Company of Heroes 2
- Thread starter ríomhaire
- Start date
Wanted Bob
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 5,212
- Reaction score
- 50
I seriously hope that they maintain the base-building aspect that was in the original CoH. DoW 2 looked nice and all, but no base building was a huge disappointment.
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,994
- Reaction score
- 70
Yup.
The original title (after they left) for the first CoH expansion was "Company of Heroes: The Heroes of the Company".
Brains indeed.
Tollbooth Willie
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 17,556
- Reaction score
- 830
That and THQ just laid off a bunch of people from Relic.
Bad^Hat
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 19,983
- Reaction score
- 530
Really? I thought the base building was pretty ingeniously handled, as someone who normally doesn't give any shits about base building. It was completely minimalistic but which buildings you chose, especially early on, had a huge impact on your tactics going forward. Especially as allies, having to pick between upgrading my riflemen or going for a uh... whatever the one was with AT cannons was always a tough choice. ****ing axis and their early tanks.
Then again, they could always replace it with something equally cool minus bases, as long as some kind of choice was involved.
(Also wasn't the no bases thing in DoW 2 just the solo campaign? I thought the multi was more traditional RTS.)
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 20,876
- Reaction score
- 435
TBH I think you could move the entire base-building aspect of CoH and have every side (except Brits because they're different) start with a pre-built base that doesn't produce units, only confers bonuses and used to buy upgrades and have all units summoned from off-map and wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact, it might even improve the game slightly.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 20,876
- Reaction score
- 435
Some new details: http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/companyofheroes2/previews.html
Mostly:
Unfortunately they are not removing base-building. Can't blame them after the backlash Dawn of War II got. Also no German campaign (again).
Mostly:
- You can no longer see enemies behind trees and buildings and things just because they're in your units visual range. Line of sight is being made more realistic so you can hide units behind objects.
- Tanks can be disabled and caputred
- New environmental effects and hazards (snow)
- Not out till 2013
Unfortunately they are not removing base-building. Can't blame them after the backlash Dawn of War II got. Also no German campaign (again).
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,994
- Reaction score
- 70
Base building is good. Take it out, and you may as well just play Men of War, which has superior RTT combat.
The Panzer Elite got a campaign in the second expansion. Do you guys know anything?
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 20,876
- Reaction score
- 435
What function does base building serve in Company of Heroes? Unless you're Brits you're stuck in the area you start in. There is no expansion and no need to build in your base to optimise your economy or anything. Placeing buildings is pretty much just going up in a tech tree, except you get to pick where to put some stuff in a very small rigidly defined starting area.
For a game where most elements are quite a bit more realistic than the average RTS and where every other building is a permanent object that if destroyed leaves behind a noticeable mark on the land, having the normal RTS one minute to erect a concrete bunker that is instantly cleared away when destroyed is very jarring and at odds with how the entire of the rest of the game presents itself. Tanks and wooden farmhouses leave behind a more significant debris than concrete bunkers in this game.
For a game where most elements are quite a bit more realistic than the average RTS and where every other building is a permanent object that if destroyed leaves behind a noticeable mark on the land, having the normal RTS one minute to erect a concrete bunker that is instantly cleared away when destroyed is very jarring and at odds with how the entire of the rest of the game presents itself. Tanks and wooden farmhouses leave behind a more significant debris than concrete bunkers in this game.
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,994
- Reaction score
- 70
The same goddamn functions in Starcraft (but even better, actually).
Base building forces you to go into a tech tree but be prepared to defend it. It isn't just a magical button that unlocks that lets you teleport in new units without consequence. You lose the specialised factory, you lose the ability to produce that unit. Allies spend a significant investment of fuel to get a tank depot up--if an opponent strategically eliminates that one building it's basically gg, because making back 90 fuel and keeping up with the enemy would be next to impossible. And unlike other RTSs, you can't just tech all trees at once (at least, not successfully): every decision leads you down a fairly inflexible path for the next 15 minutes or so. Hence making your building decisions matter. Hence making keeping said buildings alive matter. Hence making it more tactically rich. Hence more fun.
If you've ever watched a single PvP replay you'd know that the most successful CoH starting strat is to place the first building at the furthest end of your starting zone: it cuts down travel time for new units. Units that have fled to base are sent to the barracks because you can reinforce from them and again it cuts down on travel time sending them back out. As the battles go on and the fringes of the bases start to get hit, some players choose to put buildings behind the HQ, because at that point building a single new unit could be more important than your HQ being exposed. Oh but I guess in DoW2 you can just send in units whenever, wherever and it's k.
You don't get bunkers? You acknowledge that buildings are important and realistic, but ignore the notion that a single bunker in the right place can completely change the tide of battle. The same way a single machinegun can suppress an entire platoon of guys. May as well take that out too. Yes, building an entire bunker from scratch in a minute is unrealistic. So is the 100m engagement ranges of the tank battles. Big whoop. It's a compromise between historical accuracy and tactical variety. If you want to play a game where all you do is send hordes of reinforcements at each other, with no base building or unit building, with realistic engagement distances, play Wargame EE. Oh but wait, in that game, everyone just camps the reinforce points at the map edge. But it's realistic! Come on, it's what you want!
Base building in SP was mostly a formality: the SP campaign is designed to be beaten. Often you're restricted in what you can build for historical accuracy. But that's SP. I don't give a shit about SP. CoH's SP was cinematic and epic and and CoD-like in popularity and shit, but MP is where CoH really shined. These comments make me sincerely doubt any of you have played its MP in any serious fashion.
Base building forces you to go into a tech tree but be prepared to defend it. It isn't just a magical button that unlocks that lets you teleport in new units without consequence. You lose the specialised factory, you lose the ability to produce that unit. Allies spend a significant investment of fuel to get a tank depot up--if an opponent strategically eliminates that one building it's basically gg, because making back 90 fuel and keeping up with the enemy would be next to impossible. And unlike other RTSs, you can't just tech all trees at once (at least, not successfully): every decision leads you down a fairly inflexible path for the next 15 minutes or so. Hence making your building decisions matter. Hence making keeping said buildings alive matter. Hence making it more tactically rich. Hence more fun.
If you've ever watched a single PvP replay you'd know that the most successful CoH starting strat is to place the first building at the furthest end of your starting zone: it cuts down travel time for new units. Units that have fled to base are sent to the barracks because you can reinforce from them and again it cuts down on travel time sending them back out. As the battles go on and the fringes of the bases start to get hit, some players choose to put buildings behind the HQ, because at that point building a single new unit could be more important than your HQ being exposed. Oh but I guess in DoW2 you can just send in units whenever, wherever and it's k.
You don't get bunkers? You acknowledge that buildings are important and realistic, but ignore the notion that a single bunker in the right place can completely change the tide of battle. The same way a single machinegun can suppress an entire platoon of guys. May as well take that out too. Yes, building an entire bunker from scratch in a minute is unrealistic. So is the 100m engagement ranges of the tank battles. Big whoop. It's a compromise between historical accuracy and tactical variety. If you want to play a game where all you do is send hordes of reinforcements at each other, with no base building or unit building, with realistic engagement distances, play Wargame EE. Oh but wait, in that game, everyone just camps the reinforce points at the map edge. But it's realistic! Come on, it's what you want!
Base building in SP was mostly a formality: the SP campaign is designed to be beaten. Often you're restricted in what you can build for historical accuracy. But that's SP. I don't give a shit about SP. CoH's SP was cinematic and epic and and CoD-like in popularity and shit, but MP is where CoH really shined. These comments make me sincerely doubt any of you have played its MP in any serious fashion.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 20,876
- Reaction score
- 435
Viper you are correct in your suppositions that I have not played much online (on any RTS) but you do not understand what I am suggesting and I probably did not make myself clear. I agree with almost everything you just said. I am not suggesting a system where you have access to everything available straight away and where there is no way to meaningfully hurt the enemy's base and production. Being able to harass the enemies tank product is a very real and important strategy and should certainly be possible. I realise I also probably caused confusion by referring to bunkers. When I typed that I was thinking of the Panzer Elite's bunker-like bases, not the machinegun bunkers that the Wehrmacht build as defences. Those are also very important and I would not dream of taking the ability to build such emplacements out of the game. All the defence structures should remain just as they are!
What I am suggesting is more along the lines of this: Say you're the US. You have your Barracks, Weapons Support Centre, Motor Pool and Tank Depot. You start with them set down in pre-built places but initially they do nothing. Now, at this point in the game you'd normall build your Barracks (or send your initial squad of engineers to capture and get a second squad of engineers to build the Barracks, whichever is the optimum strategy). In my version of the game you go over to your inactive Barracks and buy the option to call in riflemen squads. Pretty much the same as building a Barracks (though lacking the requirement of using engineers which could be a pretty bad thing for game balance I admit). Now with your functioning Barracks you can call riflemen from off-map in the exact same way you train normal riflemen, except instead of them appearing from the Barracks they appear from the map edge. Other buildings would work in the same way.
Demolition of buildings is an absolute must. You attack that Barracks I mentioned above and you can destroy it. It gets knocked down and leaves a husk (like when other buildings in the game are destroyed). And you can't call in riflemen or buy upgrades for them until you rebuild it by sending engineers in to put it back together which obviously costs resources.
When I say I want base-building taken out I mean just the building aspect. Just literally that.
What I am suggesting is more along the lines of this: Say you're the US. You have your Barracks, Weapons Support Centre, Motor Pool and Tank Depot. You start with them set down in pre-built places but initially they do nothing. Now, at this point in the game you'd normall build your Barracks (or send your initial squad of engineers to capture and get a second squad of engineers to build the Barracks, whichever is the optimum strategy). In my version of the game you go over to your inactive Barracks and buy the option to call in riflemen squads. Pretty much the same as building a Barracks (though lacking the requirement of using engineers which could be a pretty bad thing for game balance I admit). Now with your functioning Barracks you can call riflemen from off-map in the exact same way you train normal riflemen, except instead of them appearing from the Barracks they appear from the map edge. Other buildings would work in the same way.
Demolition of buildings is an absolute must. You attack that Barracks I mentioned above and you can destroy it. It gets knocked down and leaves a husk (like when other buildings in the game are destroyed). And you can't call in riflemen or buy upgrades for them until you rebuild it by sending engineers in to put it back together which obviously costs resources.
When I say I want base-building taken out I mean just the building aspect. Just literally that.
Ennui
The Freeman
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2003
- Messages
- 22,715
- Reaction score
- 119
I read an article about COH2 back when it was announced a month or two ago (it might be the one linked in the OP I'm not sure) and they emphasized that they were sticking to the original COH formula when it comes to core mechanics, which pleases me greatly.
DOW2 was good, but frankly I felt it was a step down from the original DOW and I would be sad to see COH move in the same direction (e.g. towards hero-oriented combat and utter simplification of tech trees / base building). Seeing that they have the sense to preserve the original COH mechanics and just work on making them even more realistic and detailed makes me happy. I'm really looking forward to playing this... COH is one of my favorite RTSes of all time!
You guys are right though, Homeworld 3 would be awesome.
DOW2 was good, but frankly I felt it was a step down from the original DOW and I would be sad to see COH move in the same direction (e.g. towards hero-oriented combat and utter simplification of tech trees / base building). Seeing that they have the sense to preserve the original COH mechanics and just work on making them even more realistic and detailed makes me happy. I'm really looking forward to playing this... COH is one of my favorite RTSes of all time!
You guys are right though, Homeworld 3 would be awesome.
Stormy
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 3,888
- Reaction score
- 22
I really enjoyed DoW2. I did not play it for a long long time because of the fact they had taken out he base building but when I finaly decided to give it a shot it turned out the single player was great (did not play multi). The game was very much narative focused and special hero focused which really did not lend its self well to base building.
Bases really just build masses of anonymous replaceable dudes which you just dont give a shit about. This is what I want In CoH and online but story wise it does not work so well.
Bases really just build masses of anonymous replaceable dudes which you just dont give a shit about. This is what I want In CoH and online but story wise it does not work so well.
Krynn72
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 16, 2004
- Messages
- 26,095
- Reaction score
- 926
This again.
Wanted Bob
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 5,212
- Reaction score
- 50
Man this game looks gorgeous. So excited base-building is still in the game, look forward to seeing some gameplay in the future.
BabyHeadCrab
The Freeman
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 602
Hope THQ/Relic stay alive long enough to release tools for the community to keep the game supported. Looks ****ing incredible.
Shift
Space Core
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 5,016
- Reaction score
- 7
Ah yes! I've been getting back into CoH again recently and this news pleases me greatly, especially looking at those screenshots 
I too am glad they are keeping base building in, I think that one element is an integral part to the strategy involved while playing online and I too was greatly displeased when DoW 2 removed it.
I too am glad they are keeping base building in, I think that one element is an integral part to the strategy involved while playing online and I too was greatly displeased when DoW 2 removed it.
