What is so Great about Company of Heroes?

Well I bought it on impulse at the store because I kept hearing how good it was, without doing my research.

I have to say I am utterly unimpressed by this glorified C&C.

I still found myself feeling the same frustrations I did with other RTS games, like not being able to focus on combat bc I have to constantly churn out more units. The gameplay is so hectic, there really isnt much opportunity for real tactics to be used.

Also, the supposed "thinking AI" and graphics didnt seem to be anything new to me. The AI never did anything smart, just went for the points on the map. In fact, if you could catch them at chokepoints, they were utterly stupid.. not even attempted to go other ways.

The "realism" was not impressive either. The infantry engaged at such short distances, it made the whole thing hokey. I know it was for gameplay, but the inf shooting at eachother 5 yards away and completely missing was definitely not something I would call a great advancement.


All and all, I really dont see what is so great about this game that I bought at full price. (:wall: )

Sure there have been some improvements, but it still felt like C&C Red Alert I was playing in 6th grade with somewhat better graphics and a WW2 theme.

The only really groundbreaking thing I can think of that was in this game were the destructible battlefields, yet the destruction "animations" and aftermath all looked the same, which got old after a short while.

I have never liked C&C type RTS games, and I guess I was just hoping for too much. :no:

Am I missing something?

PS. This made me appreciate the Total War approach to RTS so much more. It is vastly superior in my opinion to have a system where you build your army in one stage and fight the battles at another stage. Not only is it far more realistic, it also allows time to specialize in both army makeup and tactics, not just churning out more than the other guy.

CoH would be so much better if you had to select a number of units before the game, and fight the battle with those units. Leave all the "factories" out completely.. or put them on a campaign map for more strategic depth.

I had exactly the same reaction after a foolish purchase, reported in last month's thread on the game:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=30

I tried the tutorial and first mission, then decided I probably would never touch it again.

To answer your question - I guess some people just like Command and Conquer kind of games[1]. And CoH is a good command and conquer game. No daft farming etc. and more strategy elements than usual (cover, morale, RPS etc).

Beyond that, I know people appreciate the graphics and perhaps the multiplayer is good.



[1]Nothing wrong in that, but just not my cup of tea. I confess, I can't quite understand the attraction of CnC type RTS games. I don't like the frenetic pacing, the relative lack of tactics (compared to TW) or the lack of historical realism.

After playing the game, I decided I wouldn't get it unless there was a realism mod that significantly changed gameplay and slowed it down.

Well the key thing is whether you are into RTS's or not... If you are it rocks big style... If not it is always going to suck...

I was very impressed when I first played the demo, but when I played it again later (new comp and all) it just didn't grab me the same way. It is way too hectic, with the need of a lot of micro-manoeuvering while keeping an overall strategic view to hold on to the right strategic points.

IMO Dawn of War did this 'resource point system' a lot better, since (almost) all points provided the same resource, and most units were entirely capable of taking care of themselves for a minute or so. Plus, with it latest expansion it has zombie robots. It also avoids a few of the pitfalls of RTS games with easy base management and fast unit production (I can't play an AoE game, I *hate* building and asigning all those villagers time and time again).

Edit: As for the TW games being superior, I agree that their principle of seperating combat and strategy is very admirable. But I also feel that when it comes to battles I'm still basically playing the same game as Shogun.

Played the demo so I deciced to reinstall my 10 year old Close Combat

i think you guys missed the point - it wasnt ment to be realistic really

i know we need a good "close combat" game to come out and rejuvinate the realistic WW2 RTS sub-genre but in effect CoH is Dawn of War but improved and thats about it

the single player campaign is really quite bad but multiplayer is a blast - i play coporeative with a friend and we regualry play 4 AI vs us 2 - you have never seen such epic defences

oh and lack of tactics? you arnt playing it right :yes: a lot of the game is getting your infratry into good cover and keeping your tanks facing the enemy guns ill agree but there is tactics ie this is a situation i found myself in at the weekend

I was playing para in a 4v3 (4 hard AI vs me, my friend and my brother) my troopers are in cover exchanging fire with a horde of Stormtroopers - i cant push through and neither can they - to break this stalemate i drop a unti of paras behind the storm troopers and take up cover - since my troopers are behind them the storm troopers cover is facing my main force not them and they are quickly massacred and i advance

i wouldnt consider it the best rts ever but its fun enough to make my top 10 (number 1 been the original MTW i just got mtw2 working so that may work out)

What I don't like is the fact you need to build a base and such. For me that belongs to Medieval RTS games, not WW2 ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Played the demo so I deciced to reinstall my 10 year old Close Combat

---

Bizaar isn't it... All someone has to do is remake the CC series with sexy 3D graphics and a decent control interface... Instant classic!!

Well for those of you interested in the CloseCombat series(like me), Matrix games just bought the license of the series from Atomic's Game. CloseCombat - Cross of Iron is scheduled for this winter. You can bet this ugly general will be on the frontline.

http://www.matrixgames.com/news.asp?nid=353

I never played CoH but I used to play Dawn of War back in the day and I used to read the Relic boards about that. One of the head Relic devs posted that one of the reasons they put base-building into the Dawn of War game is because the majority of RTS game buyers find base-building to be "an enjoyable activity". It was a pretty interesting post with some hard numbers in it IIRC and showed that their decisions to put in base-building and other standard RTS stuff instead of TW-like stuff were based on hard market research data.

After having read that post, I came to realize that the Total War games are a niche market. Of course hardcore TW fans probably don't like to hear that, yet it is reality just the same.

Hence buying new RTS games and thinking, "I like TW games, therefore this new RTS game I'm buying will probably be like a TW game" is unwise. If you want a TW-like game, then buy a TW-branded game. That is likely the only way you are gonna get one in the market climate.

From what I've read, I don't think it is entirely accurate to say CoH is a C&C clone either. CoH seems to use a "point capture" system similar to Dawn of War which is similar to WarCraft 3's "creep system" rather than C&C. After having played several thousand games of Dawn of War, I eventually got burned out by having to manually capture points all over the map each new game and then proceed to micro manage a worker to each of them and then proceed to build structures on each of them. All that becomes a very tiresome and wearing process in the long-run and makes me not wanna even touch CoH, whereas if CoH used a much less tedious C&C resource-collection system instead, I would love that. Then there is the issue of no sidebar interface. Sidebar interfaces which in my view are vastly superior to the "current standard" which is the crappy "Blizzard interface" that Dawn of War used and I presume CoH also uses.

My point in saying all that is to point out that it is a common fallacy to state "Any RTS game that is not like TW, is like C&C." In my view it's an unfair insult to the Dune/C&C style of game to say that about games that more-resemble way worse Blizzard RTSes rather than C&C.

There was some discussion about these things in the older thread, might be worth reviewing.

Compression of engagement distances is a necessary abstraction in an isometric RTS, longer engagement ranges would very likely have a negative effect on gameplay in a game of comparable scope and control scheme.

Base building is just another game mechanic to provide diversity in the skills required to play the game (macromanagement & building strategies vs. micromanagement & tactics.) Not tying management aspects to a campaign map like the TW series gives a different experience, emphasizing the ability to make quick decisions if done right. (If done wrong, you get static build orders.)

TW tactics aren't really that much deeper than in modern RTS games, it's just that the relatively slow pace and lack of macromanagement make microing an easier task in TW games - no need to manage attention between micro and macro aspects. In a RTS, you can rarely do as much as you'd want, so there's a need to prioritise things. One skirmish gets micromanagent attention, in another skirmish the units are left to their own devices with the hope that numbers and / or quality advantage wins the fight. Sometimes a skirmish has to be conceded so that attention can be devoted to climbing the tech tree or constructing units.

It's possible that many gamers are bothered by the feeling that they can't control everything, and that is why they don't like conventional RTS games.

Personally I find the pace and scope of CoH quite okay, it's certainly not as fast as some games. (Try playing Rise of Nations competitively for a truly insane experience. ~;p ) Micromanagement in CoH has a nice feeling of reward to it, proper microing wins skirmishes. It wouldn't be as rewarding if the unit AI could do everything for the player. Strategic AI could always be better of course, but that's what multiplayer is for. ~;)

The point capture system in CoH is IMO better done than in DoW for a few reasons. You only need to hold points that are crucial to your strategy, for example fuel points. This tends to focus the action more than universally important points scattered all around the map. Manpower income is largely fixed, so having more strategic points doesn't mean a larger income, and with some doctrines you can even circumvent the need to have lots of fuel. Also, listening posts play less of a role - you only build them if you need a specific resource fast for your strategy. They also can't be upgraded (no need to fiddle around with them once they're built.)

In CoH's defense, you need to understand that you are buying an RTS. If you understand that, the game is actually quite good. If you go in expecting a military sim, you will be disapointed in a way that really isn't justified.

I agree with Lehusu.

I havn't played coh, may get it for Christman, but I have played dow. You've just got to get it out you're head, you're not playing total war. I see total war as more a simulator, tactics are actual battlefield formations, flanking etc.

The tactics in games such as dow are different, they're not about formations etc, but they are there.

I think I'm going to get CoH at Christmas. Since I jsut can't get addicted to m2, I think I need another game :yes:

The thing i like about COH is the campaign! It so fun, 'Are you ready seargent?' boom,bang,boom! Man is it good. The zoom is what annoys me. You cant really click stuff and attack and all that when youre zoomed in, and if youre zoomed in for to long then something happens elsewhere which you miss. BANG! BOOm! Tanks are coming in, there goes half me squad! WHOA!