Profile of Diogenes5

Puma doesn't win you the game. Assault gun can get wipes and win you the game.

Only got like 30k despite a lot of hours in the game. I left too many games incorrectly apparently. Not that I cared ... war spoils never worked correctly so why bother?

No.

CoH1 was a great game, but it had flaws. CoH2 improved on CoH1 in arguably every way. I don't want to go back to a game with no reverse button, no true-sight, no vaulting, etc.

Move on and make CoH3 in a few years. We had CoH1 from 2006 to 2013, CoH2 from 2013 to now... I'd expect around 2020 we'd see CoH3, and it would probably improve on CoH2 in many ways.

WRONG. Coh1 is the better game in almost every way. The stuff CoH2 does better is mostly stylistic. Vaunting for example is not necessarily an improvement.

If they could take the best parts of COH1 and COH2 and put them together they'd have an amazing game.

Or just keep CoH1 and ditch all of CoH2 especially the pay2win commanders that constantly break the game.

CoH 1 is technicaly better than CoH 2, so I don't think, that it needs any remake.

Graphics, physics, effects and game mechanics in general in CoH 1 are obviously better than in CoH 2 (and optimized better, lol), sounds and voices are also awesome, at least with installed sound/skin packs. Campaing is good, so at least once per year I beat it again and again, right after DoW 2s one.

CoH 2 is only better because it has bigger "content wideness" with all those commanders, and as result - more interesting and less predictable fights. But... they can try add more commanders somehow in CoH 1 and it will also be cool.

Anyway, CoH 1 > CoH 2. Personal opinion, 18+.

Yes. Coh1 sold several times as many copies and won basically every game of the year award out there. CoH2 only got decent (B's and 8.0's) because of the legacy of vCOH. If CoH2 had not had the Company of Heroes franchise name it woudl've gotten probably 10-20 points lower on metacritic.

For one, the engine is abysmal along with the UI. Almost every element of the game is a regression. True sight is buggy as hell and has a high performance hit. Sniper battles were fun in vCOH and skill intensive. In this game they are luck fests because the engine is so sluggish and unresponsive. You could tell a good player by his micro in vCOH and in this game there is no such thing as good micro because of wonky pathfinding and cover-finding and the high built-in unit response times.

And secondly, and most importantly, the game design in general is inferior to the original. One-shot mines, terrible cover-seeking, pay2win commanders, linear teching, and oh my god snow and snowstorms. Realism does not equal balance or fun. Snow should've only been in single-player. And DLC that affects outcomes is always controversial which is why every other successful game mainly has only cosmetic purchases for the competitive mode.

Main problem is just the rampant RNG. If the game was responsive then ok, maybe RNG would be livable but it only compounds all the engine issues this game has.

CoH2 game needed a game designer that knew wtf he was doing. Edit out crap that doesn't add to interactivity and fun. Focus on the basics like creating a responsive and diverse game.

He still pulled out a cromet and a cromwell while his opponent was able to have enough fuel to get 4 Stugs and a tiger of the course of the game.

If you look at the game, you will see that the only reason why losing 4 bofors didn't completely cripple Sage6, was because his opponent was floating 1000 manpower. I can play vs any faction, wipe out 4 of their squads and still not be ahead if I myself decide to float a thousand manpower for no reason. The opponent could have spend that 1000mp on a pair of MG42s and a PAK and that nice little counter attack Sage6 did at the end wouldn't even have allowed him to take his cut off back.

Not true at all. You float the manpower if any unit you build doesn't really counter what the other person is doing. It also cripples your mp income giving the other guy the advantage if he's on less pop than you. It's like giving your opponent a free sniper.

This game is not about using all your resources but using your resources well and managing manpower. MG42's don't do anything against emplacements and even if he takes a cutoff back it's irrelevant as long as you're winning manpower trades.

Emplacements are gamebreaking in that they cause so much manpower bleed while themselves being invulnerable to it. Overcommitting to killing it at a manpower loss loses you the game.

But this is a relatively high-level concept in the game. It was up to relic to understand this and not stick this sh*t game design into the game but they did it anyways and we've had months of this BS now.

Player card: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198059170410
Oh dear! I play mostly as....OKW in 1v1. Oh the irony.

Clearly, you have never met an OKW player who uses 'tactics' and moves their ISGs around and barrage, move when fired upon, and barrage again.As for mortars, you get them in T1, and they are on the field long before an emplacement can be unless you're very slow in getting them. With a mortar or two you can stop an emplacement spam building up and work from there. Emplacements do not appear instantly, which people forget. The value of scouting and map awareness features here. The reward is a crushed UKF player who is unlikely to recover from having their empalcement overrun. 400MP per mortar pit is not a small amount.

I said ''If you can't work around the Bofors that's your own fault. '' Mortar pits OTOH are easy prey even with brace.

LoL, you're not even ranked. Everything you said is LITERALLY WRONG. Please don't comment until you can do better than a comp stomp.