Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
and come on you telling me this game is not making alot of reference from coh and they are COMPLETE DIFFERENT GAME ?
This is my advice on what they can improve , at least bring up why my advice is not good enough instead of throwing oh they are different game argument .
if you want to walk down that path , every game has its own genre , but no we do have top 10 strategy game of years , top 10 steam game of year do we ?
oh yea speaking of RTT , scale of the campaign is jokable . wtf is resource countroll hello ?
wait you cannot make unit , instead you can only get it from scripted back up ? hello ????????????????
TOTAL WAR IS RTT AND LOOK WTF IS THE DIFFERENCE ?
In what way is this game referencing CoH? They both happen to be World War 2 games. What else? This game has a stop plan feature. I think it's spacebar if I remember correctly. I used it often, in order to move units into various positions all at once.
stop plan allows you to plan mutiple action in a single pause .
and yes , talking about unrealistic , did you saw my thread ? KATYUSHA THAT CAN PENETRATE MY PANZER 3 WITH PIN POINT ACCURACY .
And yes , im comparing them under the strategy game umbrella . And can you mention one thing this game did a better job than coh ? non , cause it failed to be innovative or introduce any other game mechanic .
Admit it . They just too lazy to make building works .
RTT , i really can't find any element of tactic when you just rush in your panzer 3 following their instruction on tutorial .
speaking of tactic , did i mention that their pathfinding system makes you impossible to maintain your tank column >? once they moved ?
bring back to the so called "building a base and training units is actually much more unrealistic than entering a battlefield with a certain amount of units" claims , what is so realistic about this game that infantry can't even use tree as cover and unable to build sand bag ?
what is so realistic about this game BT-7 tank is fighting us while infantry surrounding them is already hands up and surrender ?
I think these question is good enough to make you re think about your approach on this game since , it did a bad job on RTT , did a bad job on realistic battle , did at bad job copy and paste coh /
I suppose a Katyasha would have been able to do that in real life if it so so happened that the rockets fall directly on a Panzer 3 tank. But this is a game though. There have to be some rules, else it as a game does not work very well.
I do think CoH is the better game yes. That is however also my personal opinion.
Yes, the pathfinding is not good in this game. Units just go where they want to.
This game was never intended for base building. Mind as well then ask why in the Commandos game series you are not able to build bases?
This game, as far as I could tell, did not try to copy CoH at all. Because it is not that type of game. It tried to copy something that happened way before CoH ever existed. And that is the Sudden Strike series, since the 1990s. Did it do a good job at that? My personal opinion is not really. But it is what it is.
I strongly disagree.
Company of Heroes is far too arcade to be considered the best strategy game. It is the most popular strategy game for sure.
Tanks and units have HP that can be drained, units stand in front of each other and need to empty several mags to make kills and tanks aren't taking any realistic damage.
When it comes to realism I strongly recommend strategy games such as Blitzkrieg 1 - Blitzkrieg 2 as well as Sudden Strike 1 - Sudden Strike 2 (maybe Sudden Strike 3), followed by Men of War.
All of these games do a much much better job at providing a realistic damage model, more realistic distance play as well as a realistic unit balance which exactly is NO balance. Real life units have no balance, there are superior and inferior units, this is what makes a strategy game a strategy game, you need strategy do defeat units and not just spam more units of the " same type " as it is very popular in Company of Heroes 2, whic hby the way seems to be far more pay2win by now as it once was due everyone getting some special commander who comes with special units.
Very arcade.
CoH is fun from time to time and I even consider playing it again, despite the bugs that have never been fixed and the very toxic community, but I have to definitely disagree with CoH being the best strategy game.
If you feel this way, nothing I can do. But you should have experienced i.e Blitzkrieg 2 when it's playerbase was at a peak and online matches went down. The game was also not fully free of bugs but the gameplay was absolutely historic and as close to realism as I have ever played a strategy game. They literally implemented a real life balance for units, the German tigers and such were absolute legends while as a U.S / Brit player you had quite some challenges playing against them you always felt great once u managed somehow.
Amazing times!
An other amazing and very realistic and great strategy game is " World in Conflict " A game that is pretty forgotten but has a great campaign with a a nice " what would be if.. " storyline and at its peak multiplayer times a game I would play between 4-8 hours every single day, for years trying to earn medals with challenges that were next to impossible to master and only for real strategic minds.
As you said yourself, its a personal opinion and personal opinion matters as each individuals seeks different attributes in a strategy game and has a slightly different understanding of what a good strategy game should involve. To me this attribue has always been NO BALANCE at all and pure realism based gameplay and units, no matter how hard to chew this would be. I feel the same way about FPS games, I hate the whole balance kind of thing as I enjoy games for taking on a challenge.
Whenever I play a FPS, I am the kind of guy who picks the worst gun just to get a kick out of dominating with it :) I love the challenge.
..Cheers guys, just wanted to throw my few pence in, did not read all of your discussion just wanted to share my opinion about CoH.
PS: I was referring to CoH2 I have no clue what CoH1 was like or if there was a major difference or not.
Agree , This game is far from realistic that's why i compare with the also arcade game coh .
This game don't have the realistic gamplay as man of war thats the truth .
and for the balancing aspect , there is a reason why coh2 mutiplayer is much populated than this game , balancing .
Is coh best strategy game ? maybe
Is coh better strategy game in terms of popularity , competitive gameplay , innovative mechanic and unit variety ? YES
Sure you can have your own opinion on what is best and what is not , but objectively , based on popularity , we know which one of these two wins at strategy game field .
They either choose a direction or , this will be the last sudden series .
I meant, to me, it is the best strategy game. Tanks in CoH do have directional armour, and tracks can be disabled etc, and they even have a crew system, and the main gun could be destroyed. Tanks in CoH are not simply just HP and that is it. I do however agree with you on the soldiers, I always installed mods such as Blitzkrieg or Spearhead which make infantry kill each other way more realistically.
I played all Sudden Strike 1, 2, and this one. I skipped 3. And played all 3 Blitzkrieg games and Men of War. To me personally, Sudden Strike 1 was better, and Sudden Strike 2 even more so, than 3 or 4. Blitzkrieg 1 and 2 were better than 3. All men of War seem to be fine. But to me, I do not compare CoH to any of these games directly. I would rather compare them to each other, but CoH I would more put in the class of, well not even StarCraft, just on its own.
I am not sure I understand what you mean here. You mean a Panzer 4 should have a longer range than a Katyusha, thus making it not make sense that the Katyusha is even able to attack the Panzer 4? I have never looked that into detail what both these historical ranges were, but I do know CoH is still just a game, and it was never marketed for absolute historical accuracy. So I never expected that from the game.
And I do believe this will be the last Sudden Strike game, at least for a long time to come. Sudden Strike 4 is a nice game, I think, but it failed to truly capture what Sudden Strike was, which was meant to be huge battles across big maps, with many units. Blitzkrieg historically was always the game with fewer units. So Sudden Strike 4 became like a Blitzkrieg game, to me, in that regard. And I am sure this is due to engine limitations more so than anything else.
It is not really about features. They are just two different games. I enjoy(ed) CoH 1 and 2 more than any Sudden Strike release, but then, sooner or later, you want something else to play. For me, it is because I like WW2 games. So Sudden Strike naturally just appeal to me.
CoH: Train "unlimited" amount of units.
SS: Look after your units, that's all you got.
In a game like CoH, you can be more careless, at least compared to SS. Thus you already start to play these two games differently. Because they are meant to be played differently. They are not directly comparable.
SS falls in the game range of the likes of Blitzkrieg, Men at War, Codename Panzers, etc.
CoH range is more or less, well, itself and Iron Harvest. And I think some Dawn of War releases also.
I think the core mechanic that sets these two games apart is base building. You cannot go into a game like SS and expect it to have base building for example. You just take this game as something set apart from CoH, if you enjoy WW2 games, and that's about it I guess.
Plus there was a mission where you get constant back up unit . so , yea .
so much limited unit for you .
simply saying it doesnt provide a feature so its different is kinda like i can't run so im good at not running ,
And SS has Japan. And Japan for some reason has Tiger tanks. So ya...
So , you think coh2 is arcade enough ?
"In 1943, Japan bought several specimens of German tank designs for study. A single Tiger I was apparently purchased, along with a Panther and two Panzer IIIs, but only the Panzer IIIs were actually delivered.[45] The undelivered Tiger was loaned to the German Wehrmacht by the Japanese government."
Maybe you just need to admit SS is only appealing to you ? seems like your word works both way .
Big reason coh series don't have japan army is probably their tactic is very similar to soviet Guerrilla warfare but weaker . No one want to play this kind of faction , not worth to invest much .
You sure you want to play as tree ? no literally tree that shoot people . Or using world war 1 technology on some unknown island ? in a DLC
Man of war cover much about pacific story but mainly on america side .
[wtf steam ban j-a-p-s as word ? give me a break . ]
Last thing this game gives me feeling is , arcade men of war with less feature ,
but hey i buy it with very low price , im fine with it , However they really need to consider push harder if they want more .
or make chinese vs japan one , many chinese will die to buy one just to step on ♥♥♥
In the end, it's just games I guess. But they could at least try to be more accurate. Do not even get me started on the German uniform in CoH. Luckily CoH1 had mods to fix that. No real luck with CoH 2 though.