Profile of Blov

I'm not saying they don't make a difference; obviously they do, and obviously they would be pointless if they didn't.

What I'm asking, rather, is whether you really think a player who won a given game would have lost that same game if they had not used the "best" commander available? Do you really think that commanders make so much difference that they change a defeat into a victory and vice versa? I'm not convinced that is really the case.

Definitely some of the time, it's hard to say about 'most' of the time. There's no way of knowing to be honest. When Ostruppen came out and were 120-160mp, came at T0 and you could call in a unit every 30 seconds, they were absolutely unbeatable in 2v2 on some maps unless the Ostruppen player was utterly terrible. You could literally stick them in every building on a map. HelpingHans convinced himself this was some kind of genius strategy...

I understand the commanders are better now but still not to the point there are no banned commanders in a tournament.

Also, this is a full price competitive multiplayer 1v1 RTS. You shouldn't be having to put up with FTP Moba microtransactions in this sort of game.

Another "my game was the greatest they should support it" circle jerk thread. And on top of it you want it free? Do you live in the real world? while were at it they should patch Half life 2, im sure that makes tons of money today.

Look, it doesnt get support like all old games because there is no money in it. Nothing is free, they cant go spending their time on shit that doesnt matter. Would you spend hours working on a project for free? they dont do this as a hobby, they need a living.

I notice they're still prepared to charge people for the game they're not supporting. Also, Vcoh after 6 years still had a better player base and a better esports side than COH2. COH2 *still* lacks in-game ladders... that's fucking ridiculous with the amount of overpriced paid DLC that's got stuck onto it.

I don't think it's unfair to suggest that the complete botch job made on COH1's transition to Steam was not improved upon because it incentivised VCOH's playerbase into moving to the less feature-complete, worse-balanced and more heavily monetised sequel.

Just watch the Operation Charlie Fox tournament and compare it to the last season of COH1 SNF... COH2 isn't even close, regrettably.

Like, the Commanders lack strategic in-game depth, add a P2W issue (MOBA model does not apply in a full price RTS) and are largely bloat. VCOH's doctrines had more depth, were more interesting & were easier to grasp. The tech system is a mess all around and makes for none of the interesting meta-game stuff of COH1. The plays in COH 1 were bigger, lethality was a lot greater in terms of early mistakes actually costing the game rather than games dragging out for ages despite being wildly uneven.

Even the meta in the early stages of COH2 was healthier than it is now despite balance being all over the place, maphacks are rife, playerbase is a bit toxic and watching the Charlie Fox tournament... it's just not particularly exciting, which is a shame because the fan enthusiasm here is just something deserved by a much better game.

German ones are pretty ho hum but Soviet double snipers can be fantastic.

I don't see how a resource system that encourages you to cache your cut-offs and does not provide increased pop-cap provokes aggressive play and harassment. There's a reason why in almost every game I've played the frontline was located in the center of the map throughout the game, no matter how the game evolved.

Because every single point that you harass or cut off reduces fuel and munitions income, and every connected point you gain increases it. This is tangible throughout the game, whereas VCOH's popcap wasn't *that* big a deal in yer average game until the late game call-ins turned up and frankly led to a lot of weirdly pedantic counter-intuitive things (like the incomplete OMCG, or reckless and obviously unholdable capping to give you the popcap to rush out a big call-in...). There's a reason in COH 2 to contest and to grab every point at all stages of the game, not just cut-offs and resource points.

(In my experience, frontlines on Pripyat are fairly central because it's a blargh map where the guy with the bridge will normally win, but I still see a lot of cross-river harassment of the south fuel cut-off and the VP in the north. On Kholodny I've had some varied lines of engagement.)

@Crawler: your income depends on ALL of your connected territory, meaning that good map control will let you tech faster and get more munitions upgrades and bad map control will slow your tech down. I.e. it's not just VCOH's resource system with ultra-caches added on, which is what people seem to be presenting it as. Also, you have to keep units alive to keep the vet, so if you're killing enough to drive them below 25 popcap, you're probably ahead on vet anyway.

@BarbieCrack: If you have better map control, you have more fuel and munitions. Winning the manpower war is a lot easier when you have T-34s vs. Halftracks or can afford to upgrade all those grens you kept alive with MG-42s while your opponent can't. In addition to which, the VP game is still going on, which makes saving up income for a concerted push problematic. At the moment, having a bigger army than your opponent is a liability if you're not managing to use it to control the map, but if you are you are going to be consistently in a position to stay ahead.