Profile of TheEvilAdventurer

1: being able name lobby
2: being able to lock teams to faction eg axis v allies usf vs soviets ect
3: having chat as not a tab but a hud so more ppl see and use it

Coming from someone who retroactively started on COH2 then COH1: I find COH1 feels floaty no real wait for them. I find the tank parting completely shit tanks will considerately refused to reverse ect. There are many balance issues as well. If your playing a team game the exploitation is massive. From a faction design point The USA is outright weaker due to the vetency system furthermore as you cant build rifles from base teir unless your rushing something specific a t2 start isnt viable unlike soviets or okw and usa. The PE needs to wait to mid game for ist inf to be viable because it apparently got nurfed into the ground as thats when i get better weapons upgrades That being said i still love coh1 but i feel like people act when its perfect and its not (I would like a pe style tecing structure with the upgrade ect explored tho) and on the other hand coh2 problems are either minor in comparison unlike a faction being able to cut u in ur base with a stupid bike thats wreck blocks too or similar to coh1 with certain upgrades being unreliable like osther t4 vs usa t2 start

Steam reviews totally trash the game, won't buy it.

Did you read them as they all said its the same as the last one thats inst really trashing it and coh2 was an incremental improvement too

I like the map, but i feel that people play it wrong

I would like to know what you have against spelling correctly. Don't tell me something like English isn't your first language either. You copied and pasted a link that has the correct spelling, so you had a perfect reference.

Yes, Stalingrad is a crap map. It's full of annoying choke points that make for long defensive games. It's also got long distances to critical points. Also one side has 2 VP that are before the choke point, giving an unfair advantage.

I have dyslexia