company of heroes

[lars573]

I prefer to toy with the AI. Get to the top of the tech tree and then mass, death, win.

[Bob the Insane]

Thank for the hints, I beat it on the Lyon map...

Once I have cut off the bridges and fortfied the center one the AI became very passive and if was not until I had taken the 'island' off the right and captured a couple of areas on his side of the river theat the AI became aggressive again (loads of tanks) but Rangers really do "lead the way"...

Oh and additionally, a sniper and an off map arty barriage can really devestate the enemy main camp and keep it rebuilding while you build up your forces for the rush...

So what I have seen is the the enemy AI (on Normal at least) it pretty agressive and efficient unless you can stump it in someway, at which it is simply goes on hold for a while...

[doc_bean]

Holy #@^& !

I just installed the demo to see if it was worth the praise it was getting here. In the tutorial I ordered an infantry unit to attack, half the unit attack from behind a tree, the other half snuck past a wall and came up behind the enemy unit, shot them all in about a second !!!

During the first campaign mission I had a single engineer running from one of the big guns to the next, only to set the explosives the second before he died, making a successful landing possible for the rest of the company, what a hero !

Playing some more with the game I have to say it seems awesome. I wish it was a little less RTS-like, I could do without the barracks, (on site) upgrades and resource points, and a little less of a click fest, and I feel it's a little too much like Warhammer40K in a WWII coat, BUT it has flanking, cover, suppressive fire, destructible terrain, halfway decent AI (or so it seems), BIG explosions and actual drama when you see some of your men get killed.

I'll play some skirmish games when I get the opportunity, but this game is already on my to buy list. Unless CA provides a very convincing M2TW demo, it's just going to have to wait...

EDIT: Amazon UK is selling it for £25 including the Warhammer 40k GOTY edition
I sure we hope we get similar conditions on the mainland...

[Crandaeolon]

snipers+tanks = game over.

The sniper / MG / tank rush strategy works well against the AI, and maybe also a bit too well against human opponents. It can be countered by keeping the pressure up and mounting an early attack against the opponent's main base with things like flame+demo engineers or panzershreck grenadiers in halftracks zipping past the sniper / MG nests. This either wins you the game by annihilation, or forces the opponent to retreat back to his base for defense, yielding you map control. If the game doesn't end, keep a couple of units near his HQ to prevent him from recovering - he may have a forward barracks somewhere.

Early warning signs of a sniper / MG "turtler" are somewhat passive expansion and harassment activities, a low number of troops on the field (mostly snipers / MGs), and ignoring victory point locations. Teching-up for huge late game tank battles is also more likely to happen in team games than in one-on-ones. Scout 'em out to be sure, and rush if the odds look good.

Unfortunately, doing an early attack tends to result in people calling you a rusher, even though it's a logical counter to a build-up strategy. What can i say... lern2play?

About fuel denial... better not get overconfident, since Allied Armor Company and Blitzkrieg Doctrine commanders get tanks with manpower only. (And manpower comes in at a relatively constant rate regardless of expansion.)

[econ21]

This is sounding tempting. But does it still feel basically like a Command and Conquer type game? I played Dawn of War and really admired the craft and love that had gone into the game. Yet, I still felt I was playing Command and Conquer. Do people feel like that with this game? Or does it manage to make you feel you are playing a wargame? Or at least using something approximating to realistic tactics?

Also, what are the single player game modes like? Dawn of War had a rather short and linear string of missions (the second expansion sounds more promising with something resembling a Total War style open campaign). I like a long campaign with the hook of unit experience and resources carrying over from mission to mission (Panzer General exemplified this); ideally I like some strategic freedom (Total War style). RTSs typically don't provide much of either.

[Crandaeolon]

But does it still feel basically like a Command and Conquer type game? I played Dawn of War and really admired the craft and love that had gone into the game. Yet, I still felt I was playing Command and Conquer.

It feels between a conventional RTS and a wargame. It has typical RTS conventions like constructing units and buildings in minutes from accumulated resources. Weapon ranges are compressed. Units have (sometimes cheesy) "special abilities."

Wargamey elements include cover, suppression, a somewhat realistic armour thickness and hit angle modeling for vehicles. Small arms can't do any damage at all to buildings or armoured vehicles, unlike most other RTS games. Even though weapon ranges are relatively short, the game has effective artillery and fire support units that interact with the battle in a believable manner.

Also, what are the single player game modes like?

Coh has a short and linear, but well-crafted campaign. There's also a Skirmish mode against AI opponents, but that's about it for the SP. The SP features in CoH are comparable to the original Dawn of War.

[econ21]

Thanks for the information - I just read the gamespot review and it comes out well (9.0 IIRC). I've ordered it - maybe it will serve the same function as DoW did - bide me over before CAs big release. I daresay it will get expansions that make it more interesting (for some reason, I always like German WW2 campaigns better than allied ones - I probably don't want to stray into the psychology of that).

The fact that Amazon's CoH comes bundled with DoW was the clincher for me - a second copy will enable my son and I to try DoW multiplayer. I found the skirmish mode in the DoW demo more tactically interesting than the campaign scenarios. I'm also rather interested in the sound of the second DoW expansion campaign. But I never got much into the original DoW game as RTW came out only a week after DoWs release and shortly thereafter blew up my computer[1].

[1]At the time it was rather like having an old man having a heart attack on his marriage night.

[lars573]

This is sounding tempting. But does it still feel basically like a Command and Conquer type game? I played Dawn of War and really admired the craft and love that had gone into the game. Yet, I still felt I was playing Command and Conquer. Do people feel like that with this game? Or does it manage to make you feel you are playing a wargame? Or at least using something approximating to realistic tactics?

If you absolutely can't stand CnC style RTS games don't play it. If you can aslong as the gameplay is good then paly it. I'd describe CoH as an evolutionary step from DoW. It has many of the elements Relic put into DoW taken to the next logical level. Light cover is provided by thing that you would expect it to be. Like shell craters, wooden fence, shurbery/hedges. Heavy covers is provided by what you'd expect it too be. Stone walls, sand bag lines, deep shell craters. The maps are also much more dynamic. If you come across and enemy hard point in an other wise open flat feild you can give your infantry cover by calling in some artillery to that area to create craters for your grunts to hide in. Also the unit recruitment system work on a theoritical supply chain. Example US Paratroopers are called in from a drop plane. Rangers come in from the reserves, in CoH parlance that means off map. Tigers (and Tiger aces) are the same, called in from the reserves. Sherman calliopes as well.

Also, what are the single player game modes like? Dawn of War had a rather short and linear string of missions (the second expansion sounds more promising with something resembling a Total War style open campaign). I like a long campaign with the hook of unit experience and resources carrying over from mission to mission (Panzer General exemplified this); ideally I like some strategic freedom (Total War style). RTSs typically don't provide much of either.

Well the senarios are only linked by the allied units that are fighting. You can also re-deploy experienced units from previous missions. I'm still using the same sniper I got in the first D-day mission.

Also I wouldn't let the kid try this one. Where as DoW was rated mature for squirting blood sometimes. CoH is rated mature for the swearing, not the blood.
When ordering a US infatry squad to move. "Jesus Conrad tie your ******* laces"
Engineers finishing a sand bag wall. "Jobs done. If I see one more ******* bag of dirt."
German armour under attack. "Panzer in zee ****!"
Re enforcing Grenediers. "Hey new guy, don't ****-up!"