Please god, let not CoH2 be the "Age of Empires III" of relic games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Age of Empires III??? Why? That was a good game. Age of empires online is the one that sucks.
Comment has been collapsed.
First Generals 2 not Company of Heroes 2, we need a new giant of RTS to add some competition to the genre, would of thought sc2 would be enough to get the big devs to step it up in development but they're all on the slide.
If it was like the dota space with so many publishers competing for the niche market we could be in the second era of RTS.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I like CoH much more than MoW. It's a matter of opinions
Comment has been collapsed.
If you play CoH you might as well go play Dawn of War. It's practically the same thing with a different setting. And I'm talking from the opinion of somebody who plays a lot of strategy games. From that standpoint the mechanics of CoH are just plain dumb.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's sure a matter of taste, but I find MoW with Dynamic Campaign Generator way more fun (Long time total war player, I love dynamic campaigns). DoW have the same engine as CoD, so they are much similar. If you like more "non-arcade" games you'll sure like MoW. If you want a WWII "sim" go for Combat Mission series or Achtung Panzer (AP have a dynamic campaign too).
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry but even if its matter of taste, and some people may like it; CoH is a bad game. The mechanics of the game don't make sense. Hey lets run at this machine gun placement but don't worry, we won't die, we are bullet sponges. Hey a tank battle, lets watch the tanks just shoot at each other for ten minutes and take the same amount of damage from all sides; what the tanks just blow up? It's like what actually would happen...oh wait..This part isn't a really big deal but it makes more sense for units to be called off map rather than constructing building to recruit. Oh yeah, the part of about infantry being able to survive a tank shell is rather stupid as well. As far as I see it, CoH is just lazy game design. WW2 is not the same thing as Dawn of Wars setting so the game mechanics shouldn't be remotely close to DoW, beyond simple things like path finding and gui and what not, but the game plays like DoW with a WW2 skin. And I'm not saying a game should be as difficult as MoW can be but CoH is a little too easy, all you really have to do is wait at your capture points, build units, attack and then you win. Not really too much strategy in between. I'm not attacking you in any way, I know you said you liked MoW, I was just saying my opinion on the matter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes but in the end, most of the time, it's about the economic management; who ever does it better will usually win. And in comparison, actual flanking doesn't have the kind of impact in CoH that it would in MoW. For example, I order somebody with an AT wep to to flank a tank in CoH. It doesn't really make a difference except the tank has to turn to hit them back. In MoW, if you have an AT wep powerful enough to take down a tank, I can order my guy to hit it's side or it's engine in the back. The result would be be either crippling a part of the tank or even disabling it completely; i wouldn't get the same results from a head on collusion with against the tank. Hell if I felt like it was worth the time and we didn't completely wreck it, I could even order my men to repair the tank and commander it. Then there is even just stuff like suppression, in CoH, there has to be a suppression effect to simulate actual suppression. In MoW, there is no such ability because if your unit is being hammered by enemy fire, if they step out of cover, they will die; there is no magic retreat button that will save them. It's just stuff like that you take into account when you strategize in MoW but in CoH, you don't really have to worry; all I'm saying is that yeah you can flank in CoH but beyond that, and I guess balancing your armor:infantry, there isn't too much strategy to game in comparison to MoW
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok yeah, you do have me there but the genres are close enough that they can be compared. Your example, "It's like telling someone an FPS game is better than this RPG game." is just extreme. And if you didn't think they couldn't be compared, you wouldn't have bothered to bring any of what you brought up.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well that is a tad extreme too :b but I do feel like they could have tried a bit more to make it feel like a different game. I understand that they might not have wanted to create a totally different engine but I just don't think that it fits well with time period.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand you. My point is that some people just want a "WW2 lite" game, fast, simpler combat mechanics, etc. I can't play CoH "competitive" multiplayer because, like Starcraft, it's too fast paced and economy management based (like knowing the way to maximize units output, etc.). But that's something that a lot of players want... The tank physics of MoW are simply superb, not HP based like CoH.
Have you played World of Tanks, if yes, have you found it "fun"? Well, I have here Steel Beasts Pro PE, a real military tank sim, but I'm pretty sure that most of people would prefer WoT, they would find it more "fun".
My whole point is: "realism ≠ fun" for most people.
Comment has been collapsed.
CoH > MoW
I dont like Dawn of War series. Cant stand it. LOVE LOVE LOVE COH! .. Non-steam version I have over 300 hrs punched. Love it!
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you probably don't like the settings but the game mechanics are basically the same. All you have is MoW: Vietnam which isn't a good example because even for MoW, Vietnam is ridiculously more difficult and there is no competitive aspect to it. But if you have more fun with CoH then by all means have fun with it, I won't stop nor will I tell you it isn't a fun game.
Comment has been collapsed.
A P2W game that costs $79.99? Classy move.
Relic seem to be lowering their trousers in order to take a giant, meaty crap on the Call of Duty franchise.
Between this and EA's similar act of defecation on C&C Generals, 2012 and 2013 look like being bad years for RTS fans. At least EA have the decency not to charge an eighty dollar entry fee for their P2W malarky.
Comment has been collapsed.
"$80?
I'm seeing $59.99 and $99.99 for the standard and collectors respectively."
Yup. Eighty US dollars for the basic version. You are evidently lucky enough not to be paying Australia/New Zealand prices.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha.
That's the first plausible explanation I've heard for the high prices down under :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Here is an old thread about it. Weird how the CoH price is AU/NZ but the rest is American for me here in SEA.
Anyway, I do find this disturbing. CoH2 looks like its trying to be an MMO, and I don't think thats a good direction to take a full priced AAA RTS title to.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not convinced. I read the first few pages of that thread and they just keep saying "It's not pay-to-win!" without any evidence. The thing you quoted is a perfect example. The question was about boosts and archetypes, the answer tried to change the subject to tank skins.
Even if they really aren't planning to sell any gameplay advantages, what worries me is that they have a system in place to do so. As other games have already demonstrated, it's not at all hard to go from cosmetics only to pay-to-win. Can THQ resist the temptation?
Comment has been collapsed.
16,205 Comments - Last post 40 seconds ago by ClapperMonkey
34 Comments - Last post 26 minutes ago by SketCZ
12 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by Velandur
22 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by popocho
329 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by OwieczkaDollyv21
1,662 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by FranckCastle
4 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by MeguminShiro
73 Comments - Last post 47 seconds ago by SINNEDUE
567 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by ClapperMonkey
231 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by PaganFears
2,536 Comments - Last post 30 minutes ago by highlysuspect
1,830 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by MeguminShiro
27,909 Comments - Last post 39 minutes ago by ha14
190 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Naitas
Clicky
Aside from the adoption of the new tiered pre-order system, which had its own thread so I won't discuss it here, did anyone notice a few peculiar lines among the pre-order bonuses? Specifically:
..........
In-game currency? XP boost? UNIT BOOST?!
Are Relic turning CoH into an MMO? Even worse, a pay-to-win MMO?
I can't find any word from Relic or THQ on how these "features" will be implemented, and it seems they weren't announced before the pre-order. So, at the moment, I can't figure out a reason not to be worried. Thoughts? More accurate data? I'd especially welcome the latter.
Comment has been collapsed.