Profile of RedTerra

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 12

General Information


Thread: Ardennes Assault is Amazing - A Campaign Done Right21 Jan 2020, 13:38 PM I made a video explaining why I love Ardennes Assault and how it compares to the previous CoH campaigns, which I felt were too tied down by the traditional RTS campaign formula when CoH's gameplay can be so much more than 'destroy enemy base/force' without any time limit. I mention how the AA campaign introduces player-driven agency and consequences, making each battle and each loss persistent and important in the bigger picture. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Company of Heroes 2 is Confusing [Video]25 Oct 2019, 05:17 AM Jump back to quoted post24 Oct 2019, 20:41 PMCrecer13 Well, the campaign really sucks. and she sucks in all respects: - stupid, stereotyped and frankly antihistorical (especially incredibly stupid mission in Poland) - And rather boring missions, which are much worse than the first part and do not fit in style to the "Company of Heroes", the only mission that is really successful and in the "Company of Heroes" style is "Tiger hunting". And I don’t understand why this happened, the developers visited the museum in St. Petersburg, it was enough to follow the history and a really interesting campaign would turn out, because the history itself wrote everything that was needed. Take the Mtsensk mission as an example: this is a boring and not reliable mission based on a real date: October 7. We see a bunch conscripts in the snow (although there was no snow) and in vain try to stop the German troops, there are a lot of troops and we are forced to retreat, continue the defense and wait for tank reinforcements. And this could be done much better simply by taking the real history: On October 7, more than 6,140 paratroopers of the 201st and 10th brigades of the 5th airborne corps with 8th T-37 light tank, 6th mountain guns, 10th 45mm AT guns, 8th 82mm mortars and the 33rd 50-mm mortars were delivered with 80 planes to the aerodromes of Orel and Mtsensk, some aircraft had to land under arlery and AA fire. Paratroopers held German troops until the 4th Tank Brigade. Just taking a real history could make a very interesting and “Company of Heroes” style mission. Interesting. Thanks! I've been reading a book: "When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler" and- yeah... there are several battles and engagements I think they could have done (and y'know, as a war correspondent, covered). Like jesus, the Soviet Airborne were butchered early in the war. Interestingly they they not only were well trained, but they "had a high proportion of motivated Communists." Their biggest role was to either infiltrate and cause havoc behind enemy lines or relieve encircled Soviet pockets. But poor navigation, command, and transports being shot down (there was one incident where ~40% or more of the Commanding Staff were lost from being shot down. Stuff like this could have been missions. Trying to save an encircled Soviet force, sacrificing your men, and all that under a time limit or limited units would have been really thrilling. But yeah, the best CoH missions I feel are the ones that have you run against the clock. I'd argue sadly a lot of CoH1 missions fall into: No Time Limit, Build Units, Attack, Rebuild Units, Attack. Rinse and Repeat. I recall liking the Mortain mountain mission quite a lot. Seizing and Holding the VPs while the enemy attacked you from all sides. The D-Day mission was pretty mind blowing. Oh, CoH1 missions also went a bit too long? And I mainly blame the build/repair times. Holy crap they take foreeeeever to arrive on the battlefield D: In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Company of Heroes 2 is Confusing [Video]25 Oct 2019, 04:57 AM Jump back to quoted post25 Oct 2019, 00:32 AMelchino7 Proper video effort, demands proper response. Note that i had been writing on and off on the post so some things might not be coherent or follow the same line of thought. -Campaign: Yeah, there's a lot of backlash from Russian players. I didn't intend to make the User Score a big factor, more from the critics who thought it didn't surpass the first game. -Theater of War: A lot of the ToW missions I played with my friend and some were novel or really well made like the Partisan-bridge mission. Finite units, unique abilities not found in SP or MP. But the ToW still suffers from quantity over quality, and poor AI. -THQ/Relic/Sega Yeah, the market was changing, Console Wars, more focus on RPG elements i.e. Dawn of War 2. And I also still think THQ wanted a CoH2 ASAP because of its financial situation. I checked but didn't make it a big point but yes, most of the early Relic staff who worked on HomeWorld left (some returning for the upcoming HomeWorld 3). The director of DoW1 went to work on Diablo 3, as did the director of DoW2. As for CoH1, I forgot about how the main leads ALSO went on to work on Blizzard. At least 2 of the 4 (the other 2 have no bios). Multiplayer: Yeah. I understand balance and such but a part of me also does wish they tried to make things more interesting. The Soviets aren't a reskin of the Americans but I still feel like they could have gone bigger with the Eastern Front. I mean, I still love (and sometimes) hate the Multiplayer, haha. Yes, I read about how Penals were arguably experienced soldiers and officers, sometimes well equipped too as their purpose was to lead risky assaults. I know the game tries to portray them as convicts and 'thugs'. PTRS rifles still seem outta place and I think they just better fit with the flamethrowers intended for CQC combat, not long range AT (the magnetic satchels are nice tho). -Blizzard: I tested the Skirmish mode with COLD TECH ON and... 50 minutes in and not a single blizzard :< I had footage of that long skirmish battle but I deleted it because nothing happened -Gameplay: I'm a bit mixed on evolutionary vs revolutionary changes. There's also a middleground. You could argue CoH2 become more micro focused than macro. I love truesight but I also miss stuff like infantry being able to get into their own cover. There's tradeoffs to that ofc. Sometimes you'd want more control. Sometimes you'd like it to think for itself. I have Grey Goo still needing to be played but I thought people complained it didn't feel 'splashy' enough like C&C Generals, Red Alert 2, or C&C3. That it had a more slower pace to it. Also the factions didn't appeal as much unlike a C&C game. -Multiplayer Yeah, a friend told me that before an AT grenade could either damage, cripple, or leave little to no damage on a tank. And yes, I recall playing early CoH2 and having planes wipe out a whole platoon and stuff Thanks for the response! As it seems you want to talk about multiplayer later, i would just mention this. INITIAL RELEASE of CoH2 had this design in mind: RNG for the sake of RNG and have as many annoying tools as possible to make your opponent uninstall instead of a playing a STRATEGY game. Remember, "every crashing plane and ramming tank, tells a story". In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Company of Heroes 2 is Confusing [Video]24 Oct 2019, 19:45 PM So I made a video about the game and how it not only feels unpolished but has several confusing ideas/design choices. Sorry in advance for the inconsistent mic quality. I need to improve my voice delivery (and distance from the mic) Keen on hearing others' thoughts. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Maxims are useless in Team Games8 Apr 2019, 13:55 PM I remember the early days of CoH2 where players stupidly spammed Maxims because of the fast deployment time. But now, the Maxims are just utterly useless in team games. It can barely suppress anything whereas the Vickers, MG34 and 42 can almost always suppress in the first burst. The crewmen health is so poor that I find maxims dying faster before they can even suppress or even retreat (because of the unique game logic for the crew to pick up the Maxim) The Suppressing Ability is far far less useful than the Incendiary rounds. You also have to reload, which by that time the Maxim crew is being targeted by overwhelming firepower. And oddly Maxims are now 260, apparently Relic thinks a Maxim = Vickers or MG42. The only use of Maxims seems to be last desperate defense lines or being in buildings In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Steel Division 28 Feb 2019, 06:09 AM Oh gods... they're FINALLY adding trenches, barbed wire, entrenched guns (AA, AT, Arty), and bunkers In: Other Games
Thread: COH Franchise Art Director Ian Guise left relic28 Jan 2018, 08:02 AM Jump back to quoted post27 Jan 2018, 14:43 PMTiger Baron CoH2 and DoW3 have very oddly cartoonish graphics anyhow, I hope that didn't infect AoE4 as well. Nothing personal, but I just preferred CoH's more realistic, grim and dark graphics than the cartoonish robots shooting each other in CoH2. Ok, I just replayed COH1 two months ago and I really feel like there's quite a bit of rose tinted glasses going on here (what with people saying CoH1 had better graphics, better VActing, a great campaign). Regarding graphics, I would say the game has more of a stylized cartoony look than CoH2. The UI, Doctrine Screen, the color choice for the VPs and such look more stylized. The faces on the models look a bit more cartoon like. Also CoH1 has this washed out grey-ish overlay look to it whereas CoH2 makes me think of yellow brown hues (which probably fits the Eastern Front). So I would say CoH1 looks more like Saving Private Ryan while CoH2 looks more like one of those huge epic Eastern Front paintings: http://i.imgur.com/kDyi0Vo.jpg Jump back to quoted post27 Jan 2018, 19:53 PMmiragefla For voice-acting, CoH 1 is FAR more stereotypical given how the US pretty much say lines you'd expect in Hollywood and the German had more than a few mustache twirling villains in their base roster before OF came out. It's not really better voice-acting and more of a different style and script in use. But I hope Ian Guise the best in his search! Yeah, even though one user meant the German cast's voice acting, other people think the (English) voice acting in CoH2 is worse than CoH1. And I dont get the hate towards the Russian voices. I dunno, I lived with Russian students at school and I gotta admit, from my experience I find Hollywood Russian accents more charismatic and appealing than the irl accents. Again, maybe I've been unlucky in real life but either way I don't see why people seem really annoyed by the Russian accents. They sound pretty dire and likable. I dont get the goofy voice acting criticisms. The Americans in Coh1 were really stereotypical. In: COH2 Shoutcasts
Thread: If You Redesigned the Factions?24 Jan 2018, 04:00 AM Jump back to quoted post23 Jan 2018, 16:34 PMMarkedRaptor The Soviet faction never interested me because they didn't have a commander or playstyle that emphasized running in massive blobs of troops from all sides. No commissar, no commander that gave any special quirks to conscripts, nothing. It's what I wanted from soviets, not some CoH1 USF. I actually liked USF more on release. That they were a faction that "lived on the razors edge" where they either won early game or lost horribly. I can understand homogenization but I generally don't like it. If I want to play a "normal" faction I'd just play soviets or ostheer, I want to play the other factions because they are vastly different then what I am used to. Brits, just seems better to never add emplacements to the game because no one will ever be happy with their existence. Even if they aren't really all that cancerous by themselves it's just a design decision that ultimately goes to waste. OKW, I liked their fuel/scavenge idea but alas. Seems best thing to do with the faction is a hyper aggressive early game, craptacular mid game, best late game. Has a cool "take and hold the line for dear life" vibe, or make them similar to old USF for people who want an aggressive only faction. Would be pretty sweet to watch USF and OKW duke it out in that fashion. I sorta agree that as Soviets, you dont feel like you that much of a numerical superiority to launch multiple attacks (something the Soviets were great at, look into the Deep Battle Doctrine). It feels very 1:1 more or less. It doesn't help that microing on the attack with multiple units is more demanding and punishing than controlling a smaller group of 'better' units. I'm not sure how you could make it easier on the Soviet player unless you make their unit costs lower. I used to main the USF but the Axis meta, esp. the long range Super Tank Destroyer meta, made me go back to the Soviets who seemed more capable of fighting Axis late game. I wish the Americans were more artillery focused and got something beefy like the Jumbo as a default unit. Brits i'm not a fan of the emplacements either. I think it encourages a playstyle I think doesn't fit the game. OKW I have the most issues with. Seems too much of a powercreeping faction without enough downsides or risks to balance things out. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: If You Redesigned the Factions?22 Jan 2018, 09:24 AM Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2018, 21:56 PMLimaOscarMike probably USF for me it's my favorite faction but i do acknowledge that it's lack so much dept in it my idea for revamp probably make more option for them to be able to choose how they approach in early to mid game like unlock very early LT. for combined arm option .50cal + mortar but have to stick with T0 REs (garand upgradeable via vet)and teamweapon or unlock very early Cpt. for riflemen and light vehicle and maybe probably start with scout riflemen Sounds interesting. It looks the Soviet tech tree at first where either you could go Special Rifles or Support Units. But I also feel like taking Riflemen away as the primary unit could be uite punishing unless the REs are buffed. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: If You Redesigned the Factions?21 Jan 2018, 18:16 PM Ideally I'd like to hear more changes you'd make from a thematic perspective than a balancing one but it's up to you. Minute details aren't required. For me, I'll start out with the Soviets. If I designed the Soviet faction, I'd... Conscripts to Guards: This would be pretty significant but I'd actually make Conscripts have the option to upgrade to Guard once they hit Vet 2. I dunno, I always thought the idea of a three star elite Conscript squad as a bit odd. Wouldn't that conscript squad be rewarded with the opportunity to join the Guards? Penals to Shock Troops: This unit really makes no sense thematically ingame. They're arguably better than conscripts in most combat situations when the idea of penal batallions in WWII was to probe an attack (see the enemy strength at the cost of their lives), delay the enemy, or just relentlessly and carelessy throw themselves at the enemy defenses until the enemy breaks or they do. In CoH2 however, they're tougher than conscripts and arguably are as decent as other infantry squads in the other factions, they get better equipment than Conscripts (I'm fine with the satchel charges, but the AT rifles? Meh.) Flamethrowers I caaaan sorta see Penals charging in with them but I think they're a bit too beefy HP wise. So what I'd do is make Penals squishy like Osttruppen, replace their SVTs with Nagants, let them keep their flame throwers and satchel charges. Once they hit Vet 2, they can upgrade to Shock Troops since they'd be experienced in assaults. Oh, Shock Troops would start out with a mix of PPSH and SVTs but you can upgrade them to go full PPSH, also they should get a satchel charge. Commissar: I so don't understand why they got rid of the Commissar. While the 'Commissar massacres their own troops willy nilly' is exaggerated pop history, I think it's safe to say that the Soviets were more strictly hierarchical than the Germans and other nations. Soldiers weren't often allowed to make their own decisions so they relied on orders from above. And the commissar more or less would have filled that spot. Instead for some odd reason, the Elite OKW get the Sturmoffizier who buffs units all around them just like the Commissar was supposed to do (i think the only difference is that when the Commissar died, all the troops nearby would be pinned whereas the Sturmoffizier's death forced retreat nearby infantry). But yeah, definitely would have been thematically interesting to have a commissar leading from behind while the units around are less prone to being pinned or whatever and so the German players would want to snipe/take out the commissar. A 'For the Motherland'-esque ability to reduce suppression, maybe get a weaker version of Fear Propaganda as they vet up, then an arty barrage at Vet 3 like the USF Major. T34-85 and KV-1 as Default Units: These really shouldn't be a call in unit. It's not like T34-85s were rare in the war (i may be wrong but more 85mms were produced than 76mms i believe) and I think it's safe to say that most players would rather have a strong all rounder tank like the 85mm, Panther, Easy Eight, etc. (less micro) than having to use a combo of T34-76s with AT support (more micro). And as for KV-1s, again, why is this a call in unit? It's nowhere as powerful as an IS2 and it's weaker than a Panther tank. All it has going for it is its armor but even then Stugs, Pak 40s, rockets, and high velocity weapons will deal quite a punch. Its slow speed doesn't help. And the gun seems weaker than the 76mm T34 somehow. In: COH2 Gameplay