Profile of theblitz6794

So you guys are saying we should just settle for all the game's faults and mediocrity?

Given the shift in marketing from more hardcore RTS players to casuals, this really doesn't surprise me (apologies for Godwin's modified law on casual gamers)

I'm not content with that given the high level of quality in DoW 1 and vCoH. But maybe those are the days of the past.

Anyways, if you're forcing yourself to enjoy the game, MoW AS 2 is a much superior alternative with more in touch devs (unfortunately casualitis is slowly polarizing the community and killing the game. It's too casual for hardcores, too hardcore for casuals, and I see CoH ending up like that)

There's other alternatives too. Shit the only reason I'm playing CoH 2 is CoH 1 and there's something unique about the gameplay. In theory, it very well balances tactics and strategy, macro and micro, and 1v1 feels like chess.

Is anyone else unable to play the campaign for how horribly offensive it is to history and the Red Army? Two points come to mind but please add on more. I know they're there I just don't remember.

1. Soldiers who did heroic deeds were executed for taking initiative? This is in the Stalingrad campaign. Now, I'm sure incidents like this happened, but the game portrays it as some common theme. This defies all military sense. The Red Army junior officers had a much more limited grasp of combat vs their counterparts, but this is frankly nonsense. A good Lt, even if you devalue his life in a Soviet way, is still a good Lt and effective battlefield commander, something the Red Army sorely lacked.

2. The disregard for human life is equally insane. Now, this one is tricky, because the Red Army WAS, at times, very apathetic, and generally still quite apathetic. However, again, good soldiers are good battlefield tools, and the Soviets were more limited in manpower than one realizes. Manpower reserves ran out in 1943. By 45 the situation was critical, except the Germans were in a far far worse situation. In 41, men were being lost by the millions, which included many desperate measures that included leaving men behind, and the Red Army officers at this point were horribly incompetent and lost many men because of terrible tactics. But it's just that. Desperate measures and terrible tactics. There was no sick commissar thrill with sending men to their deaths (exceptions aside of course). This is just a clear play into Western hearts and illusions of how the 50s propaganda thought the Soviet Union worked (not that it was a nice place but let's get our facts straight here people).

The game drew criticism from different players for a negative portrayal of the Soviet Army during the Second World War. In a 25 minute video, Russian video blogger "BadComedian" felt that the game portrays their war effort in a negative light, taking issue with multiple in game examples including portrayals of brutality, inhumane tactics and national stereotypes and clichés, especially when compared to the positive portrayal of the Americans in the first Company of Heroes.[27][28] A similarly negative review was written by Ukrainian game developer Sergey Galyonkin who in his blog felt that the game "for some reason attributes Nazi war crimes to Soviet Army", going on to say that it "paints the Soviet Army as a fantasy evil empire. Mordor of World War II if you will."[28][29] The controversy led to a "review bomb" in protest of said portrayals through the review site Metacritic, giving it an overall low user score.[28]

In an article written for video game website Polygon by Colin Campbell reflecting on the subject said that the "comments on forums and on Metacritic are testament to the strong feelings that the war still generates". In the same article, it cites the game's director Quinn Duffy who in regards to the creative direction of the first and second game felt that "the second game is painted on a broader canvas", whereas "in contrast, the first game focused on a small group of soldiers and did not seek to take a wider view".[28]

Russian game publisher 1C-Softclub stopped distribution of the game on 26 July 2013 due to the strong negative feedback. Following the news, the game's publisher SEGA released a statement that they were "taking this issue very seriously and are investigating these concerns thoroughly with all relevant partners."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Heroes_2#Controversy

Gotta love people who don't understand that actually everyone plays for fun.

Huh? Of course I understand that. I'm implying in my original post that Relic isn't making the game for us to have fun.

Gotta love people who make snap judgements

Games above 2v2 are Blobfest and campfest, depending on the map. Usually both

1v1 isn't competitive because of the limitations of who has what commander.

2v2 is an ugly middle ground and whoever JUST SO HAPPENS to have more complimentary armies, doctrines, and map as an X factor has a huge advantage.

The War Spoils system is an RPG style element trying to get us to grind.

They're trying to get us addicted to the game. I play games for fun, not to feed some addiction.

Since volks are considered to be a mashup of hardened vets, walking wounded, I propose something along the finally lines.

Instead of a homogeneous group of 5 volks models, have 2 models be much tougher and accurate than a standard volks (veteran core), one model be a normal volks (walking wounded), 2 models be far weaker and less accurate (conscripts and ost)