Profile of CieZ

Stuarts are good. They hard counter 251 flak and luchs openings. You can skip the Stuart and grab an AT gun then rush a Sherman if they open puma.

Just have to micro your Stuart well. Capt in general is amazing this patch imo

I wasn't listing those as tactical, I was telling you the features that make CoH 2 the shittiest possible sequel to an incredible title that was CoH 1. And there is more to say on that, but it's useless. Game is unfixable.

So you agree that I know the difference between strategy and tactics... after bashing me and saying that I had no clue what said difference was...

Makes sense.

You're still avoiding the root of the post and the core of my entire presence here. We're past the point of trying to debate which game is better. They're both good and players are going to like one or both games because everyone likes different stuff. There's nothing wrong with that. It's shocking, and quite revealing frankly, that I get so much flak for stating my PERSONAL OPINION that I prefer coh2 - all the while admitting that COH 1 was good... and then suggesting that if people want coh1 to stay live - they should play the game/do positive things for their community.

The response I get?
"Lol m8 coh2 iz shit"
"fuck off fanboy"

Have I ever once called COH 1 a shit game? I just can't comprehend this logic.

I dunno. Maybe people can't read. Or maybe they're just that dumb...

That's because you were a terrible CoH1 player, especially in 1v1s. Your argument kinda falls apart when every single top player has their own definition of what constitutes standard play.

I started a new CoH2 account yesterday and almost got into the top 100 as Soviets in under 15 games, even though I haven't played CoH2 in months, have no idea what the meta is, and just conscript spammed. Oh, and I'm also "clueless" about CoH2, as some people love to say. In those games, the only important strategic decision I ever had to make was choosing which commander to pick; the games I lost were exclusively because I either lost too many units or chose the wrong commander, even against top 100 players who should have rolled me thanks to my lack of experience. The combination of low cost and low build time made the few available upgrades completely inconsequential. I didn't have to plan ahead, I didn't have to think about how they fit into my build. If I needed molotovs or AT grenades, I always had enough resources and I knew it would at most delay my tech by a minute, and I didn't have to plan ahead because they finished in a few seconds.

I almost got into the top 100 in a single day with zero strategic knowledge using standard commanders and a build from the beta, and that whole time the only important strategic decisions I made were commander selections. The rest was just micro and situational awareness. That shouldn't be possible in a strategy game.

Since when is being outside of the top 200 "almost top 100"?

15 games played in nowhere near enough time to properly calibrate your true ranking.

You played the strongest faction during a period of the community pretty much unanimously agreeing that Soviets are straight busted in 1v1s.

You got completely demolished by the only notable player you got matched up against.

You failed to beat anyone in the top 200, whilst playing Soviets... 1v1.

Meanwhile your normal account is rocking a sweet sub 50% win as USF 1v1.

/slowclap

But sure. You're really good and stuff. You're also still missing the entire point of this thread.

You are one of the most dishonest persons i have ever met. You are really rude, if it comes to defending your opinion. When you are proven wrong by logic, you just ignore it. The coh1 players, you are talking to here, have years of experience at this game compared to your 2.3 hours coh1 career. I guess you enjoy trolling and i won´t answer to it any longer.

Today I learned that liking both coh1 and coh2, admitting that they're both good games and simply wanting the best for both communities makes me a troll... Just because I prefer to play coh2.

#GeneralCHLogic

This thread was never supposed to be about which game is better. As wuFF (and as i have said before) said it's completely subjective. It was for discussing the potential future of coh1. I've said my peace on that. It'll have as much of a future as the community wants it to have, just like every other game ever.

With that, I'll take littlebirdie's advice and bow out. If you guys want to wallow in self pity and cry about the way things used to be, then that's on you. It'd be cool to see coh1 and coh2 both succeed.

But yeah. I've clearly over stayed my welcome. Enjoy your dead/dying game since no one seems to have the guts or drive to do anything positive for coh1.

GGWP coh1 community. It's a shame because the game could still be popular. And potentially more successful/more played than coh2.

Oh jeez. You clearly have zero understanding of what the word "tactical" means.

CoH 2 has: Linear commanders.
CoH 1 has: Two-pronged trees that require decision making which drastically alters the direction of the game.

CoH 2 has: Cheap upgrades that do not affect the overall game.
CoH 1 has: Upgrades that are expensive and therefore require excellent decision making and timing knowledge to use effectively (ex. grenades vs. early MGs, BARs maybe instead of M8 vs. early sniper depending on fuel and map control, veterancy upgrades, etc.). On top of that, the companies/doctrines are much more complex and there is a great interplay between these two features.

CoH 2 has: Units, and that's about it. Units that just have no depth to them.
CoH 1 has: Units that have an incredible depth and synergy between each other, as well as layers of depth according to what companies/doctrines are picked by either player and what upgrades are chosen. This is what made CoH 1 incredibly tactical. CoH 2 will never be able to compare.

There is a lot more to say about why CoH 2 has features which are game-breakingly bad, and you are in denial. Unfortunately, I don't think you are proving anything to anyone, except the fact that you are fanboy that clearly never played CoH 1 to any real extent. As for me, I moved on to SC 2 and DotA 2. CoH 2 is utter shit, and it's not worth talking about until Relic fixes this mistake of a game and starts to completely change it with patches that will bring it closer to the tactical magnificence that was CoH 1.

Oh jeez. You clearly have no understanding of what the word "tactical" means.

Everything you've mentioned are strategic choices, not tactical decisions. We've already established that vcoh had a deeper level of strategic decison making.

Furthermore please tell me how me wanting both games to be successful, saying that both games are good and wishing the two communities could come together/work together so that we can both thrive makes me a fanboy? I've simply stated my personal opinions as to why I, again personally, prefer coh2. All the while I've been clear and transparent about these things being my opinion. If you're really going to get mad at me or call me a fanboy for having an opinion... I think this thread would be better off without you.

On the other hand you come in here spewing ignorant nonsense and then call coh2 shit without ever providing any reasons. If you think it's shit - great. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But then why come rage post here instead of doing something positive for the community? It amazes me that this is the sort of reaction im met with when I try to say that both games are good and it'd be cool if both could be simultaneously successful.