Base Bulding / static encampments

[legal stuff]

NDAs are often a joke, and this one is no different. COH2.org is observing it and asking us to observe it not because it's afraid of getting sued but because Relic doesn't want people talking about the Alpha and COH2.org wants to respect Relic's wishes. Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you aren't a jerk if you do it.

NDAs are often a joke, and this one is no different. COH2.org is observing it and asking us to observe it not because it's afraid of getting sued but because Relic doesn't want people talking about the Alpha and COH2.org wants to respect Relic's wishes. Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you aren't a jerk if you do it.

As I said, honor system.

Let's get back on track:
Coh2's base building system is extremely similar to that of Coh1. The main difference is that it's more realistic and less exploitable, which results in, what I'd consider, an overall improvement.

Let's get back on track:
Coh2's base building system is extremely similar to that of Coh1. The main difference is that it's more realistic and less exploitable, which results in, what I'd consider, an overall improvement.

Let me fix that for you:

Let's get back on track:
Coh2's base building system is extremely similar to that of Coh1. The main difference is that it's more realistic and less exploitable, which results in, what I'd consider, A FUCKING DISGRACE.

I'm going to define an RTS for you: you build up X type of economy with Y system, you make buildings and tech, you build up an army THAT COMES OUT OF THE BUILDINGS and you kill the enemy. Any thing without such feature can't even be considered an RTS, just another crappy game that will be forgotten quickly(see DOW2).

When I found out about this in the Alpha it was a heart-breaking moment. Even more than the poor design(AKA I GET A PANTHER IN 5MIN NPNP) and the worst optimization possible.

EDIT: REALISM HERP DERP REALISM ERMAHGERD REALISM LELELELE WE DONT CARE ABOUT GAMEPLAY XDXDXD REALISM XDXDXD

Let me fix that for you:



I'm going to define an RTS for you: you build up X type of economy with Y system, you make buildings and tech, you build up an army THAT COMES OUT OF THE BUILDINGS and you kill the enemy. Any thing without such feature can't even be considered an RTS, just another crappy game that will be forgotten quickly(see DOW2).

When I found out about this in the Alpha it was a heart-breaking moment. Even more than the poor design(AKA I GET A PANTHER IN 5MIN NPNP) and the worst optimization possible.

EDIT: REALISM HERP DERP REALISM ERMAHGERD REALISM LELELELE WE DONT CARE ABOUT GAMEPLAY XDXDXD REALISM XDXDXD

Oh, I wasn't aware that total war games weren't RTS games after all.

Let me fix that for you:

I'm going to define an RTS for you: you build up X type of economy with Y system, you make buildings and tech, you build up an army THAT COMES OUT OF THE BUILDINGS and you kill the enemy. Any thing without such feature can't even be considered an RTS, just another crappy game that will be forgotten quickly(see DOW2).

When I found out about this in the Alpha it was a heart-breaking moment. Even more than the poor design(AKA I GET A PANTHER IN 5MIN NPNP) and the worst optimization possible.

EDIT: REALISM HERP DERP REALISM ERMAHGERD REALISM LELELELE WE DONT CARE ABOUT GAMEPLAY XDXDXD REALISM XDXDXD

There has never been a clear definition of RTS, aside from the fact that you control units from overhead in a real-time manner, and that you have to use some level of strategy to win.

Herzog Zwei was the first RTS, which wasn't really a base builder. Dune 2 was a base builder, and there were many others after that involved base building, but not always. I think back to games like the Sudden Strike series, Blitzkrieg, Men at War, Dawn of War 2, Homeworld, etc. These are all examples of RTS games without traditional base building. Even the recently gone beta / semi-released Airmech, a game greatly inspired by Herzog Zwei, is the same way.

Regarding the alpha, I have no idea what you're talking about. Performance was fantastic for me, and I never saw a 5 minute Panther. Buildings changing isn't a big deal at all in my opinion, if you read some of the coverage out there (i.e. PC Gamer) you'll learn that some maps have radio stations, where you can bring in units from other areas of the map. It'd be difficult to do that with traditional base buildings.

That's part of the point: Total wars are not RTS's.

How can a turn based game even be considered as an RTS?

Dot Dot Dot

dash dash dash

I would love to see bigger and better designed COH2 base buildings.

During Alpha I found two major issues with buildings (without going into details): first one was the conjuction of two elements, size and design, that made buildings look all very similar and not distinctive/like they had a real role.
The second major issue was related to the approach Relic did to try giving buildings a reason to exist and to be positioned in a certain way: the fact you could garrison them. The problem was that the way windows were distributed and the number of the windows was quite bad, making house positioning for defensive purposes useless.

For example, there was a building that, if garrisoned, lets your MG shoot from it. The problem was that when you tried to place the "ghost" of the building on the ground (rotating it) you couldn't get which side was the one with the window, so a lot of times I ended up failing to position it.

I would love to see bigger and better designed COH2 base buildings.

During Alpha I found two major issues with buildings (without going into details): first one was the conjuction of two elements, size and design, that made buildings look all very similar and not distinctive/like they had a real role.
The second major issue was related to the approach Relic did to try giving buildings a reason to exist and to be positioned in a certain way: the fact you could garrison them. The problem was that the way windows were distributed and the number of the windows was quite bad, making house positioning for defensive purposes useless.

You are spot on my son. +1

I'm going to define an RTS for you: you build up X type of economy with Y system, you make buildings and tech, you build up an army THAT COMES OUT OF THE BUILDINGS and you kill the enemy. Any thing without such feature can't even be considered an RTS, just another crappy game that will be forgotten quickly(see DOW2).

This is so wrong it's almost funny. What does RTS stand for again? People like you are the reason stagnant RTS games like Starcraft keep being the standard, and there is almost no innovation in the genre.
I bet you also think CoD is a good form of modern FPS.

RTS is one of the most stagnant genres I know, and the reason why I only play Relic RTS games now. I played Starcraft, AoE, AoE 2, AoM, RA2 and Tiberian Sun as a kid, and how much have it changed? Barely. And even if I have great memories with those games I want to experience new kinds of games, not the same old over and over.

That's why I love Dawn of War 2, a step out of the RTS box that while it wasn't perfect in any way, at least creates a different experience. And that's also why I don't play Starcraft 2. Despite how great that game might be or become, it will still follow the same formula, and it's a formula I've played to death and am sick of.

RTS's needs experimentation and exploration of new concepts more than any other genre, IMO.

What about Hearts of Iron III, Wargame: European Escalation, Brutal Legend, Atom Zombie Smasher, Gratuitous Space Battles, Men of War: Assault Squad, Vertex Dispenser, Shogun 2: Total War, and all the other real time strategy games that have moved on since Starcraft/AoE/C&C? You can't ignore a bunch of RTS games that innovate and then shit all over the ones that don't. The RTS genre is big and it has games for everyone. If you want old school stuff, Starcraft II is there for you. If you want innovation, other games are waiting.

Just build all of your building in the furthest away corner of your base. Baserushing was OP already in this (meta) game so they make it you can defend better against OP baserushes.

Thank god now you have the tactical option to place your basebuildings.
No more of these risky scrublords building their buildings at the front of their base thinking their units will hit the field faster.

Also that other great tactical option is that new way of capping. Why choose between fighting, or capping in a vunerable position when u can do both at the same time.
We'll teach those noobs who can actually make the right decision when it comes to decision making. No, screw those noobs!
Those noobs don't know the true way of MG bunkers, tankblob and Artillery. Those noobs don't know how to rush to the bridges. THOSE DONT KNOW THE TRUE WAY OF SCHELDT.

I actually wonder why COH2 wasn't titled; Tales of the Scheldt: part 2
'The best RTS game just got better': Much more noobfriendly, more randomness and more Arty EXPLOSION POWAAAAAAH then ever before.

And last but not least, finally I can pown this no life schoolkids by buying MOAR stuff and commanders and shitz. BUYING STUFF IS REAL SKILL and shit. AUW YEAH.


Other then that: GO GO GO GO SEGA, make Coh2 what Coh made great. And revert all them changes that were just made for the sake of (noobfriendly?) changing.

Innovation and novelty can be hugely overrated though. If it ain't broke don't fix it; that's what DoW2 proved about the CoH formula (the lack of base building can be thought of as a serious design flaw).

Indeed, taking existing formulas and perfecting them would be nice. SC2 was kind of a downgrade from SC1, which also didn't really improve much on what made SC1 great; simply rehashing the same formula is not cool, but actually iterating on it without fundamentally altering the underlying structure is ok. It's like modern art; these days they're so obsessed with novelty that a splatter painting is considered superior to a Rockwell illustration. I really don't ever want to see that in the games industry.

The thing is, VCoh is still GREAT today. Starcraft 1 was (old but) ok-ish till the day SC2 came out.

SC2 was just almost a copy of SC1 with couple of new graphics. Very simple mechanics.


But VCoh has such well thought out GENIUS, BRILLIANT, BEAUTIFUL concepts of gameplay mechanics why would one want to change those drastically?

Ever since TOV (Or maybe even OF), Relic only has come up with a series of failed experiments. Dow series, Coho etc

the changes from SC:BW to SC2 were actually huge.

the important thing is: they left the core mechanics the same and just EXPANDED on them... like adding multiple building selection, being able to select an unlimited amount of units, gold mineral patches (leaving the resource acquiring system the same, just expanding on it), increasing amount of larvae a hatch can hold, etc. etc....

thing is: they only added things, but did not change the core game mechanics, whereas CoH2 will change quite a few things about CoHs core mechanics.

I'm sick of people claiming SC2 is a simplistic or "blobby" game. The skill ceiling, mechanically and strategically, is so far above CoH that comparing the two is laughable. Say what you want about BW and SC2, but they are better balanced, have larger playerbases, and have more depth than COH has or likely ever will have. I vastly prefer CoH for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't lower the quality of Star Craft one bit.

The thing is, VCoh is still GREAT today. Starcraft 1 was (old but) ok-ish till the day SC2 came out.

SC2 was just almost a copy of SC1 with couple of new graphics. Very simple mechanics.


But VCoh has such well thought out GENIUS, BRILLIANT, BEAUTIFUL concepts of gameplay mechanics why would one want to change those drastically?

Ever since TOV (Or maybe even OF), Relic only has come up with a series of failed experiments. Dow series, Coho etc

+1 very well said, I totally agree.