Profile of Hannibal

Typically Unions tend to kill the industry/job you are attempting to unionize so it shouldn't be taken lightly.

However, wouldn't this thread be better served in another, thread?

American spotted!



On topic though:
It is difficult to judge without knowing what the deal exactly included or what was policed exactly. It is a business deal and AceHiro should be aware of it. If he said something that hurts the trust between both parties or that AceHiro only adhered superficially to the deal but otherwise tries to circumvent it (e.g. breaking an NDA is also not okay in private chats), it is his fault. If Relic generally polices private chats and bad talking about CoH3 or any CoH game in general, they are overstretching their competence. I slightly doubt that this is the case though, due to AE regularly trash talking bugs in the game. On the other hand AE has also more influence than probably any other streamer, so maybe he can dare to say more because dropping him would actually anger the more active part of the community due to his tournaments and range.

I get the impression though that AceHiro is disappointed that the codevelopment is nothing more than a marketing stunt and free game testing for Relic. I find that quite naive. It can serve well for the community and the game, too, but primarily it is a marketing stunt. Obviously Relic will present it differently, and it is good that AceHiro calls them out on it. We've seen their shoddy community and ocmmunication handling multiple times in CoH3: First, promising weekly dev diaries that were good for the first few weeks, then became a meaningless wall of text and finally abandoned quickly, and then revived after months of nothing but only for very few entries. Relic and IGN starting their video campaign before initial launch, only to embarrassingly move the launch date 1 month before when all videos were published.
That's not to say that they completely ignored the feedback at all, they did address some problems that were pointed out during their tests. But as usual, if you promise full transparency and top notch communication with a large community, putting one single person on the job is not going to cut it.

Overall, this reads as AceHiro being too naive to really think that a big studio will not try to control the information flow of their main product. And Relic on the other hand being incompetent or at the very best overpromising due to marketing and then obviously underdelivering.

Hard to say really. There are signs of them, but they are very vague. We for sure know that there are at least 2 units missing from the game being Noshorn and Archer TDs.

We also know that having more then 3 battlegroups are also planned, since there were signs of battlegroup loadouts. On top of that, dispute a lot of concepts of battlegroups, have changed since previous tests. Most of the abilities were still in use in tech tests.

Meaning that we are still missing multiple units\weapons\abilities in battlegroups tech test had (and relic pretty much said that on release there will be only 3 battlegroups). Not to mention that WM and US had 4 commanders in the files.

So its safe to assume, that relic will release new battlegroups.

My personal opinion is that they are most likely then not, will be locked behind both in-game and real money, since Relic got a lot of hate before about commanders being unobtainable without real life money.

As for gameplay content. Pretty much mini-gamemodes similar to the ones in vCoH ToW, will be returning to some extend, there were a lot of signs of them.

So basically the same things as in CoH2: Mini-expansions/DLCs, commanders, skins.

I would speculate that they will release pure single player campaigns as well. This will be a big fraction of the player base, and once they have set up the basic systems for the release version, there is no reason why they should not create a campaign e.g. North Africa, France, Poland, Greece/Crete etc. especially a German POV Crete campaign would lend itself well. Or maybe the more obvious choice: US POV campaign in the Pacific. They would work well for their designed gameplay of integrating navy, air and land forces on the strategy map. Maybe they'll even bring back Soviets at some point.

They literally said they will be releasing new battlegroups during one of the deep dives and UI is dead giveaway for it. Doctrines were monetized and sold well, so no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same with battlegroups.

Not really sure what you're debating here.

The debate is not only about battlegroups. If you couldn't find hints for monetization of basically confirmed battlegroups in the game files, you won't find anything else as well. If you however find them, whatever else Gachi claims to have found in the game files has more credibility as well.

2x speed bonus on reversing.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But cool to see to also get different minor factions via battlegroups.

I've made a post after digging tech test files, which had connections to montization.

Pretty much what will be monetisation

1) Separate\bundled skins for tanks\captured points\inf units. Pretty much every aspect of army will be customisation
2) Things like player avatars, titles, player cards
3) There will be 3 types of item rarity similar to common\rare\epic
4) And I believe game would have 2 types of currency one being free and the other one will be paid one.


Also again, for those who think "skins aren't sufficient enough", there are passive income, to generate more $ proper game-developers\publishers use expansions, the same way Total War did.

I mean sure, big companies always trying to milk you dry, but lets be honest "EA\Ubisoft style" is not the single one here on the market.

I remember your post, it was a pretty interesting read, but quite a while ago.

Did you find anything regarding battlegroups or other gameplay content? What you list up there seems to be cosmetics only.

original:
"Having vehicles generally recoverable could mean some good news for overall gameplay. Artillery can not be as strong anymore in large games, because the main counter to arty at least in CoH2 was diving a tank, which in turn is only viable if you don't hand over your vehicle to the enemy. "

I don't get why you quote this twice now. The meaning is still the same, and even if you misunderstood it the follow up posts made it pretty clear that diving in CoH3 could be less viable compared to CoH2. So nothing is "contrary to what I claimed". I always said the same thing.

By "can not" do you mean it will be less oppressive or it should be designed to be less oppressive?

Yet from first look of COH3 the easy access to healing/reinforcement in map it seem that the game will require strong artillery or else it will static camping around these points.

I am not a soothsayer, I have no idea what Relic has planned. The section you quoted above is only one of multiple aspects that I mentioned, where Relic needs to take special care and thought in order to not break the game AND keep some vehicle recovery mechanic in the game.

We'll see how Relic handles the forward reinforcement. They'll surely need to tweak it, I'd personally prefer some longer setup/teardown for the med trucks in order to put more thought into where and when to place them down and how to defend them. Artillery would surely help to destroy these forward points, but I hope they'll manage another route. Spamming arty is already way to prevalent in CoH2 to the point where whole games are just decided by who has more artillery, not who organized better pushes. Obviously it is highly map dependent, but still. CoH3 should focus more on ground based pushes, at least in my opinion.