Its soviet "Scorched Earth Policy" ability. |
I would really like to hear from people who says "nothing new", what actually "new" relic should have brought into the franchise?
*Garrisons problem is adressed.
*Side armor impemented, changing armor play completly.
*Dowgraded CoH2 terriroty points replaced with supperior vCoH points, keep QoL style of CoH2 capping.
*Commander system is a pefect mix between CoH2 and vCoH, taking best from both.
*Completly new cover modifier, which changes how the maps can be played.
*New destruction system (which looks ugly af right now), which allows to move where destroyed building was.
*All 4 factions (probably) having proper unit roster, instead of vCoH\CoH2 formula of "2 factions are actually designed good, other faction rely on gimmics".
*Factions having proper side-grades, which are actually impactfull and not just an "artifisial way to delay teching" like in CoH2.
*Non stock panther.
*The fact that units in the game are actually made of different parts and they are not fully pre-made models. Meaning that either relic\modders for instance can just take helmet from one model, body from the other, pants from the third and have completly new unit, without relying on any 3D software. This leads to the fact that Relic can more officently push new content, aswell as even without full mod support modders will have their hands untied a bit.
Fun Fact: Do you know why Black Prince had wrong hull? Because it utilizes this system, Relic just used turret model with churchull hull model.
So what new do you want? I think this can only be applyed to the fact that we will be again having USF\UKF vs double german factions, but I honestly dont care about it as long as the game is good.
Not to mention, that german\us\uk troops have a plethora of possible units which CoH never had.
What I want from CoH3 is to have all the good stuff from both vCoH\CoH2 and have game which utilizes the best from both games. I dont want to see melee combat or ability to breach tanks and why not. |
But CoH2's single player campaign is rewriting history. This last mission brings the line under the whole company. The protagonist claims that millions of people died for the sake of a photograph of the flag over the Reichstag.
I belive there was a different context for this line. Before last mission there was a mission where you was supposed to cut german retreat and eliminate them in process. Protagonists says that cutting this retreat was pointless, because those feeling germans tried to escape in order to surrender to Western Allies. And main idea was that Red Army's Berlin Operation was rushed in order to capture it before Western Allies (which was true IRL) and therefor a lot of casualties from both Russian and German side could have been avoided if not for the soviet command desire to be first in Berlin. This is what this line about photo was about. But the shit writing arent making it clear enouth.
The main character is an officer who fights from the beginning of the war until the end of the war, he became a military correspondent and was supposed to see burned villages, massacres of civilians, concentration camps, civilians who were driven to forced labor in Germany (remember that in forced labor in Germany killed 2,164,300 Soviet citizens). And all this happened until the end of the war. And he says shit like that.
And there are, tho its never in focus (which is one of the problems). Thoughtout the campaign you can see dead civilians or killed wounded (especially in the polish sniper mission) by germans. In Lublin mission its clearly shown that Germans killed soviet POWs.
It actually represents the whole problem with the campaign. Relic for some reason desided to throw shit in the face and focus on shit much more then on actuall heroism of the Red Army. In order to see it you have to read between lines in pretty much every cutscene\mission discripion.
This pretty much somewhat proves, that relic didnt really intended to show soviets in a bad light, because otherwise such moments easily could have been cut out from the game.
Description in the mission in which it is said that the Red Army refused to help the Polish Army, apparently here it is worth understanding the Warsaw Uprising - a lie. The Warsaw Uprising began after a major Soviet offensive 500 kilometers deep and 500 kilometers wide, after which supply lines were thinned. And even in these conditions, Rokossovsky (an ethnic Pole) began to help the Uprising, an offensive began on Prague (a suburb of Warsaw), the Insurgents dropped more than 300 tons of supplies, artillery spotters were parachuted for more accurate artillery support.
Its considered, by western historians and poles themselfs, that Red Army intentionally didnt help during uprising. True or not, its not Relic lie persay. Its the narrative pushed by western historians, you cant really blame relic for this, because its pretty naive to think that their research went farther then the Wikipedia and few books maybe. Is it a lie? Maybe, but its not the lie Relic invented.
The whole CoH2 single company is a rewriting of history and its personal political vision, and I would very much like to know whose political vision of Quinn Duffy or the former THQ is, I hope someday some Relic employee who participated in the creation of a single company will tell us this story.
Again, its not political. I mean, Relic just look over narrative pushed by the mass media, known historians, hollywood movies and created the script. You cant really expect western developers to avoid having this kind of problem, especially considering that they, in a first place, want to create action movie.
I mean, sure some might have been offended by the campaign and the story. But people should really understand that it ended up like this, not because Duffy or Relic are neo-nazis, anti-soviets or came from hitlerjugend. They just took the most generic representation of the soviets which is common in a west culture and created the game. No more, no less, no ill intentions. |
Call of duty has received its own criticism of meddling with history, like when they put the blame on US war crimes on the Russians.
Relic isn't the first nor the last company to make historically inaccurate/outright wrong games, but other games are being called out for it more and more, there is no reason why relic shouldnt be, too
Relic should be called out, but realistically CoH2 story at worst is just tasteless and badly thought out. Relic got so much hate and problems, but in reality if we compare other games\movies they do much worst in terms of lies and history revision.
As I was always saying, main problem of CoH2 story is that it focused way too much on "unusual bad cases". I mean, tecnically speaking, nothing what was shown in the CoH2 couldnt have had happen during the war. Pretty much any "questinable" event which was shown in CoH2 did happen IRL and there are even soviet documents confirming it. On the other hand, such events could have accured maybe few times during 4 years of war and including it in the story is at best stupid.
Its as if, Relic would have made US campaign where in every mission you would have to bombard civilians, loot and comit other warcrimes. It would be a bad taste, not because it didnt happen, but because its plain stupid to base your storytelling on this narrative.
Idk, I am personally offended more by games like CoD. Because they are intentionally re-writhing history and intentionlly strate up lying. CoH2 is just an example of really bad writing in my opinion, without intentions of depicting soviets like trash. |
Why anyone would expect relic to do proper soviet campaign anyway?
I mean, even on CoH3 site when they were posting about coh3 story, one of the devs said that back in the day coh team looked at Band of Brothers\Saving Private Ryan for vCoH.
As for CoH2 they looked at Enemy at the gate and works of Solzhenitsyn (who is know on the west and was very anti-soviet dude).
I mean, you shouldn't expect something truth breaking. Most of the western players saw heroic hollywood movies about US\UK, the same way most of the hollywood russians as braindead retards.
I dont really understand why only relic touched the nerve here. Why CoD didnt, especially new modern warfare where russians shown as terrorists (and american war crimes IRL portraired to be made by Russians).
Its like relic are the first who made this. They are amatures in history, just like pretty much 99% of any player base, they recreate what they were shown\teached and what general audience can relate to and understand. |
Fact is that Duffy was a project lead in CoH2. Even if we ignore bad decisions\designs fact is that people who was responsable for balance\updates\commander ideas didnt give a single fuck about community and players.
Things were released to either provide scammy p2w model (which always ended up being nerfed) or with a complete lack of even basic game understanding.
On top of that, balance related people openly trolling players and the community with their changes, intentionally ignoring problems either completly (2 model soviet sniper) or untill the moment 90% of the community spammed about why it wasnt adressed already.
And ofcouse aproach of "we are devs, we know better" even in their betas\alphas, which honestly were so strange, because only super minor things were adressed on release of WFA\UKF and even obliviosly broken stuff was left in the game, while on closed forums people again pointed those problems.
Maybe Duffy was a weak teamlead and trusted people under him a bit too much or he was too passive. But the fact is, that under him CoH2 dedicated team acted like a bunch of douchebags and time has proven that they were wrong in the end.
But it might aswell have been relic philosophy back in the day. At least their "we know better" attetude ended shorty after they were slapped in the face with the failure which was DoW3.
And honestly if CoH didnt have such dedicated community, CoH2 might have been as dead as DoW3. |
I think zoom out is cool and all that but, no way, I don't like zoom out. CoH has always been up close and personal. Even if zoom out lets you strategize better, I prefer the unique zoomed feel of CoH that makes it CoH.
Then you'd have to put yourself at a disadvantage just to enjoy the game more. And I'm talking about the default zoom level, as in what the game is "supposed" to be at
Actually, default CoH3 zoom is very simular to the one in vCoH, which is on itself is zoomed much farther then CoH2 zoom.
CoH2 zoom on the other hand is a garbage, because in puts everyone who plays without tac-map into a disadvatange aswell as amount of scrolling around is ridiculous in CoH2.
Redability and models blending in CoH3 is a different problem, related to graphics and super far zoom is the problem of elevation, since zoom isnt reacting to it, which is most likely just a bug.
Also I woundnt put vCoH\CoH2 on the same line. There is vCoH like zoom and CoH2 like zoom. They are not even remotely simular. |
WHAT... THE STRATEGIC POINTS IN COH2 ARE ALMOST AS GOOD AS FUEL POINTS. 2 OF THEM EQUAL TO FUEL POINT PLUS MUNITIONS.
No the criticism for coh2 is opposite what you said. Every point is too valuable.
In vCoH you had high and low level territories. You also had manpower territories. This meant that territories differed greatly in their value. There might only be 1 high fuel but 4 low fuel. There might also be 2 low fuel and 1 high fuel.
In coh2, even the standard territories grant you fuel and munitions and this means vCoH did a much better job with points of interest
I wasnt talking about the raw value of strategic points, what I was saying is that considering the usuall amoung of points on the maps you will have more problems actually getting those.
For instance, because the total amount of the fuel\muni on the maps are spread around all strategic points, the raw value of 1 strategic point is significanly lower then the value of 1 point in vCoH.
In other words, in vCoH capturing even 1 small fuel point from the enemy is worth +5 fuel, in CoH2 you effectively need to capture 2 strategic points to get +6 fuel income. Same with munitions but to a lesser extend.
Point being, that considering how evenly resources are spread in CoH2, how relatively save most strategic points are (outside 1v1) and how they bring almost nothing unless you can capture multiple of them, players just tend to focus more on the high income points because they already give you more then enouth income. |
...
Well without nitpicking, few core concepts are already coping/improving the ones from vCoH.
Point system alone is probably the biggest change so far, because CoH2 system pretty much affected littery the whole game. And every single point on the map is pretty much point of interest worth trying to capture. Problem with CoH2 system, is not even the amount of points, but rather the fact that usually in total (excluding the VP), there are only 4 points of interests and unless you just want to either delay or cut-off the enemy, there is no reason to go beyond this (unless its 1v1), since regular points are effectively pointless to the economy, making game more static and predictable.
Well and the fact that faction actually have choices now, which will affect the economy. Not the ones UKF had with "Duh, should I delay my AEC by 30 seconds by picking grade" or "Side grades are here to delay tanks".
Those are at least two core differences which arent subject to change.
And if we start speculating about what balance of the game will be, considering relic keeps vCoH in mind, we can expect much less survivable inf, powerfull yet vulnerable tanks, soft-counters actually working as support units (hello deflection damage), over-all slower teching\teching and maybe even the fact that rebuilding LVs\Vehicles or going multiple of them wont put you in instant disadvantage economy vise.
As for commanders, I honestly think, that its just an over-all improvement over CoH2 system, but I have no illusions about them. There still will be top picked commanders and there still will be meta with the most commonly picked abilities, simply because its hard to balance so many battlegroups (since we will be getting more then 3 per faction) and abilities to be equally worth picking. I see them as a massive QoL improvement and game improvement, but not something game changing or ground breaking.
vCoH nailed doctines because there was only 3 per faction with 6 abilities in each, it was much easier to make them distinct and usefull.
But to make it clear, I didnt play vCoH super competitively back in the day so I might not have super deep knowlage about it, but it was enouth to see the difference between it and CoH2 in how gameplay changed and especially after all CoH2 patches.
Point being, a I hear a lot that CoH2 is masterpiece RTS (at least gameplay wise), while imo a lot was really downgraded in CoH2. QoL and UI was improved in it, thats for sure, but not the gameplay. Thats why I doubt that they will like CoH3, if they didnt like vCoH gameplay in a first place, since its a reference for Relic now. |
My bet ... the multiplayer will be extremely subpar compared to COH 2 for a good 4-5 years.
You dont need to bet, if you find that CoH2 MP was better then vCoH one, or you never played vCoH, then CoH3 will be subpar for you.
CoH3 wont be like CoH2, it might share simularities, but it will be much closer to the vCoH. Not because they used the ideas of vCoH, but even because Relic acknowledged that vCoH was a better game and they should look at it for insparation. |