I think you missed the whole point of my post. I was giving examples of games succeeding with no developer support. If the patches were/are so epic the community could just adopt that patch and use it, if they wanted to. It's exactly what aoe2 did - aoe3 even did it for a while if my memory serves. A whole subsection of the smash community has done it with project M. The bottom line is that you in no way need developer support for a game to succeed. Yet coh1 still has minor developer support and seems to be dying a slow painful death because those that claim to care so much don't do anything to help their game.
It's probably because those games had almost nothing comparable to them. The playerbase stuck with the game because there were simply no decent alternatives.
The step from aoe2 to aoe3 or cncg to cnc3 was so much larger than the one from coh1 to coh2. In the two cohs you're playing basically the same maps in almost the same engine with pretty much the same units. It's also why so many people are negative about coh2, for a game with so many similarities it has has only worsened gameplay (according to those people). Yet the game is supported by Relic and is obviously meant to replace coh1, and finally seems to be improving. It's also worth noting that the competitive community of coh1 was never as big as the games you mentioned, which in itself is almost the biggest limiting factor already.
Coh1 may have had more granular strategic decision making but coh2 still has a lot of very important decision making. I'm not opposed to relic adding more global upgrades. I don't want to see a system like sc2 has because it's very binary. I get upgrades now my units are better but my upgrades are 100% counteracted by my opponents upgrades because they are literally the exact same things. I've played plenty of RTS games with these style upgrades. I think you're over estimating how interesting they actually are. Maybe at first they're cool but ultimately they just become a part of a perfectly optimized build order that players can blindly follow because it ends up being more efficient than anything else. The best part of coh2, and really the entire coh franchise in my opinion is the emphasis on proper tactical game play. It's why I play coh2 and not sc2 or aoe2 or wc3 or any other RTS out there. If I want to out strategy some one ill go play eu4 or a war game.
I think you're completely wrong here. Anyone who has even slightly played games like sc(2) knows there is no perfect build, no ideal strategy. The 'binary' upgrades have a massive impact on the game not only in the straight up fights between units but also in how players approach the game both tactically and strategically. I can give plenty examples of how these work out in sc2 but also in coh1.
Besides, how different are these upgrades really from coh2? Can you honestly say that upgrades in coh2 aren't just straight up buffs pretty much all the time? All the strategic choices come down to whether the resources you spend on them are worth it, pretty much exactly like those other 'binary' upgrades.
On the note on snipers, they work almost entirely the same way as in coh1, only easier because now there is less chance of a countersnipe.
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
