CTA vs COH

[crogin]

What would someone say the positive vs Company of Heroes and the negative?
Are the games similar? same kind play style?

[Egro]

CTA focus on realism but plague with dumb Ai. COH is a well balanced RTS but plague with micro-transactions if you are playing the latest one.

[-OrLoK- Слава Україн]

quite different games imho.

GoH, imho, has more depth and its play styles is up to the player, from a "Commandos" stealth, keep your guys alive to a mincemeat "Hamburger Hill" style affair.

CoH imho is a more run of the mill rts with ww2 stuck on top.

nothing wrong with that, I've been playing rts games since DUNE 2 and it's in the same mould.

GoH needs a bit of love (which it's getting) to round off the rough edges whereas CoH is a slick AAA release but slightly soulless affair.

I liked CoH but played them through once and rarely went back.

GoH and its predecessors have never been off my hdd.

ymmv

[M4F10S0]

CoH is base building RTS and CtA: GoH is something like Wargame or Steel Division. For someone it can be negative and for the other positive.

[gGeorg]

COH dont crash or sudenly disconnect in multiplayer.
COH has nice user interface and decent AI
COH works as it is

CTA:GOH has superb sounds of vehicles, engiines, canon sounds, richochet or general anything. AAA quality of sound.
CTA:GOH has nice vehicle models and damage is based on penetration
CTA:GOH is for history lovers and tech-nerds to weapons and types and subtypes
CTA:GOH is under development, if they keep current tempo, in a year or two it would be realy good

[Herr Flick]

The difference in gameplay is down to differences in controls; also, in CtA you will be doing more micro management. It has a completely different look & feel and GoH is based in history. Other differences were already mentioned.

[crogin]

Thanks all.

[ICEBREAKER]

Coh1 is now available for the mobile phone, part 2 is meanwhile totally unbalanced and the community is well let's say kiddy. I'm testing part 3 alpha today. But I think coh 3 and gth are 2 different games because gth gives a lot more depth of play. What does more realistic mean, you have more reference to the units, more micromanagment, which I love ... There are also more options for mods. Coh2 is much faster and I find it a little more unrealistic. I wouldn't even see coh3 and gth as competitors, but as 2 different games, I'll just play both. The military rts gaming sector doesn't offer any more good alternatives (mow2) in terms of high quality and long fun, scope ... You can't go wrong with gth, nice devs (communicate with the community and actually patch, no longer something like that every day); great game, high quality, and great mod community (a lot of maps/missions and other mods)...

[Wilh]

CoH is more arcade than GoH however a lot more polished and has access to auto-match, much better AI, overall stability, as in very little bugs, and balanced gameplay. GoH is a diamond encased in excrement at the moment as it's a perfect blend between good realism, authentism and gameplay, however the downright retarded AI, crashes, crap pathfinding and lack of any form of auto-match is dragging the title down heavily.

So, it's really a matter of how much you are able to take. If you can set aside the rage inducement that GoH gives then give it a shot, however if you are looking for, mostly, trouble free gameplay then go CoH