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
Cant help but wonder what they were thinking with the stahlhelm design though, that weird shape even extends to the unit models. Trying to make them less n*zi looking?
Got to admit, I wish Captain MacKay and Sergeant Joe Conti looked a bit more like their CoH counterparts. Using Roy Hunter instead of Conti where you play as the British in missions would also make more sense but I guess they'd need to record more lines then as well.
DAK has more refined shading as well. I don't know why they make 2 styles for 2 sets of factions in the game. It's like they have 2 art dept., one for US and wehr, the other for brits and DAK. They should settle down with one.
It's more telling compared to canadians, which I never heard of being even leaked, Aussies were leaked since the Italian campaign test. It's like they are making the battlegroup with Aussies.
Comparing to the other vanilla units like riflemen or LMG commandos, the difference is pretty clear. While other portraits are reminiscent of their older, 3d model version, the style were more smudgy with lighting, like the uneven shade of color were from drops of watered paint.
Another notable one is gurkhas with shading along the cheek bone, but that one is in the game.