Profile of herr anfsim

CoH2 has broken plenty of new ground, with many new RTS elements.

The problem you are referring to is people expecting CoH2 to be an elaborate vCoH patch, rather than a standalone. They could have just transplanted the same exact system, as Blizzard did with SC2 from SC. Now THERE is a game that hasnt broken any new ground. Same shit, different package.

Its not as honed as vCoH was at the end, but that was a result of years of balancing and patching. No rational reason not to expect continous improvement of CoH2 towards that same edge.

Arguably Relic is in a much stronger place now with Sega, who have taken RTS under their wing in the industry with Creative Assembly as well.

I have to disagree that COH2 broke plenty of new ground. There are some nice innovations and evolutions, but In my opponion its nothing like what we saw when COH was first released.


COH2 mainly uses mechanics and principles introduced in COH, but where vCOH has had several years to improve and perfect theese, they seem to have started from scratch with a lot of theese in COH2, like MGs and flanking. Playing COH2, I miss a lot of features from the oroginal COH, even without expansions, and at the same timw few incentives not to return to vCOH.

Again, I think the problem is that the game does little new, while doing the old less good than the well polished original, in a lot of players oppinions.

I havent plaie SC2, but my impression is that it pretty much recreates rhe original with only minor improvements and changes. COH2, in my oppinion, neither recreates vCOH, or does much thruly groundbreaking, thus keeping vCOH relevant. Its not as much criticism of COH2 as a testament to how excelent vCOH is, and how talented the oroginal team must have been.

I agree with the OP, but I think its a "COH2-thing" rather than i big change in the games gameplay. Infantrycombat often turns into units running arround throwing bottles at each others, making micro much more important, while overall tactics and positioning isnt as important anymore. I think this was better in vCOH but I guess the competitive segment might not agree with me?

I agree that the early game dynamics is drasticly changed, and a lot less interesting in COH2, and I think this is due to a lot of design decisions. First of all, the whole game seems to be centered arround hard counters, rather than the subtle advantages and edges that dominated infantryplay in vCOH. This turnes the game into more of a rush for counters and makes outsmarting the enemy tacticly by manouevering and positioning less important.

Secondly, the infantrycombat dosent have the same feal to it. In vCOH cover would be important and an atacking unit would loose to an equal unit if the defender used cover. Now its mostly infantry running in circles throwing bottles at each other.

Another problem, in my oppinion, is that the Soviets lack an effective HMG with decent arc, basicly leaving them with only assaultunits wich takes away the tactical twist of cooperation between HMGs and assaulttroops. This leaves a playstyle dominated bands of conscripts raoming the map, rather than interestigng play.

Last, I think the lack of basic defences and the innefectivenes of AT-guns turns the game into to much of a "rush for tanks". In vCOH, I would often fin myself more than able to push back enemy armour using only T1/T2, because I had good AT guns, and could use defensive structures to my advantage.

I'm starting to think this game is better without lobbies. By having both auto match and lobbies you are splitting the community. This means that fewer and fewer people will play automatch because it will take longer to find a game. Eventually automatch will die and you will only be left with lobbies.

If thats the case, and people would preffer playing custom games, whats the problem? If you couldnt find oponents in automatch because most people were playing custom games, Id say that it was a great decition to reintroduce the most favoured gametype, wouldnt you?

Secondly, if you try to force people who dont like automatch and VP to play that way, a lot will just quit the game, wich people apparently are doing. Dont you guys understand that forcing a huge part of the playerbase away will hurt you as well?

Im having a hard time understandig some of these arguments. Some guys dont want lobbies, because to many people were playing in the lobbies, so the segment playing automatch had a hard time finding oponents?

If most people preffered custom games, how would it be a good idea to force them over to an, in theire(our) oppinion, inferior alternative, basicly chasing off a huge part of the potential player base?