|
Relic should take the easy way out, make CoH2 WW1. Just reskin brits vs brits and boom game done. Brit vs brit was the only way to play brits
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
AtillatheBum posted:Are you the same tychocelchu from CoH Gamereplays? I used to really like your shoutcasts or w/e they're called of CoH. I was sad when you moved onto MoW, a cool game and fun to play, but I can't stay interested in replays of it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
I really hope that the title music for CoH2 is just the Soviet Anthem. Nothing makes me want to die for the motherland more than that. Then again by the time they had the anthem they were already steamrolling Germany back to its borders.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
This makes me so god drat happy.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
Armor Doctrine selected. Pershing online. All systems nominal.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:That's me. I'm glad you liked my stuff. Sorry you're not as huge a fan of MoW, but you can rest assured that I'll definitely be casting the poo poo out of CoH II as long as it's even halfway decent. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing MoW, watching it can be what annoys me. The units that people deploy are just so arbitrary, there's never any build up. It's like Riflemen-> SMG Dudes-> Riflemen-> Riflemen-> Tiger-> Panther-> Tiger Ace-> King Tiger, etc. I want to see some light tanks or halftracks duke it out, watch some riflemen get smooshed before some random lucky fucker gets an AT grenade off. It always seems like it goes from pathetic little poo poo infantry dudes to super tanks inside of 10 mins. In CoH you could see what people are planning ahead of time to some degree. Is he rushing a WSC and snipers/mortars out, is he researching BARs or teching to M8s; is he prioritizing munitions points for those sweet sweet strafing runs? Is that wehrmacht skipping tech 2? etc. The interplay between the different doctrines was also interesting, whole strategies on maps were turned on their head depending on what doctrine you took. On the whole, I'm pretty good at strategy games, but I find that I actually prefer watching games a lot more than playing them myself. I hope CoH 2 is as good to watch as it is to play, and that both aspects are at least as good as CoH was.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 10:02
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, are the expansions worth it for CoH or should I just stick with the original game? Relic is kind of funny in that department since they usually turn out a great expansion to their games followed by a few duds.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
Sylphosaurus posted:Out of curiosity, are the expansions worth it for CoH or should I just stick with the original game? Relic is kind of funny in that department since they usually turn out a great expansion to their games followed by a few duds. Yes the first expansion Opposing Fronts is good but the second Tales of Valor is not very good. Please take care in buying the first one only or get a cheap bundle deal.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 11:26
|
|
|
They are not going to ruin this game the way they did with DOW2, are they? You know, taking out base building and worst of all scaling down the scope of the game so that you are just constantly micro-babysitting 3 or so squads all the time. The massive scale was my favorite thing about DOW1, but they had to take it out in favor of some micro-intensive psuedo-RPG crap. I'm really worried, since I played a few level of 'Tales of Valor' (ugh) and that actually seems to be the direction they're going with.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 11:52
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone can play DoW 2's ork campaign and come away disliking the game, unless they made the fatal mistake of playing one of the other races' campaigns afterwards. I think the small scale suited the 40K universe well, with its focus on individual heroes, but I can't imagine CoH could ever benefit from a similar reduction in scope. Tales of Valor sort-of attempted to do the same and it was awful. What we've heard of DoW 3, if it ever gets made, indicates they're moving in the opposite direction anyway and focusing on portraying full-scale war rather than small, tactical skirmishes. I can't really understand why everyone has got such a hardon for base building. It suits certain types of RTSes, but not all. CoH had minimal base building anyway so I have no idea how it would be "ruined" by getting rid of it and adopting some sort of requisition system rather than "build tanks on the spot in the middle of a war".
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
I like building bunkers and sandbags. What of it? 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 12:45
|
|
|
AtillatheBum posted:Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing MoW, watching it can be what annoys me. The units that people deploy are just so arbitrary, there's never any build up. It's like Riflemen-> SMG Dudes-> Riflemen-> Riflemen-> Tiger-> Panther-> Tiger Ace-> King Tiger, etc.  You must've watched some really lovely MoW matches! MoW is all about infantry battle, pinning down your enemy and making him be too busy so that you can sneak a few bazookas or AT rifles from the flanks so that they can destroy enemy armor even before it reaches the battlefields. In fact, whenever experienced people play MoW the number of tanks lowers dramatically. If you use infantry escorted by light vehicles then the enemy will most likely not spend a lot of money on heavy ordinance. That's what makes MoW so great. You can play an entire match as a guerrilla platoon and you can still win. King Tigers are useless in almost every match because they're so expensive that you're giving up on using infantry, artillery or lighter tanks. They're also only marginally tougher than regular stuff. MoW is all about tactics man, that's what makes it so great!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Yeah sounds like you are playing with some pretty bad people. I never even buy anything besides infantry and maybe a single mid range tank because it is not needed at all.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
He's right about the planning, though. In Men of War it pays to be almost entirely reactive: nobody goes in with anything resembling a build order or an idea of when they want to hit Tier 2 or what they want to tech up to or what they're going to do if their opponent chooses Airborne rather than Infantry. Company of Heroes is a much more traditional RTS games where battles escalate from small skirmishes between the builder units to larger fights between infantry/MGs to larger fights with light vehicles to even larger fights with higher tier infantry/tanks and artillery. Games either end early or build to a climax. In Men of War, the climax of a fight might be early on, when someone successfully digs in and then repels attacks, or it might be at the very end when someone makes a desperate push, or it might be anywhere in between when an artillery barrage wipes out some infantry and lets someone exploit the gap, or whatever. CoH is structured and in some sense predictable, whereas Men of War is fluid and unconstrained. They're different kinds of games in dozens of ways, and what you prefer watching really depends on a lot of things. I can definitely see why it might be more fun to watch CoH, which is structured more like a competitive game with preset phases, than MoW, which is a clusterfuck from a narrative point of view because anything can happen at any point. It's also why any time someone posts a comment on my YouTube videos asking whether MoW or CoH is better, I tell them that the two games have basically nothing in common and that they should just play demos/watch videos for both and decide whether they would like both or just one.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Davincie posted:Yeah sounds like you are playing with some pretty bad people. I never even buy anything besides infantry and maybe a single mid range tank because it is not needed at all. You might not need it, but direct controlling a Greyhound\Luchs\Ha-Go and making fun of the enemy team in your dingy little combat car is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Why is this title not "Comrade, tie your loving laces." Come on OP.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
peer posted:I can't really understand why everyone has got such a hardon for base building. It suits certain types of RTSes, but not all. CoH had minimal base building anyway so I have no idea how it would be "ruined" by getting rid of it and adopting some sort of requisition system rather than "build tanks on the spot in the middle of a war". RTS base-building's real-world analogue is not making buildings and units in an actual war, its analogue is supply lines. But directly simulating the management of supply lines that come in from far away in an RTS match would be difficult, so we have base-building as an equivalent.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me about the single player campaign for CoH? I have been looking for a decent RTS single player campaign for awhile to tide me over. Is it any good?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
UberJumper posted:Can anyone tell me about the single player campaign for CoH? I have been looking for a decent RTS single player campaign for awhile to tide me over.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
peer posted:I can't really understand why everyone has got such a hardon for base building. It suits certain types of RTSes, but not all. CoH had minimal base building anyway so I have no idea how it would be "ruined" by getting rid of it and adopting some sort of requisition system rather than "build tanks on the spot in the middle of a war". If you think the only thing that engineers and pioneers were used for in coh is base building then you're missing a large portion of the game
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Yeah, it's pretty great as far as RTS campaigns go. Opposing Fronts is pretty good too, while Tales of Valor is sort of weird, a lot more like Dawn of War II. ToV adds the campaign where you rampage around a village in a Tiger, right? That was pretty fun, but way too short.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Yeah, it's only 3 missions, part of which is being out of the Ultimate Tiger Tank of Death.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
I really hope they bring back Barbed Wire Supremacy. Remember all the strategies that developed around it before Opposing Fronts? The Semois Pin etc.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 12:00
|
|
|
High hopes for dogbombs on this one guys.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
cuntrageous posted:High hopes for dogbombs on this one guys. Need that Russian analogue to the Goliath.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
I wonder if this game will rethink tanks, i.e. make kiting less central or introduce cannons with different ranges. Those famous Ostfront armor battles will look pretty silly if tanks work like they do in the original CoH.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
philosoraptor posted:I wonder if this game will rethink tanks, i.e. make kiting less central or introduce cannons with different ranges. Those famous Ostfront armor battles will look pretty silly if tanks work like they do in the original CoH.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:The tanks in CoH had different ranges (which was why kiting worked in the first place: if tanks had equal range, you couldn't back up and keep firing at your opponent). If you're hoping that they'll make the game more realistic and less silly looking, I must respectfully disagree. Company of Heroes is not fun to the degree that it tries to mimic real life. Company of Heroes is fun when it's a great RTS game that happens to be set in World War II. If you want realism, you can play something like Men of War or go the whole way and play Combat Mission. Company of Heroes is about innovative RTS gameplay, not recreating the famous Ostfront armor battles.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Cicero posted:To be fair, a lot of what makes CoH compelling is drawing from realism: infantry units moving around in squads, infantry taking cover behind walls and in buildings, vehicles taking more damage from the sides and rear, vehicles becoming handicapped or disabled when severely damaged, heavily-armored vehicles being basically immune to small arms fire, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
I only meant that CoH was set in a theatre that lacked big tank battles, something which the Russian front is known for. Relic could certainly keep the mechanics the same without disappointing me. They could also place emphasis on something novel in the new setting. The emphasis doesn't have to be realistic at all, but certainly you can't deny that the original CoH is a game about hedgerows and it is non-coincidentally set in the US sectors of Normandy. CoH 2 could be a game about hills and not hedgerows, because there aren't many hedgerows in Russia.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
philosoraptor posted:I only meant that CoH was set in a theatre that lacked big tank battles, something which the Russian front is known for. Relic could certainly keep the mechanics the same without disappointing me. They could also place emphasis on something novel in the new setting. The emphasis doesn't have to be realistic at all, but certainly you can't deny that the original CoH is a game about hedgerows and it is non-coincidentally set in the US sectors of Normandy. CoH 2 could be a game about hills and not hedgerows, because there aren't many hedgerows in Russia. You're definitely right about that: the whole "you only see what your units could actually see" fog of war revision they're doing probably means that this time it will be at least possible for hills to block shots, so it would be pretty cool if we could put tanks in a hull down position or something. In CoH vehicles could actually use cover (if they were in a crater or something, shots would have a lower chance to hit) and if hills/hull down worked like that I would be quite happy. That would be a neat way of adding a lot of strategy and complexity to the tank battles without having to fiddle with ranges or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
Wasn't that 'only see what units see' already in CoH? And the reason why button and smoke could be so goddamn annoying?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
I might buy this if it turns out they don't include an analogue to the most poorly designed side in the history of AAA RTS, the Brits. Whose idea was it to create a side entirely focused around playing like a turtle anyway? Its probably the most boring way to play any RTS and actively encouraging it is terrible. Lexusbeat fucked around with this message at 08:37 on May 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:You're definitely right about that: the whole "you only see what your units could actually see" fog of war revision they're doing probably means that this time it will be at least possible for hills to block shots, so it would be pretty cool if we could put tanks in a hull down position or something. In CoH vehicles could actually use cover (if they were in a crater or something, shots would have a lower chance to hit) and if hills/hull down worked like that I would be quite happy. That would be a neat way of adding a lot of strategy and complexity to the tank battles without having to fiddle with ranges or anything like that. The problem with this kind of subtle placement is that rolling hills and small terrain depressions are not very visible from the RTS view-point to the degree that one can put a tank in a hull-down position. That kind of realism might be fine in a game from the first person perspective, or in a game like World of Tanks, but in an RTS it's way too fiddly.. It'd be best to make some kind of generic 'dug in' for tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
Beef posted:Wasn't that 'only see what units see' already in CoH? And the reason why button and smoke could be so goddamn annoying? Panzeh posted:The problem with this kind of subtle placement is that rolling hills and small terrain depressions are not very visible from the RTS view-point to the degree that one can put a tank in a hull-down position. That kind of realism might be fine in a game from the first person perspective, or in a game like World of Tanks, but in an RTS it's way too fiddly.. It'd be best to make some kind of generic 'dug in' for tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
New information from German magazine "PC ACTION" (would that be PC ACHTUNG? No, probably not).quote:- 110 people work on COH2
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:- They want the coop mode to be really big, because a high amount of players prefered to play with other players against the AI Smells like trouble.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
philosoraptor posted:Smells like trouble. ?? Co-op modes are awesome. The DoW2 one was a whole lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
Being able to jump over cover sounds very interesting.Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:?? Co-op modes are awesome. The DoW2 one was a whole lot of fun. I'm hoping that the ladder and automatch will be as good as SC2's, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Relic has consistently shown that they either don't really get online systems, or they aren't willing to put forth the effort to make them shine. Cicero fucked around with this message at 07:53 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
I wonder if they'll be able to implement vehicle theft without being gimmicky. Maybe it's campaign only.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 07:58
|
|