I'm not nitpicking and it's fine to be very critical.
From my POV it was either PC/mobile or PC/console expansion.
Ancestors Legacy + Iron Harvest is proof of concept, that console might work for a spin-off CoH game.
I doubt this will be a faithful sequel to CoH1/CoH2, so they have to market this differently (not CoH3).
Relic job annoucement | SENIOR CAMPAIGN DESIGNER:
It's worth noting, Atlus leadership who make console RPG's convinced Sega upper management to improve gaming quality. Atlus is owned by Sega Sammy Holdings same as Sega.
Atlus has been highly successful with Persona 5 on PlayStation.
In all honesty as other people have stated before me, I agree that Dawn of War 3 MAYBE could have worked, if it wasn't called Dawn of War 3.
So like you said, this is not a faithful sequel, while using the same name and being portrayed as such.
So again, it probably maybe would have worked as a sort of MOBA-RTS mash up if it wasn't using Dawn of War's name which is known for squad based tactical and strategic depth of combat and perhaps scale.
Most fans of the series, like me, I am guessing wanted and were expecting Dawn of War on Dawn of War 2/Company of Heroes 2's engine with DoW2's improvements and maybe some on top of those as well but that's about it, nobody expected for them to try and do mental gymnastics by trying to invent the wheel all over again. You got something good, something that was loved and has a following even until today (I still believe more people play DoW than DoW3) so you improve upon that while maybe incrementally adding something new like with DoW2, there was absolutely no need to depart so drastically from the core DoW gameplay in my opinion and I have no idea why they did it in the first place, trying to always be the best, the newest and the most "hip" almost always backfires.
Relic made history with both the first DoW and CoH because they had an idea and THQ was willing to invest into it so they tried it out and they found that it was liked and well received but I don't think imagined that it would be one of the top RTS games ever rated.
In a time of a market while not over-saturated like now with StarCraft and AoE as well as WarCraft clones they were the dominant things and DoW and CoH sorta broke that mold brilliantly which made them stand out.
So to me personally that's why they were so well done and loved, because they weren't doing it for the money or anything, they were probably content with the fact that the game might fail or that it might just get a niche following or whatever but still did, they still tried and they poured all of their love and creativity into it so that's why it worked.
And I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record here but Dawn of War 3 was made with the idea to re-invent the wheel by combining a nowadays pretty popular genre (MOBAs) and RTS which is a more niche and less popular genre and that's ironic but whatever, point is, you do it for the innovation and making something new, good and interesting, not to make a lot of money or to be popular because it will blow up in your face big time and that's where a lot of the nowadays triple A devs fail at and where the Indie devs pickup I think.
Sappers (non-dependent on choice)
Sniper (non-dependent on choice)
AEC (Hammer) 3-inch Mortar team (Hammer) - Using the Ostheer GrW 34 model.
Bofors (Anvil)
Mortar pit (Anvil)
Possible Grenade and Weapon racks unlock side-tech upgrades.
T2 (Same as before)
Cromwell
Firefly
Cantaur (Hammer)
Comet (Hammer)
17 Pounder emplacement (Anvil)
Churchill (Anvil)
and like this anvil is dead, lietrally
That's why I mentioned hull down and other stuff for Anvil in order to make it viable and not have Hammer be the go to choice for literally every game.
Altho Anvil will probably be more of pick for team games where you need to be the meatshield for your team who will be much more mobile and hard hitting than you.
Actually the hole anvil/hammer option could help balance the faction.
For instance one could remove the cover mechanism and make it available to anvil only while hammer would get a 5 member.
Hammer could give access to bren with assault rifle profile while anvil vickers K with Lmg profile.
Emplacement could be more durable and/or have less pop with anvil and so on.
Yeah but the cover mechanism would need to become a flat bonus/improvement and not act like a debuff when the section is out of cover for it to make sense and not have the 5 man squad be a superior choice to it.
And my idea for emplacements was just to altogheter lock them behind Anvil for whoever wants to use them, to me they should be a choice and not forced upon the player like in the mortar pit's case.
I mean yeah they're there if you would like to use them and you got that option but we're not gonna force you to and then wait 3 years to release a commander with a mobile mortar team.
So with all of the recent talks about bolster and the UC tweaks I wanted to pitch in an old idea of mine for a possible British tech rework of sorts for the next balance patch, similar to the USF one in the commander revamp patch.
In essence the idea was to put the Anvil/Hammer "site-tech" in the HQ (T0), thus allowing the player to choose from the very start what they wanna do exactly, be mobile and aggressive or static and defensive.
This however eliminated the Bofors and AEC side techs in T1 but I'll get to it in a second. Also the current T0 upgrades like Grenades and weapon racks would either be combined as a single, 3rd side tech or moved to T1.
Bolster would be integrated into Anvil and Hammer.
Now to get to the jist of it, what I imagine this would do is a sort of Offensive/Support side tech for the Eastern Germany Army from the Eastern Front mod for the original CoH where each side tech allowed the player to choose what they wanted to go based on the units and abilities they needed or planned around.
So I roughtly translated it like this for the Brits in this game -
T0 - HQ
IS
Vickers MMG
UC
Hammer/Anvil side tech
Possible 3rd combined unlock upgrade for the Grenades and weapon racks, maybe medics instead?
T1 (Based on choice)
Sappers (non-dependent on choice)
Sniper (non-dependent on choice)
AEC (Hammer)
3-inch Mortar team (Hammer) - Using the Ostheer GrW 34 model.
Bofors (Anvil)
Mortar pit (Anvil)
Possible Grenade and Weapon racks unlock side-tech upgrades.
T2 (Same as before)
Cromwell
Firefly
Cantaur (Hammer)
Comet (Hammer)
17 Pounder emplacement (Anvil)
Churchill (Anvil)
As you can see here the most dramatic change would be for T2 and Hammer/Anvil themselves where I at least would change up a bit their added abilities where they provide specific tool kits and bonuses.
So for example in my mind it goes something like this -
Hammer, unlocks agressive abilities and units, focus on Infantry Sections.
Anvil, unlocks defensive abilities and units, focus on Sappers.
Now since I'm integrating Bolster into these 2 what I'm thinking is that it should be tailored to each choice. So for example Anvil would make Sappers a 5 man squad and also give them the ability to build trenches and sandbags, while Hammer would instead make the IS a 5 man squad but they'll only have access to sandbags and maybe lower their debuff when out of cover because they will need to be more aggressive.
Apart from that, the Recon Sections upgrade for the IS will replace the War Speed upgrade in Hammer since the focus will be more on them rather than Sappers who are the only ones able to apply it to vehicles. Heavy Engineer upgrade will also allow you to over-repair your vehicles again like in the first game. Maybe the Sappers could also get their Flamethowers from Anvil?
I was thinking of Hull Down for the Brits in Anvil as well and maybe some more/different abilities based on your choice but I think it would steer off too much in the radical direction as this is more like meant to be in a similiar manner to the USF tech rework instead of a fully-fledged redesign of the Army. Point is I'm not so sure how to make Anvil be viable and not have Hammer be an automatic choice every match.
That is rather unfortunate. I was thinking that it maybe something for COH3 instead. Make it Authentic which would make the game feel great.
Do you have any suggestions for an American march song, assuming that you are an American yourself?
Well, there is this new tactical FPS game called Hell Let Loose that I'm playing that had this really nice song that caught my attention:
Then there's probably this gem of a march I stumbled upon a couple of months ago:
Also, as weird as it may sound, Girls und Panzer, a I would say rather widely known Anime featuring tanks, also has marches for each of it's "teams" that represent a given country but they use some pretty generic but nonetheless nice marches like for example -
Battle Hymn of The Republic and U.S. Field Artillery March for the US team.
Panzerlied and Erika for the German team.
British Grenadiers for the British team, obviously.
And lastly Katyusha and Polyushko-Polye for the Soviet team.
I really love the "Over there march" tho, it really brings the patriotism up in me and makes me really nostalgic and sad that I can't be a part of that generation of men that lived and fought all of that long time ago. Truly the best and greatest lived during the World Wars, nowadays we only have wannabe tough punks and 90% broken marriages.
Don't know if they're still there, but there used to be fragments of old models like the Stuka rocket carriage and the engine panels to a tank. There also used to be a CoH1 Puma model, and it even existing alongside the new Puma for a short time, but the model was removed from the files when Western Front Armies came out. In fact a few bits and pieces of old junk were removed when WFA came out, sadly I don't have any of it really documented, most of it was nothing anyway.
If you mean the Stuka Zu Fuss carriage and the rest of the vehicle models it's possible that they just refurbished the old models for the new game. One example to support this would be the replacement of the old Ost Panzer IV model that was "low quality" as in taken straight from CoH and just given a new texture, with the new OKW one.
So to me at least it's entirely possible that they just had the stuff laying around in the files until they were used and not needed anymore because they were fitted to the models since none of what you said you found in the files of the models were added to the game before the WFA.
Another 2 things were the addition of some USF units and weapons like the M1 81mm mortar before the Ardennes Assault expansion was released as well as the findings of the new USF vehicles like the Pershing and Calliope in the UKF Alpha.
Because Volks can effectively use their MP40s in urban maps where they can avoid getting shot while closing in? In CQC combat when you'd choose to use them over the STG44s? That's a big difference from it being the stock upgrade and Volks getting shafted on the majority of maps that have mostly ranged combat.
Your other arguments are quite frankly laughable. It's really clear you've either never really used the commander or you just suck with it. It's fantastic for urban map (high level) team games if you even remotely know how to make it work.
"Unless you spam [flamer Sturmpioneers] the impact is really low" yeah you don't say. Maybe try making two and you'll start dominating infantry engagements with them.
No need to be so personal here Mr top 20s rank. We get that you're a hot shot now since you're part of the community team but no need to be an elitist ass and let all of this go to your head thinking that you're a cut above the rest.
Be a bit more humble and don't forget that while I don't agree with Vipper on some things you gotta admit that he provided you guys with a lot of valuable and in-detail feedback, especially about the balance, something which most of us couldn't, and didn't do.
Do you also complain that the Jagdtiger and Elefant commanders are bad on urban maps? It's perfectly fine for certain commanders to be situational, that's exactly the point of choosing a commander strategically. That's just the gameplay direction of CoH2 commanders over CoH1's much larger doctrines.
Grand Offensive no longer has the MP40s. It and Tactical Advance have been replaced by IR STG44s and Panzer Commander.
Who cares that the MP40 is worse than PPSHs? Don't go up against Shocks. Volks MP40s do fine against US and UKF infantry and against Penals. It's not the best upgrade, but it's good enough on urban maps where lots of sight blockers help them close in.
The fragmentation grenade is great because people get lazy dodging OKW Volks grenades. Raw killing power is much better than a cover/garrison denial flame nade anyway because you have flamer Sturmpioneers to do that for them.
Flamer Sturmpioneers situational? Yes it is exactly the point of the commander that you use flamers on urban maps. Flamer Sturmpioneers dominate everything short of Rangers on urban maps. The high DPS and spread damage of their assault rifles synergize extremely well with the flamer.
Flamer Hetzer is not situational, it's the thing that you use as a shock unit by rushing T4 through Battlegroup. With only 90 fuel it comes earlier than enemy medium tanks (that you can counter with some Rakettens) and it 1v1s anti tank guns or infantry with ease. Great against blobs and garrisoned/entrenched enemy defenses.
Where have you seen me complaining about the Jagdtiger and Elefant exactly? I have been with both in Urban maps and both have performed well if you've given them enough sight and protection, but of course the Elefant from Jaeger Armor has proved to be the better performing overall with the Spotting Scopes.
And yeah I remembered the old patch notes for Grand Offensive, I forgot they got replaced.
My point is that gimmicks don't work and only a few people like them, if you don't believe me feel free to re-read the threads about the new commanders, I'm not making anything up here. So it's not just Urban Assault or Feuersturm but overall, commanders should provide solid options and not gimmicks that you can't rely on are too situational to be of any use most of the time.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
