CoH1 flat out made shit up though, CoH2 not so much.
I know you really believe that, so bursting your bubble might cause psychological harm. |
They knew that developmentally CoH2 didn't/doesn't have the direction, and most likely never will. Every step, every patch and every update has been further away from what anyone I knew who enjoyed this franchise wanted.
This.
It started with OF factions and continues now. There is a fetish for faction difference. But they are so afraid someone will accuse them of making "mirror" factions that they make factions that each look like they came out of a different game with different resource schemes, different strategy choices. The different veterancy schemes got completely out of hand with brit officers and PE which encouraged blobbing by both.
They just don't have to be that different! Wehr and US "looked" the same but even if Wehr got veterancy the way US did they still wouldn't have played the same. A Stug isn't an m10, a Puma not an m8, the mgs were differnt, the bunkers, the med tents/bunkers, the mortars, the AT guns and HTs, etc.) They looked really similar but all those little differences added up to factions that played very differently. And that is before you ever add the doctrines/companies.
They played differently yet they offered lots of choices in HOW to play them. Perhaps that was from the similarities?
|
I feel it's the bar's upgrade. Make the upgrade global, make it cost 60 fuel to give bar upgrade to rifles.
That sounds familiar.... I think I saw it in an awesome old game. Too bad the developer of that game never made a better version to replace it. |
Number 1 - No rank system. Check any standard motivation table, you'll see "Recognition" high on the list. That goes for work as well as sports and hobbies.
Number 2 - No professionally organised tournaments. Kreatir and co. do a very good job but they don't seem to get support or sponsors from Relic. I could be wrong... I've rarely seen tourneys advertised in-game and rarely seen attractive prizes. Why invest a lot of time to become "pro" when there's no pay-of? Pros get paid. CoH2 doesn't pay.
I also think as Ohme said, they got cheesed and left. They come and have to face:
Blobs. US+OKW are blob-friendly. Blobbing kills this game.
Snipers/M3HT/Maxims - zero fun. Legitimate strategies but zero goddamn fun to face.
T0 vehicles when all you have is inf
Soviet core infantry not scaling. Goodbye vetted units, goodbye, you die so that I might live free of popcap.
RNG
RNG
RNG RNG
RNG
Hard to predict what's gonna happen = squad wipes.
And speaking of squad-wipes, the biggest turd in the CoH2 toilet = The ISU-152. I think that alone accounted for a large chunk of players. That and the SUPERTANK META
and shitty cheap 1-shot-kill soviet mine + demo spam >:/
This is funny. Aside from "USF + OKW blobbing" every single thing you named was a complaint about allies and nothing about axis....
So people aren't playing because they all came to play axis and got cheesed on??? I am guessing not. I am guessing the problems like in both sides. And almost all of of the cheese stems from too much "difference" in the factions and too much play that doesn't actually look kind of like WWII (which is what they were looking for when they came to this). It is semi infantry combat to blobs to super tanks. vCOH at least mostly looked like what they expected and it took a bit to find the cheese because most games didn't have it. In COH2 it is often all you find. |
|
I don't think success has to be measured for "true competitive RTS games". If a strategy game as a whole is successful it can be the basis of a great multiplayer game through some balancing. I think that is the case with COH1. Probably most never played multiplayer in the beginning. (I didn't for over a year. Played campaign a few times, got bored but wanted a lot more so I clicked on the "Lobby" button and the rest is history.) And they could do whatever they wanted to balance the Wehr because no one played it in the campaign.
Total War certainly been successful franchise, but there is just way too much going on to balance all the factions especially since between the turn based empire portion and the tactical map rts there are soooo many moving parts. but it had a lot of people playing multiplayer, perhaps in the beginning as many as COH.
But the TW tactical engine might be an interesting start as an engine for a WWII squad/platoon level game. (would be interesting to use fuel instead of fatigue, have ammo limits on each unit, with the need to replenish). It already takes into account missiles, terrain, artillery, etc. |
I honestly think that both US and Soviets are really, really powerful in 1v1's. Check my stats for yourselves if you doubt my credibility.
Ostheer has the weakest lategame, and OKW can be extremely frustrating to play because its easy to get overpowered by the Allies in the early to midgame, especially by the US.
You do realize that this is the "design choice" right? Do you think USF enjoys the wins that feel like ROFLstomps as much as a well fought game? Nope. But they know if they don't stomp someone the game will not end well for them.
This is exacerbated by COH2's faster teching games. End-game is reached at about 20 minutes even though the timer system (VPs) is unchanged from vCOH and it's slower teching design. Games generally reached the end-game stage even in vCOH, but the end-game and supers happen much faster in COH2 meaning a USF will always face supers for which they are ill designed to counter unless they stomp the enemy early. Games are going to last a while unless you control all 3 VPs.
This is just poor game design. You are frustrated, but when you win you feel satisfied because you outplayed the opponent. But you didn't. You just dragged the game out long enough until all the advantages are in your favor.
So if USF were as OP in the early game as OKW is late game there would be no late games. And OKW players would whine for a USF early game nerf.
(wait, didn't that already happen!?!) |
Because it's a setting that's been beaten to death by games companies. Remember 4 or 5 years ago when 95% of shooters released were set in WWII? It was a running joke in the games industry. There are just less WWII gaming nerds than sci-fi or fantasy gaming nerds.
I sitll think a well designed game would succeed. COH2 has no one huge flaw, but there are many little ones that add up to a bad feel for both casual players, historical players, competitive players, players looking for a fair fight.. etc.
I think the original campaign didn't help them either. The original COH campaign was really good, especially for its time. Playing a mission or two as a demo made someone thing "this is SOO cool! I have to get it". That draws in the players, and if the game is good it draws them into multiplayer in the search for more content. The active player base meant you find other noobs with whom to get your feet wet either in 1v1 or in lobbies. Smurfs were a problem for noobs, but luckily they ranked up past you pretty quickly.
For COH2 Relic chose a faction that was not particularly popular (Soviets) and brutalized the history. That can knock a good # of people out of their "suspension of disbelief" which is a big no-no in games as well as movies.
|
The truth is, if CoH1 was released right now, it probably wouldn't be a very successful competitive game either. I think it would be more successful than CoH2, mainly because I think it's just a better game for that style of play, but it's still a WWII RTS by a developer with a terrible track record of encouraging competitive play in their games. And it would still be thrown into a market of already-successful competitive games that offer a whole lot more to players interested in that kind of thing.
CoH1 had the benefit of developing a competitive scene before competitive gaming really took off in the mainstream, and as a result was able to attract a lot more competitive players than it ever would have been able to if it had be released today. Just something to keep in mind when comparing the two.
Perhaps because I love history, particularly that period, I never got the "because it is a WWII" game argument though I will accept it might be the case. It wasn't always so and there were lots of WWII strategy games in the 70-90s probably because our fathers and grandfathers fought in that war. I believe it was the most popular historical period for strategy board games and later for warplane simulators.
If you are right, then vCOH also benefited from its proximity to the release of the incredibly popular "Saving Private Ryan" movie and "Band of Brothers" series. Many people saw BoB in after it left HBO, which was in the early 2000's and that probably helped vCOH sales in the beginning. The game was technically superior to so many things out there. I believe it was the first game with a destructible environment and with decent squad/vehicle control. |
Hi,
Here is my idea of OKW rework:
Resources:
Fuel income: 66%
Amo income: 66%
Salvage bonus: from 5 fuel to 2 fuel. In case of scavange doctrine, 2 fuel + 5 amo.
Pioneers can build now observation posts (vCoh style). Observation Post cost: (250 mp/300 mp – feel free to discuss). While having the same effect as caches, they cost more and they will provide a slightly increased sight range.
Effects: this will reduce manpower stockpiling and indirectly reducing blob build phenomenon. OKW player will be tempted to build at least 1 OP. Exclusive builder unit should be sturmpioneers – they are more expensive (both in requisition cost and reinforcement cost) and takes longer to reinforce, not so easily spamable, and they are effective combat units, so while building caches they will be out of combat (their overall fighting contribution would be lowered). OKW player will have to chose weather he will adopt a strategy based on amo supply or fuel supply increase (not really increase of course, rather compensating handicap trial, but that will cost mp), or stay with the current resources income.
In startgame, OKW player will be obliged to rely on at least one raketenwerfer due to the amo shortage that won’t allow him to build enough schrecks. If he wants to go on “schreck blob” way, this will cost him manpower also (he will need amo observation posts).
Units:
Lower KT and Jagdtiger rear armor (values are debatable, feel free to discuss). This way, flanking would be rewarded more.
Kubelwagen – stays the same, but a cost of 10 fuel will be added. This way, because every fuel drop is important, OKW player will have to be extremely cautious with it, most probably unit will be build once per game and the “kubel spam” phenomenon will be greatly reduced. Penalty for losing it will be higher.
OKW trucks (undeployed) – Stay the same but now the damage received while undeployed will stay the same after the truck is deployed (this will eliminate truck pushing “tactic”). No one will like to have a brand new half-health deployed truck.
Booby-trapping can now be done just by Obersoldaten.
Tiers:
OKW T2 truck will be able to lock territory (T2 = the building with jagdpanzer and searchlight). This way, an aggressive or good placement (protecting owner’s cutoff or locking opponent cutoff) will be as well rewarding but riscky all the same because it will draw all attacks upon it. Can be placed on any point on the map, it will not provide an increased resources income, it will just lock that point. The locked maped point cannot be taken if truck is not destroyed.
Converting T2 into a retreat point costs now 200 mp.
While not affecting so much 1v1 games, this changes may affect the 3v3 and 4v4 games by offerring a different perspective on OKW and bringing some balance maybe. Decisions for OKW player will be harder to make and if wrong, more costly. The manpower reserve scalling of OKW will be tempered through build of OPs wich will not give a real advantage but rather will reduce the resources handicap.
Now shoot.
It is working as designed. Which shows you the problem is with the designers, not the faction.
|
|
What I don't get is why the Ma Deuce is the only MG the US gets. The MG support role was filled by the M1919A4 (medium) and later in the war the M1919A6 was introduced as an LMG (wooden shoulder stock, lighter barrel, connected bi-pod) to reduce the amount of crew needed and get rid of the need to carry and set up a tripod.
The M2 was a "heavy" weapon and in TO+Es is attached to AT/AA battlaions for Anti-Air use. It has greater range than the lighter guns (M1919, Vickers, MG42/34) used at the time and would have been more devastating against lightly armored vehicles and units in "conventional" cover (houses, etc, not bunkers) even at a long range, though its conventional AI utility would not be as great as the faster firing lighter MGs.
The in-game M2 doesn't fulfill its historical role or that of the much more ubiquitous M1919A4. Historically it would be a much more powerful weapon that could pose a real threat to light vehicles and infantry in green cover, and do it at great ranges, but less likely to hit infantry in blobs (though anything it hit would probably die). I think People would buy such a weapon from a non-T0 building.
But without a true M1919A4-like weapon the USF is missing a support MG.
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
