Profile of SmokazCOH

Jump back to quoted post18 Nov 2013, 15:58 PMInverse

People compare early vCoH to early CoH2 all the time, but the comparison doesn't really make sense when you think about it.

When vCoH was being patched in its early years, the core game never changed. Sure, there were some pretty drastic changes to how units functioned and how mechanics worked, but the actual units themselves and the dynamic of the gameplay was exactly the same. Things like Strafing Run and Calliopes and infantry upgrades were heavily modified, but nothing was really added or removed. Tweaks were made purely to improve balance and encourage quality gameplay, not to add content or artificially create diversity.

Compare that to CoH2. No matter how brilliant Peter and the balance devs are, I don't see how it's possible to successfully balance a game when completely gamechanging content is being added on a monthly basis. The early stages of vCoH never had to worry about half a dozen new commanders every month, and balancing the need to make those commanders strong enough to encourage purchases with not screwing over the players that refuse to play.

And it's not even the balance that's my greatest concern. The core gameplay of CoH2 is incredibly simplistic when compared to vCoH, in my opinion at least. That's doubly upsetting when you realize that, strategically speaking, vCoH is technically a very simple game. Yet when you look back at early vCoH replays and walk through the history of the game, you quickly notice striking changes in gameplay and strategy. These changes didn't rely on the addition of new content, but rather the inherent depth of the original game.

Take, for example, the Americans vs. Wehrmacht matchup. Gameplay in the early years of vCoH revolved around heavy low-tier play with rushes to high-tier tanks. Veterancy was rarely touched, certain tiers were rarely used, and gameplay was fairly simplistic. Fast forward a few years and you have the emergence of T2 Terror with heavy veterancy and doctrine dependance for late-game strength. This change in strategy and gameplay was purely the result of players understanding the game better; no new content was needed.

I can't see a similar situation occurring in CoH2, and I don't think Relic can either, which is why they're attempting to artificially create this innovation by adding commanders that drastically change how the game is played.

Wehrmacht veterancy, for example, was bitched about by many players in the vCoH days. However, at the highest level of play, you rarely heard players complaining about it. Purchasable veterancy was one of the most interesting and strategically challenging aspects of vCoH play, and one of the main reasons why Wehrmacht was such a diverse faction strategically. It gave you something other than units to spend your money on, forced you to prioritize and manage your economy more intelligently, and opened up strategic opportunities for your opponents.

The problem I have with CoH2 is the fact that the base game is so painfully dull and simplistic, and the attempts by Relic to diversify that base game by releasing paywall-blocked commanders is needlessly segregating the community and making any well-intentioned attempts at balance completely futile.