Profile of Stark

There is an issue with the quality of release games in recent years. Especially games that continue the frenchise like coh3 or AoE4 (good example as they are both made by Relic). Because of deadlines, because the goal is to get the refund of the costs of production asap - Developers try to release the game earlier than later.
On the same time the business model of existing games is that they should bring money longer by adding DLCs, big sales, free weekends, keeping and even increasing the playerbase.

What does it lead to? Older games are usually better. They have more stuff in it. Better balance, more content, more variety etc. It's not like the new game wont have it later. It probably will but need time.

AoE4 was playable after year where AoE2 is having right now his golden age. The difference is unmeasurable. Even more the new DLCs for AoE2 offers more content new civs, new campaigns for single and multiplayer whereas in AoE4 you get only new civs for multi.
Same with Coh3. Game misses the basic stuff that make it hard to play. Coh2 has it pros and cons but overall is just better now. Looks and sound better for now. You can choose maps to play, you can text to people at the end of match, you can spectate the game.

I like playing coh3 and i did like AoE4 but the older games have the quality to enjoy it more. If i have to recommend anyone playing it - i would simply say: yes, you should try it but wait a year.

The game started at a peak of around 30k players. Now it is down to around 14k on the weekend. 12k during the week. By this coming Wednesday we could be seeing below 10k players.

I hoped for a much better start. And at a minimum have the numbers keep going up, not down.

As Aerafield said, maybe the single player people played it and left. Maybe the numbers will gradually increase as players become used to the game and venture into MP. Or maybe when the price drops, people will try it out and stay. Hopefully Relic has the bugs worked out by then.

All I know is, if I was a manager at Relic and saw this I would not be happy. Crap reviews even by people who love the series and never have anything bad to say, player base starting small and dying fast... I would be sending out resumes fast because my dismissal is right around the corner.

I am starting to see longtime Coh2 MP players saying they uninstalled Coh3 already.

Streamers are sticking to Coh3 still. So that is a positive sign. It is the future of the game for sure, so that makes sense they would.

I did expect more as well although we need to remember that games become very expensive lately. 60 dollars for many people is too much to pay at start for a game. Imagine you can wait like a year and get way more polished game for maybe -20% less. I know many people who will buy coh3 but just not now.

I understand people who give negative reviews because game lacks very basic stuff at release which at first looks quite obvious to be target. I don't like the design idea behind the main menu. Why there isn't a list of missions in DAK single player campaign, why there isn't a list on maps i do play in multi, why there isn't a single veto or no indicators of players in teamgames or option to look at the map after ending. First impression is the most important and it's not the best. Relic will fix this but sadly it will take time.

What do you mean both sides having similar level of units?

The Black Prince is a Churchill, a very meaty tank, but with a 17 pounder gun so basically on steroids lol.

So unless the Tiger is as effective I don't really see a direct counter to it.

You replay yourself with what i meant. There is no need to enter such a heavy tank section especially that it's unlikely we gonna see a KT and Jagpanther in first year of the game after release. It's really not needed to have so late war/post war stuff

But like I said I'm all for a little bit of fantasy if the Black Prince remains, King Tiger, Sherman Jumbo, hell even the Pershing even if the tanks that saw combat can be counted on your fingers since they entered service at the very late stage of 1945.

Same with the Comet, I'm with with even if it's in the same boat as the Pershing, but then again that will all bring back the complaints from CoH2.

Africa is sort of similar, the Tiger there will be the best tank probably in terms of stats as the Allies had no real counter to it there except for the few 17 pounder mounted on the 25 pounder carriages.

That's why I think either stick to history and disregard any complaints about balance which might anger certain people, or go on full fantasy.

You want to have fun with Africa war from 1941-1943, then Italy 1943-44 and you get tanks and weapons that doesn't fit that period. You gonna have Matilda tank, PIII so the best and heavies stuff should be Tiger I and Churchill M3 tank.
Some fantasy won't harm in multi but campaign shouldn't have that. It impacts immersion overall.

From a design point of view it would be better to combine Italians with Africa Corps as Italy didn't really have late game options. No good medium tanks expect samovente75.

I wonder though how they will allude to the fact that axis used a lot of retakenally tanks, vehicles and weapons. It was very common in Africa and most noticable in ww2.

I just wanna bring up that most valid and fair matchmaking is 1v1. All of us can name hundred games with your enemy team was rank 1000+ as me being top30. On higher modes it's even worse.

And yes, rank means something. If you are rank below 200 it means it's very very possible your loose game because of your mistakes or you haven't used tools that faction gives you.