Profile of Tiger Baron

We could always use more 1v1 players so if you are sick of people being toxic feel free to give 1's a try, has a learning curve but for me its always been my bread and butter in RTS games.

You mean to say that people in 1v1s are not toxic?

Really now.

If it's a mod that you used you should be able to delete it in the mods folder located in documents, my games, COH2.

But I suggest you unsubscribe from it on Steam first.

I think what Ardennes Assault did right was the gameplay, the varied objectives, letting the player choose how to approach a mission and which mission exactly with with Company, the upgrades, points, reinforcement system and so forth.

What it failed was the story, the characters were daft and soulless.

They were just portrait pictures with voices and sad or tragic backgrounds, not to mention that a couple of the commanders like those of Baker and Able were absolute bull.

One was a New York gang kid being thrown in the unprotected real life and burden of command which he "never asked for" while the other was that only kid in the family that wanted to "prove himself" to his father or whatever, both of which were cliches if you ask me.

Company of Heroes' campaign stories had a lot of characters each with their own visuals and backgrounds.

For example you had Captain MacKay and Sergeant Conti, 2 very experienced people who knew each other from the very beginning since boot camp as Conti said, and you played the campaign with both of them pretty much almost to the end until MacKay is killed and it's a heartbreaking moment in the story, it's not made up, it's not artificially built up, it felt natural and like a movie.

Another example linked to the American campaign I would probably say is the Tiger Ace one. It has 5 minutes of cutscenes and yet it tells so much more and relates to the other campaigns.

The Tiger's commander, Hauptmann Voss is later the commander of the Panzer Lehr in the PE campaign as "major-general".

Schultz is the Tiger Ace's commander that you have and ultimately fight in the American Campaign.

In the British campaign the Major there finds Voss' medal at the end and it's just perfectly told in my opinion.

And you don't have any of that in AA sadly.

Another thing is probably the history of the Battle of the Bulge which AA is inspired from.

There is no Sherman Jumbo, especially the "Cobra King" which was historically the first tank from Patton's Armored Divisions sent to relieve the battered paratroopers of the 101st Airborne Division, a feat which many doubted Patton was able to even pull off.

Not to mention that they missed a perfect opportunity to portray the Germans as well. It could have been very well done like they did with the Dawn of War Dark Crusade campaign where you could play the Germans in the same manner as the American Army in taking the territory, then once their objectives were taken you would switch over to the US side and so forth.

Which brings me to the last bad thing probably, to little for what their asking price.

When it released it was 40 US Dollars which as you might guess it asking for a lot for a single player campaign that you can finish in less than a day.

Now don't get me wrong, like I said the gameplay side of the campaign was well crafted, a lot better than the Soviet one and close to the original campaigns, but asking that amount of money for around 6 hours of game time... yeah...

Not to mention the Fox Company pre-order DLC which was yet another spit in the customers' faces.

It basically has Rangers and very unbalanced abilities and other units which either render a few of the campaigns' mechanics obsolete or are necessary in order to progress any further in the campaign because it seemed on a few missions that they were pretty much impossible to complete without Fox.

As I mentioned about the reinforcement system earlier, it was a trade off for experience.

Each company had "strength" and accumulated experience and points, if the Company's strength went to 0 you couldn't play with them anymore, but if you want to reinforcement you needed to spend points at the expense of the company's gained experience which Fox was a perfect answer to, Rangers wouldn't die so often and were probably the most effective and cost efficient American units in the campaign.

So yeah overall I'd say that the campaign was pretty good, not the best, but it was still better than the Soviet one, however I don't think it could compare so well to the classics for the above mentioned reasons.

It had a lot of wasted potential in my opinion which could have been used had they really just wanted to.

Fair enough I played a lot of older RTS as well but not really online too much.

Either way, it's been a while since the gaming community has been peaceful enough to not have a mute feature. The censorship route is freaking dumb, they might as well have not done anything

People can say plenty of nasty things without using curse words

Not only that but filters are also pretty useless, you can add plenty of symbols which the system won't detect, and thus censor.

I'm very sorry that I don't believe Soviet reports which claim the destruction of probably 500 Tigers at Kursk while in reality there were less than 200 deployed there.

Plus actual Soviet reports have been often censored on purpose for propaganda purposes, that's also the reason why nobody addresses them anywhere and only refers to Western reports which are probably more accurate because they're not as biased.

You can also think what you like, there's a reason why so few books are written on Soviet tanks and units compared to German, American and British such.