Relic is doing an excellent job of this, and being very systematic, with each patch carrying a theme impetus, but many central elements still remain unadjusted post-release.

This game is only going to get better, and at this stage, in massive leaps and bounds.
Later, changes/improvements will level off, when the groundwork has been done. Then its a lick of paint there, and a small adjustment here.

"Those good ole Golden Days when everything was better"

To be completely and brutally honest, vCoH didn't break as much new ground as you think.

DoW frankly was the first to come out with many of the developments in RTS that you probably, falsely, attribute to CoH.

Thats where Relic brought evolution to the genre in its most profound sense, because the genre itself was so stagnant and copy/paste at the time.

In DoW (2004), not CoH (2006), which came out later and merely emulated those same advancements.

You are accrediting the wrong game for those genre related progressions.

As far as I am concerned, as related specifically to Relic games, the evolution is clear.
DoW->CoH->DoW2->Coh2.
Each game has incrementally built upon the ground broken by its predecessor, consistently and nigh systematically.

I fully expect a DoW3, eventually, to continue this heritage and line of progression. Almost certainly it will include destructable terrain, a similar objective/resource/VP based MP, Commanders/Doctrines, similar asymmetric pairings between factions, and something resembling the recently introduced Cold-Tech and an even better "True-Sight" system (I would anticipate a unit specific view system, rather than the shared LoS in the current True-Sight").

dow3 with true sight.

relic why can tiranids see trough barriers smell ability too op nerf plz.

i think the worst of coh2 is the comunity.

DOW2 is a game i dropped because it was TOO GOOD. it was literaly the only game i played i needed to unistall it because i needed to free that time to play other games.

coh2 i dont know so much, i dont feel like playing it much, because i feel matches are not as balanced. doctrinal units choises are too important. it was not like in dow were a baneblade or a landraider were powerfull units but not imune to damage they where challenges not op everyshot reflects stuff.

The problem you are referring to is people expecting CoH2 to be an elaborate vCoH patch, rather than a standalone. They could have just transplanted the same exact system, as Blizzard did with SC2 from SC. Now THERE is a game that hasnt broken any new ground. Same shit, different package.

Well said Nullist, I agree with you.

Thanks guys! I guess it's just frustrating seeing all the negativity and not personally agreeing with much of it.

I don't consider myself qualified to talk about balance at a high level, and mostly blame myself (or teammates, let's be honest) when I or my team loses. I'm still at the level where it's quite possible to outplay someone or to simply be outplayed, and/or maybe my mindset is just one that would rather take the blame for a loss than to blame the designers of a game?

Either way, thanks for the encouraging words. Maybe I'll see some of you eventually in ladder

This is a recurring issue for developers.

A percentage of a developers fanbase want them to remake the same game just with improved visuals/audio and nothing else, For a developer that is boring and kills creativity.

The developer releases the sequel, a small majority of their fanbase attack it because it is not what they wanted. They continue to bitch and snipe, because they believe the developer owes them.

I've seen this happen in so many games and it will always happen, You simply cannot please everyone.

I have spoken to some who just prefer vcoh and that is the end of it, but then there are others who make it their mission to condemn the game out of spite.

"Those good ole Golden Days when everything was better"

To be completely and brutally honest, vCoH didn't break as much new ground as you think.

DoW frankly was the first to come out with many of the developments in RTS that you probably, falsely, attribute to CoH.

Thats where Relic brought evolution to the genre in its most profound sense, because the genre itself was so stagnant and copy/paste at the time.

In DoW (2004), not CoH (2006), which came out later and merely emulated those same advancements.

You are accrediting the wrong game for those genre related progressions.

As far as I am concerned, as related specifically to Relic games, the evolution is clear.
DoW->CoH->DoW2->Coh2.
Each game has incrementally built upon the ground broken by its predecessor, consistently and nigh systematically.

I fully expect a DoW3, eventually, to continue this heritage and line of progression. Almost certainly it will include destructable terrain, a similar objective/resource/VP based MP, Commanders/Doctrines, similar asymmetric pairings between factions, and something resembling the recently introduced Cold-Tech and an even better "True-Sight" system (I would anticipate a unit specific view system, rather than the shared LoS in the current True-Sight").

Its not about "the good old days" but what I believe to be the reason behind some of the tendencies the OP talks and asks about. No need to get all defensive.

I never played DoW that much so youre probably right about that game, but the point stands for the franchise. A lot of players, myself included, was truly blown away by vCOH, while the same really isnt the case for COH2. After all, there is a reason vCOH is "the highest rated RTS ever" and COH2 merely a game receiving decent reviews.

And the problem still stands. COH2 dosent bring much new to the table, though it try to reinvemt some of the mechanics that Relic used many years to perfect in vCOH, while the game lacks a lot of features present in the original COH. Theres not many incentives to not go back to vCOH. To me that seems like the most obvious reasons that the game and the community is in the state it is, and that there really dosent seem to be that much excitement about the game.

Id rather hear others oppinions about that, than strawmen and comments about "the good old days".

I never played vCOH so I don't really have an incentive to go "back" to it. In fact, since I've sunk so many hours into learning COH2 I actually have less incentive to go to coh1's multiplayer as it'd mean learning a new game.

I find it interesting but ultimately kind of sad at how angrily, uncompromisingly divided the coh2 community is, which is one of the things that prompted me to post this thread in the first place.

Loved DOW2 btw.

This post is a really good example of how people think too hard about having fun.

Edit: unless you won't have fun without a large and happy online community for the game. I guess this post makes sense then.

I do prefer to have a large and happy community in a game. It's definitely a factor in my enjoyment. From what I see (many complaining about the lack of lobbies etc) others in the community do care about the size and quality of the community, as well.

EDIT - why would you not want a large group of passionate people to share your hobby with you?

Also, the bigger the community, the better matchmaking works. That's important to me as well

I really enjoy a happy and constructive community as well. Some are communities are more infected than others. As stated above I think its the heritage from CoH1 that makes it all so much more difficult. Also makes me sad to know that alot of CoH1 players bash this game on forums, and newcomers trying to learn a new game (not played CoH1 or ever heard of) look at forums and go: meh... so much bad talk, cant be fun, and then leave. Still, cant do anything about that but to keep a civil and positive tone and keep posting.

I too preffer a happy and unified community, and I really hope that COH2 one day will become a game that rallies the community and makes vCOH irrelevant, though I dont see that happening anytime soon. As I said, nothing hurts the game as much as being compared to the orginal.

dont look at the numbers....look at SNF 5.

vCoH didn't peak until many years after its release. In its current form, I don't personally fine CoH2 worth investing the effort I put into vCoH, but there's nothing stopping the game from improving and changing my mind.

In its current form, I don't personally fine CoH2 worth investing the effort I put into vCoH

This is exactly the sort of negativity that has me considering my future with COH2, or at least with COH2.org

This is exactly the sort of negativity that has me considering my future with COH2, or at least with COH2.org

Don't let it get you down, it's just one persons opinion amongst thousands, just disregard it.

This is exactly the sort of negativity that has me considering my future with COH2, or at least with COH2.org

Even if there are ppl who post like this, dont let it get to you and your own experience. As long as you play and have fun, as stated above, there isnt a real problem is there? As for the community I think it actually have calmed down quite alot. The strange thing is that some ppl who dont play the game still stick here and post why they dont play. It doesnt really bring anything to the community overall. Ofc, its open and anyone should be able to post, it just baffles me that some who have not been playing or paid interest in a long time go here just to bash, so I understand what you are talking about. Still, ignore them. There are many more posters on this site that do play the game and have an attitude that is more in line with yours. Listen to them instead.

In a community you are always going to be people who disagree. Could you imagine a forum without disagreements and different opinions? It would be pretty dull.

I agree that COH2 would benefit greatly from a larger community, but sadly we don't have that and I hope that one day we do. In the meantime don't ask for our opinion on whether or not you should play COH2 just get playing! (By god we need the players)