Hey CoH2. Org and Relic,
This post is sort of a personal appeal and as a way of giving feedback to the community and the developers, it's going to be a long one, so I appreciate your patience. I have been inactive for quite a while now, mainly because I am disappointed with the current state of the game.Let me be clear: I am not unhappy about the balance or the developers. Balance issues are always going to be an issue in strategy games, especially if you introduce changes. The developers have faced numerous challenges outside of just making a "fun game", including but not limited to, a change in publishers.
So what am I unhappy about?
CoH2 currently has a very weird metagame. The Commanders(default and paid), in particular, pose very little support to the game loop. It is not always fair to compare everything to Company Heroes 1, since there are substantial differences, but there are core elements that can and should be compared, since they make up what the franchise is about. I'm going to list out the differences that made CoH great amongst other RTS games, and then I'll explain why CoH2 doesn't completely use these strengths.
The Goal
What was captivating about the original game, was the game's objective. All other RTS games focus solely on destroying your opposition. The most direct way of doing so is by destroying their buildings. Destroy their Town Center, they can't pick resources. No resources, no troops. No troops, no resistance.
Dawn of War, and by extension CoH changed this. CoH is all about strategical victories first, tactics second. You don't collect resources at all, instead you earn them by strategically controlling the map. To reinforce this, base rushes were almost completely discouraged (cheap, unforeseen tactics aside), by giving free defenses and hardy buildings that could only be taken out in the very late game.
The Catch
The catch, as in real life war, is that there's going to be someone else resisting you. They are going to be controlling territory as well. The only possible solution, is neutralizing them. Let me remind the readers: these tactics are only encouraged because you want the territory. Killing the enemy but not taking the territory is fruitless.
In order to reinforce this however, the territory itself was turned into a passive force. If you used the environment correctly, it was your best ally. Incorrectly, the territory would slow you down, make you vulnerable, and restrict you. These elements are represented as cover and buildings. This alone changed everything.
In fact, reinforcing this idea, Relic gave the players never before seen tools: Your troops had the ability to create their own cover (sandbags), and barbed wire (area denial). If that wasn't enough, a very specific unit in the game and a whole mechanic was introduced, that reinforced this idea: The machine gun and suppression.
50% of every single CoH game relied on holding the best cover, and creating the best kill zones early on. The semois pin, the Angoville Right Side Pin, the Sout house in Rails & Metal. Old timers know these terms, and whoever pulled these strategies had an early advantage.
Doctrines
Finally, they introduced doctrines. Doctrines were not something new. Command and Conquer had introduced them as early as Generals. It is, in theory, a reinforcing of the concept of different races with different play styles introduced in Warcraft. Your base army is different than the enemy's, but on top of that, you can choose a commander/doctrine to make certain aspects even stronger. The enemy will most likely use those strengths against you, so you had to adjust your entire strategy to prevent that. This ensured that although the same two armies met in battle, the fight would be different depending on which commanders were leading those battles. Great Replay Value!
What did CoH change for Commanders though? Well, Generals already had unit unlocks like the sniper, it also had artillery things and stuff. It's expansion also brought about passive strengths to each commander. The difference CoH brought was that you didn't choose your commander from the start. It was similar to choosing random in Starcraft: The enemy didn't know which tools were going to be used against you, so you had to adapt once again.
On top of that, each Commander brought units instantly into the battlefield, on top of providing certain passive bonuses once they were unlocked, such as stronger bunkers, riflemen that could lay down mines or faster vehicle building times.
In short: Commanders were trump cards. If the enemy had won those vital early engagements, and you knew his strategy was switching to a defensive position, then you would choose a doctrine that allowed you to spearhead through them. If the Germans used Blitzkrieg to kill your infantry, bringing in Airborne troops with recoiless rifles or paradropping AT Guns made a big difference. Likewise, a German player abusing strong defensive bunkers would not likely withstand constant howitzer artillery coming down on them from infantry doctrines.
---------------------------------------
CoH2
Now that I got that long preamble, I want to enunciate what CoH2 brought to the playing field, in an attempt to support the above formula...
General Winter
At first sight, snow seems to reinforce the idea of territory control, as well as adapting to your environment. However, there is a fundamental flaw in how it was implemented: Every single element of cold weather is detrimental.
As mentioned, the original concept required players to take advantage of the terrain, lest it was used against you. With the exception of slowing you down, the terrain never brought about anything bad against you unless your enemy actively exploited it. Cold weather, on the other hand: slows you down, while it freezes you. While very unlikely, it also helps reveal your position through footsteps. Ice is the only element inherently neutral in the game: It will only act against you if you fail to exploit it before your opponent via mines and active overwatch (kudos on that).
When I first heard of snow, I imagined true dynamic snow. I though I'd be able to hide my troops there in ambush unless they cleared the heavy snow, for example. Instead, I can only hide my troops in heavy snow if they are standing still on it, in a blizzard. That's THREE penalties, just so my troops can't be spotted, because they don't get any bonuses from hiding. The three penalties are: Reduced mobility from heavy snow, reduced visibility from blizzard (which defeats the point of an ambush spot) and increased freezing from the blizzard. You'd have to be lucky enough to have cover in that snow, or build a giant bonfire saying "i'm here" to even use the heavy snow. The conclusion is: I won't use snow at all since its just an obstacle. I can't turn it into an opportunity.
Population
CoH1 had a very strong design towards territory control. In fact, if you didn't control enough territory, then your population suffered. The more territory, the more troops you could field. In general game design, there's this trick to break stalemates: If a player controls 51% or more of the game's goals, then the game must actively turn against the losing player so the game can finish. This advantage must be very slight though: CoH's version of this advantage is increased population. This also doesn't mean the winning player automatically wins, he must keep using skill: upkeep still plays a role and the losing player can still use good old skill to punch back and win.
CoH2 DOES NOT support this feature yet. Back in beta population and upkeep were such that both armies always had constant troops thrown at each other. In fact, being on the losing side was slightly BETTER, since upkeep didn't restrict you from reinforcing. This has changed for the better, but controlling more territories only gives you more resources, not more population, which means those extra resources are offset by upkeep anyway.
This still makes games longer, allows for way too many comebacks, and discourages players from making what I call hail mary strategic territorial disconnection: Breaking the enemy's resources by risking a cutoff. In CoH2, not only are you encouraged to OP cutoffs, but your population and by extension your production line are not affected at all form this. It's only worth it if you want to delay their resource income a bit (I am not going to critique the resource system. It's been done ad nauseam).
Commanders
This is what has enraged a lot of players lately. I am not going to go into depth discussing the DLC philosophy. I hate it, but its the route most games are taking these days, and Sega has to recover money, period. We know it can work, since games like League of Legends introduce Champions almost every month or two and still manage to remain highly competitive (Praised be the day the CoH community is that competitive). That aside, here's what truly grinds my gears, and what I think Relic can do:
First off, read what I wrote on Commanders again. Yes, it is that important. The very philosophy of Commanders is NOT bring new units into the fray. New units are fun and we all love them. Most of all, new units sell, but they won't make your day easier when balancing. Please, please, please, make sure that if a new unit will be introduced into the game, it does not duplicate the role of an already existing unit!!!! Assault Grenadiers are just cheaper PG's with a twist. Ostruppen break the entire German philosophy of quality vs quantity! Why bring trenches into the game, when we have bunkers already? Trenches were one of the most hated elements of CoH F.
These changes only have a "cool" factor, but have no positive effect on the metagame at all. I'm going to list three things I personally think would benefit the metagame:
-Earlier artillery, but munitions expensive. Compare how off map artillery worked for the Allies in vCoH. It was a gamble of munitions but it arrived early enough. Most Off Map Artillery in CoH2 is end game, when it won't have as much impact.
-Passive bonuses are great, and are not necessarily uncool: One thing I loved about Defensive Doctrine in vCoH was stronger bunkers with free reinforce points. I thought it was cool as hell since my teammates could fall back there or in 1v1 I could create my own artificial forward HQ. Fast recruitment for Riflemen or fast vehicle building was also amazing.
-If the unit is a new unit, make it WIDELY different than any other unit in the game: Besides all the extra stats and whatever, the very concept of airborne troopers having recoiless rifles, rangers having Thompsons and Falls entering almost anywhere on the battlefield made these units worth it, and awesome. note: Mechanics like Fire Up! are discouraged, since they instantly broke the kill zone mechanic. Don't make that mistake again.
As far as overall commander design, I think Relic is trying too hard to seem historically authentic. Besides giving doctrines a cool name like Spearhead or Terror, the doctrine needs to have a very specific philosophy in mind. It doesn't feel like commanders follow a strong, unified philosophy. Everything in Airborne from vCoH told me that it was a doctrine focused on battlefield presence. My paratroopers could drop and reinforce anywhere, I could field rapid munitions and support weapons, as well as quick indirect fire support from the air. Battlefield Presence.
Compare that to something like Spearhead Doctrine (which is one of my favorites in CoH2). It's got great things from other doctrines, but absolutely no real philosophy behind it: I have some offensive things, and some defensive things but no metagame changers. It won't change the way I play the game. With the exception of the mortar HT's incendiary round, I won't get anything that changes my playstyle.
Champions in LoL are bought for one main reason: They usually always bring something different into the battlefield. Some weird twist on an already known mechanic. Usually this causes a little imba, too, but its fixable.
Conclusion
LESS Commanders, more variation. Less is more. I'd happily pay as much $9.00 for a Commander, if it brought as much depth as each vCoH doctrine brought. I'm sure a lot n here would.
I love Relic's games, and I absolutely love the franchise, but I sincerely think it can be improved a lot from its current state, which is more of a spiritual successor.
This is a very dedicated community for the most part: You have guys pitching in personal time, effort and money into SNF and other tourneys. You also have very vocal(if at times a little too emotional) members in your forums. Most of all, you have very loyal players, who pitch in their time and money to play your game: Remember the roster of games out there is huge now, and some are free to play, so the fact that you are still holding on is commendable.
The money aspect is very important and I'm sure there's very knowledgeable economists at both Sega and Relic that have all the numbers perfectly laid out, but I think in the end, the perception of fairness (economically speaking) is the most important aspect. In my own very personal opinion, throwing dozens of commanders and changes is not a sign of fairness, it is a sign of desperation.
I'd rather have a couple of amazing changes in a week or two(think vCoH Stuart burst bug kind), than 300 little changes every month and a half.
Hey Bro I like what you have said here - maybe we can combine both our posts for a larger and more holistic critique? The link is below is you want to check it out - the gist of it is I miss the depth and the small details in coh - it was expertly made and its obvious that they took no where near the care and love for the 2nd game.. and its time to change that
www.coh2.org/topic/10658/how-coh2-sold-out--and-whact-to-do-about-it |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
