Company of Heroes Reletable |
- Reletable
- Thoughts on improving COH3 campaign as an almost exclusive singleplayer... player.
- Just a friendly reminder to not preorder this game
- feels bad man
- TIL the chuchill gets a little sten gun at the side hatch at vet 1.
- You Got That CoH3 Feeling
- Chemical Weapons in COH
- CoH2 Ardennes Assault campaign - first mission bug?
- Airborne commander pathfinders
- Worst Controls Ever, but I still love CoH3
- 4v4s are cancer
| Posted: 31 Jul 2021 12:45 PM PDT
| ||
| Thoughts on improving COH3 campaign as an almost exclusive singleplayer... player. Posted: 31 Jul 2021 04:37 AM PDT As I played through it, I couldn't help but draw some comparisons to of course, Total War, but also a game called Ultimate General: Civil War, which was famously designed by modders of Total War and produced by an actual game studio. For the sake of brevity (all of my posts on this subreddit have been long...), I'll try to focus on what I think is the biggest issue. I also don't believe in criticism without suggestions to improve so I have a pair of proposed solutions. One of the biggest things that I felt was... off about the campaign was the fact that there wasn't a whole lot of integration in the strategic and tactical layers. I never felt like I was fighting with the same company between encounters. It felt like an elaborate mission select, like COH2's Theater of War. This will KILL replay value. Because if I wanted tailor-made missions, the campaign layer just gets in the way. If I wanted skirmishes, I'd just go to that. The value of the strategic layer in games like this is the RPG-element of creating a persistent fighting force. This is where I start to think about these other two games. Comparing it to Total War isn't totally applicable because when battles begin in TW, there's no build strategy or tech upgrades or any of the sort. COH being an RTS, you can train an infinite amount of troops given enough time. TW is fixed force in the tactical layer but more like COH in the strategic layer. 'Ultimate General: Civil War' is a niche game but it has one of the best persistent campaigns in anything I've ever played. Every decision counts, both in the tactical layer and the strategic layer. Sometimes, it's preferable to draw or even lose a battle if it means preserving your troops. That's how deep the persistent campaign is. In fact, you can lose MOST of your battles and keep playing if you conserve your influence. So how can you apply these principles and learn from them? Individual Unit Caps (WAIT, hear me out!) Unit caps on BOTH sides. And, quite possibly, persistent units. There's still building and tech upgrades and so on BUT your company will have units and slots. Every unit you recruit is pulled from a list of available units dictated by the strategic layer. Bear in the mind the following numbers are just examples, I don't really know what amount would be balanced. Let's say you have an Armored Company. At full strength, it's got infinite Engineers and Riflemen but you are able to train, say, 3/3 snipers, 8/8 elite infantry troops, 7/7 half-tracks, 6/6 medium armor, 5/5 heavy armor, etc. After you've trained your fifth heavy tank, you cannot train any more unless you withdraw it from the field. You go up against an Airborne Company that has taken a beating lately. They also have infinite engineers and riflemen but because of their losses in a previous skirmish, they can only train 3/5 snipers, 9/14 elite infantry, 4/5 half tracks, 1/3 medium armor, and 2/2 heavy armor. Heck, maybe their casualties are because of the previous battle where YOU destroyed 2 of their medium tanks, a half-track, and 5 elite infantry. Withdrawing a unit refunds that 'slot' for you and at the end of the battle, win or lose, your forces are snapshotted to track veterancy. Finish a battle with 4 veteran Gurkhas? Next battle, your first 4 Gurkhas will be veterans when you train them. It won't keep track of anything that costs resources, like weapon upgrades. Of course, garrisoning a detachment to the company can also augment these numbers. A machine gun detachment adds 2/2 HMG teams, a half strength mortar adds 1/2 mortar teams and so on. So you could use it to supplement a company that is understrength or shore up some kind of inherent weakness in its roster. What does this mean for the tactical layer? Well, I think it would make battles generally go faster, ESPECIALLY against under strength companies that you KNOW you can beat with your eyes closed. It will be impossible to train heavy tanks over and over until you hit the pop cap and just steamroll the competition. (my strategy to defeat General Taube :P) It also makes battles significantly different depending on the company, even two of the same type. Every confirmed kill is HUGE, for you or the enemy. It makes a difference in a future encounter. You'll feel it when you lose a heavy tank and you'll cheer when you kill that damned 3-star Panther. Not enough Company vs. Company combat; too many detachments, not enough companies I think plenty of people have said this before but I think this bears repeating only IF the above suggestion is taken in account. I don't think detachments are a bad idea but... there's just way too many of them in the campaign we played! Additionally, companies tended to get annihilated VERY easily. Garrisons in the airfield and other scripted battles were wiped out upon victory. I once shamefully had an airborne company destroyed by a group of detachments. Here's where I was reminded of Ultimate General: Civil War. In that game, it was VERY difficult to annihilate a unit wholesale. They would break and retreat long before that. Almost every battle, you would be able to recognize the enemy units you've fought before- especially the ones that gave you trouble. The units were named after the officer that commanded them and so subsequent battles with the same officers over and over again would turn these encounters into 'rematches'. Rivalries even. You'll remember that stubborn bastard Lewis who held the left flank and delayed your brilliant maneuver to flank the old road church. So let's make the majority of engagements on the strategic layer a battle between companies, not detachments. It should be DIFFICULT to annihilate a company- instead they'll retreat to fight another day. You'll fight the same company several times over before you finally remove them from the strategic layer. Historically, this is somewhat accurate. Aside from heavily depleted units (like the Wehrmacht's 'paper divisions' in 1945) or those completely surrounded (like those encircled at Kursk), few units were outright destroyed. In Total War, you generally need to defeat an army twice in the same turn to completely annihilate it (or do VERY well in the tactical battle, reducing each individual unit to less than 10% their max HP) Now, if you littered the strategic map with more companies and didn't use the above 'unit cap' suggestion, I don't think it would work out. Instead you'd just have way more skirmishes that will all feel samey.... and boring. Adding unit caps would make engagements feel like they're part of a broader strategic experience. Sometimes the joy of a persistent campaign is fighting an unfair battle, whether you have the disadvantage (scoring an upset victory against all odds) or advantage (where you demolish an inferior enemy because of previous successes or strategic layer decisions) Additionally, a small thing... give the company commanders names! Doesn't have to be historical, could just be randomly generated from a pool. It's a tiny detail but adds a lot to a persistent campaign. Especially if you can lose the guy (like the company commander in the US forces). General Taube is a scripted example but you could capture that same feeling of a "nemesis" by giving the enemy companies' names that you'll see again and again as you fight them. Once you finally pin them down and they cannot escape, it'll be real satisfying. The various debriefings from the company commanders in Ardennes Assault was really charming and made me want to play the entire campaign exclusively with the Airborne company so I could hear LT. Johnny Vastano's reports and how he struggled to pronounce the Belgian locales, "Hoofen hooz?" While having that level of fully voice-acted debriefing is likely too much to ask for in this sandbox campaign, I enjoyed Ardennes Assault a lot more with that little added flair, giving each company a bit of 'personality' attached to it. If you're still here, thanks for reading. I'm not really a multiplayer RTS player so the quality of this campaign will 100% inform my decision to buy this game. I think Relic is trying to appeal to players like myself so I hope this campaign improves. It has potential and I'm impressed by this open alpha's mission to solicit feedback. I'm not sure if my suggestions will fix all of its problems but I will say it shows a lot of promise! I love the concept. [link] [comments] | ||
| Just a friendly reminder to not preorder this game Posted: 31 Jul 2021 11:52 AM PDT We will never forget Dawn of War: 3 Rest In Peace my good friend. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 31 Jul 2021 06:08 PM PDT
| ||
| TIL the chuchill gets a little sten gun at the side hatch at vet 1. Posted: 31 Jul 2021 04:57 PM PDT
| ||
| Posted: 31 Jul 2021 05:19 AM PDT
| ||
| Posted: 31 Jul 2021 08:07 PM PDT Anyone else think it would be fun to have chemical gas at least from the Axis side to add to the mix of smoke and incendiary? Either in the form of canisters to throw via infantry unit or artillery would be interesting. Having an animation for the end result would make it worth it. [link] [comments] | ||
| CoH2 Ardennes Assault campaign - first mission bug? Posted: 31 Jul 2021 12:59 PM PDT I just gave the Ardennes campaign in CoH2 a go, and the first mission was going OK until the part where I had to purchase the BAR weapon rack and equip my infantry. I did this - purchased the BAR/bazooka weapon rack, then saved up the points and equipped all three of the infantry squads under my control. But the objective arrow still appeared as "unlock the weapon rack". Googling found loads of people talking about this bug in a period in 2017, but then it seems it was reported as fixed. It's definitely happened to me, though! I can't find the bug reporter page, it 404s, presumably because they're clearing out for CoH3, so I can't check the status there. Does anyone have any tips for getting around this? Or is the whole campaign just inaccessible? [link] [comments] | ||
| Airborne commander pathfinders Posted: 31 Jul 2021 08:40 AM PDT Hello, I've been wondering what is the best way to utilize pathfinders, are you supposed to get only 1 and go for the usual riflemen or do you go full pathfidner build? I can't get this commander to work for me so i thought i'd benefit from hearing some opinions [link] [comments] | ||
| Worst Controls Ever, but I still love CoH3 Posted: 31 Jul 2021 04:53 PM PDT Can we just talk about these near unplayable bad controls!? It's absolute frustrating to move units. Because you have to move with the arrows instead of WSAD every control and keybind is so far away. On the big map you have to move every single unit at once and you have to wait until they are finished with the turn. No problem with 5 units but in the late game unit 20 units moving. Each turn takes 10 min. And to come back to the in-game controls: The tatic pause is frustrating because you have to delete a command when you want to change the way they walk or what they will do next. That's again no problem with 1 unit, but a absolut pain with 5-10 units at once. Specially when you move more then 1 unit at once. You need to click at every unit separately and that's just not a nice gameplay experience. The biggest problem and I am sure they will fix it is the keybindings! Just give us the option to remap all bindings as we wish, so I can move with WSAD and still control all Special stuff like grandes with SHIFT+WSAD I am not hating on a pre alpha, I know it's to early to judge, I just want to give my feedback. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 31 Jul 2021 06:30 AM PDT I play 2v2s 90% of the time, sometimes 1v1s when I feel like I'm really playing well. But just for the hell of it I queued up for a 4v4 for the first time in 400+ hours of gameplay lol. Yikes. The first match went really bad, so I figured it must have just been a fluke. Nope, next game was even worse. I feel like in 2v2s or 3v3s you can at least sort of carry your teammates if they are bad, but in 4v4s no way. You are screwed lol. [link] [comments] |
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/n7cpowmtbne71.png){kind=link}
| You are subscribed to email updates from Company of Heroes - Legendary WWII RTS Franchise. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment