I agree with you about commanders. I think that is one aspect of the game that I just don't like, even though it isn't necessarily bad. It adds depth in a different way, and I think Relic has made it clear that the base game is going to remain largely unchanged and the majority of updates will come via commanders.
I have the old-school mentality that commanders/doctrines/companies/whatever should supplement your strategy, not define it. This mentality doesn't really apply to CoH2, because the commanders feel so integral to how you play the game. I feel that as CoH2 matures, playstyles are going to largely depend on the commanders players use. And variety, as a result, will hinge on commander variety.
When you look at it this way, the simple base game actually makes a lot of sense. You give people the core and then let them customize it via commanders based on their individual playstyles. That's interesting, and could make for a very interesting competitive scene. I prefer the vCoH approach is commanders as supplements to otherwise perfectly viable strategies, but I can see the CoH2 approach working as well.
I think if they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by making these interesting commanders available solely via DLC, you would see a lot more people playing CoH2 and competing in and watching SNF. If Relic's goal was to give people a basic core of a strategy game and then let them flesh it out with commanders, they needed to make those commanders available to everyone. That would actually be extremely interesting, the more that I think about it, and would make me a lot more excited for the future of CoH2.
Honestly, this could all be solved by making DLC commanders unlockable in gameplay as well as purchasable. Give players who can't wait a means to pay for commanders right away, and give players who would never buy DLC in the first place an opportunity to earn everything in the game that affects the actual gameplay.
Thinking about that actually got me excited about what could happen if Relic changed their DLC system to something like that. |
I get asked this a lot when I stream, and recent shoutbox conversations have prompted me to sit down and flesh out what exactly I find lacking in the game, and why. I don't bash CoH2 for the sake of bashing it; I've played Company of Heroes for over 5 years, I participated in the CoH2 alpha, beta, and two playtests at Relic's offices. I've talked to developers, engaged in discussions with other top players. I've put a hell of a lot of time into CoH and CoH2 because I want the game to be amazing. But despite all that, I still find it lacking. This is why.
The biggest thing missing for me in CoH2 is the potential for strategic depth. If you compare vCoH to CoH2 strategically, a lot of it is extremely similar. Both games have factions with four tiers and similar progression through those tiers. The Soviets have to build T1 or T2 before they can build T3/T4, just like the Americans. The Ostheer need to upgrade their HQ in order to build subsequent tiers, just like Wehrmacht. In terms of straight tech progression, both games are extremely alike.
The big difference, however, comes from global upgrades. Upgrades are interesting because they provide another entirely different layer of strategic depth to a game. When your game has upgrades, you give your players a lot of choices to make.
Let's generalize things and say you have two infantry units on the field right now. Each infantry unit costs as much as an upgrade for those infantry units that can greatly increase the strength of all infantry units on the field. Therefore, when you have enough money to build another infantry unit, you also have enough money to upgrade your infantry. However, the upgrade takes a long time to complete, and it means you sacrifice an infantry unit in order to complete it.
In this situation, you as the player have to make a decision. In this instance, it's rather simplistic; it's a binary decision between building a unit and purchasing an upgrade. If you build the unit, your on-field presence will be greater now but diminished in the future. Why? Because you've invested in a unit that gives you function and utility now, at the expense of investing in future tech (the upgrade) that will make your infantry stronger as the game progresses. Alternatively, if you purchase the upgrade, your on-field presence will be weaker now but stronger in the future, because while the upgrade is completing you will have less actual units on the field to do stuff with.
When you apply this scenario to an actual game, you can fairly clearly see how each decision can have serious implications. If you build the unit and your opponent attacks you right away, that unit pays off immensely because it gives you additional firepower against the attack that you would not have had otherwise. If you build the unit and your opponent techs instead, however, you need to get some use out of the unit (by gaining map control or attacking your opponent yourself) because your opponent is going to be ahead in tech. Conversely, if you purchase the upgrade and your opponent attacks, you will have less units available to defend and could be overrun. If your opponent doesn't attack, however, you've managed to get away with your tech unpunished, and will have superior infantry later on in the game.
Furthermore, you're never presented with a simple binary choice. There are numerous upgrades that you have to prioritize, balancing those against building units and making sure you have what you need to fend off your enemy's aggression. The more upgrades that are available, the more choices you have to make, and the more difficult it becomes to successfully balance the two facets of the game. It becomes exponentially more difficult to execute successfully, and it gives players a far wider array of viable options.
You can also base timing attacks on upgrades, since the strongest you as a player are at any point in the game is the moment right after a major upgrade or tech advancement completes. That is the moment you want to attack, because it gives your opponent the least amount of time possible to complete his own tech or field additional units.
This is the main difference between vCoH and CoH2 in my mind, and the main reason why I don't find CoH2 to be all that interesting a strategy game. In CoH2, you still have to make these decisions to a certain extent. You have to decide between building units out of your current tier or investing time and money into another tier in the hopes that your opponent either won't attack you until that next tier is built or won't have the units necessary to overrun you before the next tier comes online. But that's pretty much where the similarities end. There is a distinct lack of global upgrades in CoH2, and global upgrades are the real catalysts of this important strategic decision-making. There's no purchasable veterancy, no expensive rifle upgrades (only extremely cheap and quick conscript upgrades), no supply yard upgrades, nothing significant and expensive that can be purchased over more units or another tech building. It makes the game feel extremely linear to me. You build a tech building, then build a certain amount of units from that building, then build the next tech building, and so on.
Relic seems interested in mitigating this to a certain extent with purchasable commanders. The recently added commander that allows for a version of purchasable veterancy is one that comes to mind immediately. This is, in my opinion, a poor way to fix problems that exist in the core game. I shouldn't have to pay money in order to have access to general strategic options, or in order to fix deficiencies in the game I already paid full price for.
This is my biggest issue with CoH2. Again, it is my opinion, and I am hopeful that future expansions and content releases will be able to fix the issues I described above. But in its current state, this is what I mean when I say CoH2 lacks elements of strategy that were present in vCoH. I'm not saying CoH2 has no strategy, or takes no skill, or any nonsense like that. I just think it is a simplified take on a game that did a remarkable job of striking a balance between the importance of strategic decision-making and the impact of tactical plays. That balance, I feel, does not exist in CoH2. |
Posted this on Reddit, will repost here...
Golraeder wrote it I believe, and he was an old-school top vCoH player. He also reached out to a lot of good vCoH players who were playing CoH2 during the alpha/beta and tried to get them to contribute. I was busy and couldn't help unfortunately, so I can't comment on the quality and quantity of the help he received, but he was definitely trying to make the guide a resource for players interested in exploring the competitive side of things.
That said, regardless of Golraeder's caliber as a player, Prima guides generally don't give much to someone who's interested primarily in multiplayer. Multiplayer games evolve so quickly and drastically that online communities are a far superior resource most of the time. Discussions and guides here are more than sufficient if you already have basic knowledge.
I do know, however, that Prima bought the rights to the code for the CoH2 Stats website. Don't know if they've done anything yet, but it seems obvious that they plan on integrating it into some sort of online portal for the game. Could be another reason to give it a shot.
|