I think you're under-estimating the amount of strategy that goes into CoH2. Yes unit control is important, but guess what... it is important in every RTS I can think of and certainly every RTS I have played. It is one of the fundamental pillars on which the RTS genre has been built and I don't see a single problem with it. If you want to only overcome opposition with some grand over-arching strategy you can play things like Europa Universalis or some other game along those lines. In CoH2 you still have to micro well, but you also have to play strategically. There are constant decisions on what unit to purchase, how to spend munitions, where to lay mines, grenade pump-fake mindgames, pushing for cutoffs, which resources to deny your opponents based on the map layout, etc I could go on for a long time. I'm not saying that these things were non-existent in vCoH but to say that CoH2 is not strategically deep is simply ignorant.
I'm going to disagree with you. CoH2 is in no ways as deep as vcoh, it's a very simplified game. Yea, coh2 is built on a similar engine, and has similar mechanics but in the end its too straightforward. Why do you think all of these people are complaining? Because of their "Ignorance" or misunderstanding the game? Everything you stated here in this paragraph existed in the first game, the main difference is that vcoh had layers and layers of teching / strategy on TOP of these things. That's why there are so many people and competitive players upset. It's a very simple step 1,2,3 process game where you build units, build counter units, and use your commanders abilities as munitions to win. There's no global upgrades, no pop cap system to punish poor positioning or being outplayed if you're cut off, there's no economic upgrades, the capping system is simplified immensely in terms of resource distribution. And you know what, you're entitled to like the game but if you go out saying that people don't understand this "immense amount of depth" in coh2 and then you don't even understand what's been stripped from this game and why people are mad, it makes you a tiny bit ignorant yourself don't you think?
You're throwing around the word "artificial depth" too loosely and simply trying to use it as some fancy buzzword. The truth of the matter is that commanders add real and relevant depth to the game. They have the potential to define how you are going to play in that specific game, on that specific map, or in reaction to what your opponent is doing. You do not have to pick a commander at the beginning of the game - it is entirely feasible to wait until you have seen what your opponent is doing to pick a commander. I fail to see how this system lacks seamless adaptation in response to what your opponent it doing... It also allows for players who prefer to take the initiative to choose doctrines with units like Assault Grenadiers/Ostruppen/Partisans/etc to force the enemy to react to them. Both of these are valid ways of playing and both certainly add depth to the game. Any time a commander can have such a large impact on how the game progresses adds real depth. I will say that I dislike the paid DLC way in which some of these commanders are implemented but that's just life in today's gaming world and it is ultimately probably outside of Relic's hands.
How is that even a fancy buzzword. Artificial depth is a pretty damn good way to explain the strategies that revolve around the current system and the DLC paywall. You can only have 3 commanders, and you have to choose a commander to get a few new units. The first game had a greater diversity in units fielded in just the basic army minus having to chose a doctrine. Then, the doctrine would dictate how you use those units, not just grant you "here is your super tank" and an elite infantry. There were also trees in the doctrines in vcoh, meaning, if you chose to go down one tree, you were rewarded wiht 1 very good ability, and if you decided to go down another tree you were rewarded with a second very good ability. Therefore, you sometimes couldn't have your cake and get to eat it too. Right now coh2 is simply here is your commander and you get all the things. Enjoy.
I also find it *very* hard to believe that everyone had comparable micro skills in vCoH... even in games as large as SC2 there are professional players who have untouchable micro that is miles better than other pros. There are also professional players who have god-like macro ability that compensates for their lack of micro. Unless every vCoH player was simply THAT good at every aspect of the game... I feel like you're just trying to pull excuses out of thin air.
I'm putting 10 bucks on the fact you have hardly touched vcoh. Anyway, vcoh was a lowish apm game, because it wasn't about dodging nades left and right but positioning and good use of tactics and flanking etc. You probably didn't need more than 30 apm to play this game well but obviously having more never hurt. The reason being is that you could outmaneuver your opponent or outplay him through intelligent decisions. That does still exist, but it ends up being a munitions spamming fest. Why outmaneuver when you can shoot a rifle nade or throw a molotov and the input lag makes it relatively undodgeable?
The unfortunate reality is the players like you who want a more simplified game and say "no no no everything is ok don't touch it" are going to be the ones who kill this game. The competitive community kept vcoh active and if you don't at least respect that at least acknowledge that there was a reason it ran for about 6-7 years with a steady player base. Do you REALLY see that happening with this game? Because I don't.
0
ThumbsUp
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
