|
The fact that there's so much disagreement on which was the better game is the depressing part. CoH1 was an amazing game, but it had its fair share of flaws. Things like HQ trucks, zombie bunkers, Wehr and Brit Vet etc. While these were only faction design issues, there wasn't a feasible way to address these without a major overhaul.
CoH2 was the perfect opportunity to address the weaknesses of CoH1 and add some QoL improvements to make the ultimate RTS. Instead, half the mistakes from CoH1 were repeated (e.g. X faction wins early, Y faction wins late). Somehow the faction design was even worse, with OH the only decent faction because they largely emulated the basic style of Wehr. Granted there were some great QoL improvements (R-move, squad icons), but there were also some dubious ones (vaulting) and some that are so obviously un-fun it boggles the mind how they made it to release (ColdTech, abandon). Many of these issues could have been addressed through relatively minor fixes but inconsistent post-release support prevented that.
That's not even mentioning the campaigns. Imo vCoH was the only good campaign. OF missions were bland spamfests aside from one or two good missions. ToV was a good concept let down by half-assed execution. CoH2 campaign was another missed opportunity - some interest mission concepts let down by again, half-assed execution and a laughable bad and cliche story. |
|
Lane-based maps are worse for teamplay, they just turn the game into a series of 1v1s. They make it harder to work together because concentrating forces in one lane leaves you exposed in another. Maps like Lienne and Lorch assault with safe fuel make the matches a slug-fest for central VPs since you can't do anything to restrict the opponents tech. They leave little room for flanking, gimping the core CoH gameplay and gimping the use of units like Jackson which were originally designed to do this).
That said larger maps aren't always better. Steppes is good for the first 20 minutes then it turns into Jagdtiger: The Map. Vielsalm can have some nice armoured play but it heavily favours factions with FRP. Access to FRP needs to be reasonably consistent across factions. Of course you can have some variation for flavour but it's gotta be available to all factions or none. The other option would be to make infantry transports less cumbersome to micro.
I think best to have maps which combine both of these aspects, of if that's too difficult, at least include maps of both type and let players decide (i.e. straightforward, concentrated maps AND more open maps).
|
|
Pacific theatre could easily work gameplay wise. Sure some of it took part on islands, but that isn't a big deal since CoH maps are so small anyway. There were plenty of larger land campaigns (e.g. Guadalcanal, Burma Campaign, Okinawa etc.). A Japanese army could also work, provided devs and players are prepared to let go of bayonet charges and suicide bomb memes. Alongside US, Brits and to a lesser extent Russians could also easily be included.
However there are two main problems with a pacific focus. First, I doubt SEGA would be too keen on the idea. Second, is there is less cool kit to play with. This is the same problem with an early-war or Africa campaign. Who wants to use Matildas and P3s and miss out on Tigers, MG42s and Fireflys? Players want that stuff, and if it's not in the release sooner or later it will come in DLC doctrines, which leads to power creep and demand for other factions to have stronger units to counter it.
That said, one way around this would be a more infantry-focused game with varied and customisable (visually and tactically) squads. It would also need updated animations and visual effects so infantry combat is more exciting to watch. I think consumers would go for it with the right kind of marketing, and perhaps a release timed to roughly coincide with the next big WW2 film/TV series.
The alternative would, as others have suggested before, to do an alternate history late 1940s WW3 with Western allies vs USSR vs German Remnants. The big challenges here would be cast the premise in such a way that is neither too campy nor too grimdark.
Ultimately though speculating about CoH3 doesn't seem like a very productive endeavour. Making games is such a large endeavour, and making truly great games requires so many things to go right. I think the reality is that the Relic just isn't what it used to be. Whether it's because people have moved on, because the culture has changed, or something else, the Relic of today isn't the same one that worked on CoH more than a decade ago. I think the development cycle of CoH2 clearly demonstrates that. For every amazing design aspect, there's another that is a painfully obvious bad idea. As much as I'd love to see an awesome CoH3 three, I just don't see it happening. I think the real time strategy/tactics genre still has a lot of potential, bud I don't think CoH is going to be the dominating force moving forward. |
I'll be honest though, I still greatly wonder what they're usually doing when not dealing with wildfires. Even the most active definitely don't post to the degree of a real forum denizen.
I assume community manager is not their full time job, rather a small role within a larger suite of responsibilities. |
|
The worst faction is always the one I'm playing and my opponent's is always the most OP. Any strategy I employ is a fair display of skill and all my opponents use no-skill cheese which only works due to bad game design. |
Seems like a bit of a meme strategy. I get where you're coming from, i.e. viewing Pfus as a better investment than volks, but there are a few problems I see specific to this strategy.
- 2 kubels seems a dubious investment, they will die sooner or later, if the opponent has some kind of scout car then they won't last long at all. Why not make 1 volks squad and 1 kubel.
- Pfus are mostly better than volks but they have some drawbacks, being their inferior snare, their harder time getting vet (since volks can usually get vet1-2 against easy early game targets, plus the snare is a big boost), and their larger munitions burden.
- You are relying very heavily on your teammate to do the heavy lifting for most of the game. It's a big ask for them to supply early game suppression/long-range combat, mid-game map control, mid-late t3 vehicles.
Getting to 2cp shouldn't be too hard, using sturm pios aggressively in combination with building obstacles, deploying/upgrading HQ trucks etc. should get you there.
After the early game it's just standard 2v2 Breakthrough stat, no big comments there. The big challenge with such a strat is getting enough kills for the CPs while also conserving fuel. Sometimes it is worthwhile to build t4 for the map control, CP boost and flexibility it offers. The problem with breakthrough doc is as soon as your opponents see those pfus they'll adopt a strategy to counter it. If they are US or UKF they will make heavy use of LMG infantry which will outmatch your pfus in most instances. |
|
Brit player with Special weapons doctrine + Soviet teammate = Conscripts with 2x LMGs. |
|
Yeah it probably could be considered an exploit in larger game modes although even then it's pretty rare that you'd want a second ST over a JP4, panther or KT, especially if that second one came with the added cost of a squad's worth of manpower. |
|
Occasionally mines detonate and don't do any damage to the vehicle, I don't think this is specific to any particular type of mine or vehicle. |
These are great stats and all, but I think it should be particularly stressed how utterly important positioning is in this game. The conditions for these stats are stacked to produce the highest possible performance from unturreted tank destroyers.
This, I would hope that turretless TDs that can only do AT would be better in that role than med+ tanks with anti-inf capability.
These stats go to show just how great the StugIIIG is at dealing damage. However what they don't show is how much it starts to struggle once firefly, Jackson, SU-85, and even comet (which Stug has no range overmatch against) hit the field, or how much the Stug relies on spotting scopes to really shine.
On the subject of panther, I think it would be alright with a small straight buff to its reload time. I think the intended role of the unit is clear enough: a highly mobile, reasonably durable counter to enemy tanks, which is itself vulnerable to enemy TDs firing at long range. It just can't do that role very well right now due to its low lethality and buffs to allied TDs which have diminished its durability advantage. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
