[The Crimson Booger]

Originally Posted by RoboticPatrickDuffy

To this day the only C&C game I've actually liked is Red Alert 2.

So much fun..

[drawkcaBLovesScarlett]

Originally Posted by DeadScreenSky

Well no wonder you love Company of Heroes so much and find it to be so original, since all that stuff is from Dawn of War.

Compared to Dawn of War (at least the more recent versions) CoH is pretty twitchy. The main differences in Company of Heroes are that there is a slightly greater focus on cover (though Dawn has it too) and you have to really micromanage your infantry and tanks in comparison. A good example is in Dawn of War when you lose a couple of guys in a squad you can start reinforcing them immediately, but you need a halftrack or HQ near them in CoH.

There's also a much greater focus on hard counters in CoH, which is something DoW used to have but they mostly toned it down. (More soft counters now.) There's a lot of debate over whether this is an improvement or not, but personally I think soft counters are better since it gives greater flexibility.

CoH also has Generals/Battle for Middle Earth's 'commander XP system', something lacking entirely in DoW. I don't honestly miss it, but I won't mind if they include it in the sequel. In exchange Dawn of War has a greater focus on special abilities for units and commanders (which are something I really miss in CoH). I prefer this approach because they don't rely on your economy so much. In CoH if your economy is ****ed you're ****ed, but since the special abilities in Dawn of War use their own recharge timers you have another way to make a comeback.

Otherwise Dawn of War is considerably faster paced, the node system is IMO more interesting (you can upgrade your buildings on the nodes to get defensive weapons, the resource system is more flexible so you can use more diverse tactics, etc.), it has tremendous side variation (seven total, and though they have less individual variation than what you can do with the commander paths in CoH compared to each other they are insanely different from each other), it has a lot more maps and unit types, it's considerably less glitchy, and it's just using a much more interesting and creative setting. Hell, I'd say Warhammer 40k is one of the most interesting sci-fi/fantasy universes around period.

In fact looking at what you love about CoH I wager you'd probably love Dawn of War more. It's a more streamlined experience, though I suspect going backwards in graphics (though they still look very nice) and extra features (no destructible terrain ) might take away a lot of it for you. That's what you get for starting with the game's less interesting follow-up, I suppose.

Anyway, I do recommend you give Dawn of War a shot, specifically the standalone expansion Dark Crusade. If you want a taste for the game there is a demo available, but I think you might actually find this video more interesting. It's a narrated replay of two of the balance testers fighting it out in a skirmish, and it does a good job highlighting some of the tactics and possibilities for two of the seven sides. (Don't bother with the youtube link though, it's too low quality to see clearly what's happening.)

Actually a lot of your negatives are positives for me (reinforcements - units are required to retreat in CoH, love having to move my infantry and tanks and coordinate properly, I enjoy the slower, more deliberate pace, etc. though the tanks could be a little less dumb). Seems like the case of small-ish differences in the game making/breaking the game for either of us. I'll give Dawn of War 2 a whirl, but as I pointed out, I'm fairly certain I'd prefer CoH to the current Dawn of War anyway. I could play Dark Crusade, I just don't know where I'd find the time. Graphics I don't really care about, but the destructible environments are a god-send.

It seems to be that CoH is the Relic RTS for those who prefer the Total War style RTS, whereas Dawn of War is the favorite of those who prefer a classic RTS experience. It's a trend I noticed with some of my friends, and I'm gathering that my views vs. yours reflect that fact also.

[DeadScreenSky]

Originally Posted by drawkcaB

Actually a lot of your negatives are positives for me (reinforcements - units are required to retreat in CoH, love having to move my infantry and tanks and coordinate properly, I enjoy the slower, more deliberate pace, etc. though the tanks could be a little less dumb). Seems like the case of small-ish differences in the game making/breaking the game for either of us. I'll give Dawn of War 2 a whirl, but as I pointed out, I'm fairly certain I'd prefer CoH to the current Dawn of War anyway. I could play Dark Crusade, I just don't know where I'd find the time. Graphics I don't really care about, but the destructible environments are a god-send.

It seems to be that CoH is the Relic RTS for those who prefer the Total War style RTS, whereas Dawn of War is the favorite of those who prefer a classic RTS experience. It's a trend I noticed with some of my friends, and I'm gathering that my views vs. yours reflect that fact also.

You have it exactly backwards. CoH is focused on smallish battles that are entirely gun based and with severely limited side variety, while Dawn of War features melee and ranged combat on a larger scale, with less micromanagement, and considerably greater unit variation. It's just more fun to play a RTS where certain sides have entirely different economic models, morale, ways they use cover and commanders, etc. I don't want to have to nurse a bunch of small fragile squads from near instant death hard-counter enemies, I want to wage war!

And it's hardly that units don't have to retreat or be coordinated properly in Dawn of War, either. I take it you don't have time to watch the replay I posted, but both commanders are forced to retreat fairly often. It's just nearly always for good tactical reasons (including morale, which CoH took from DoW), not because of some need to micromanage reinforcements. Realistically you shouldn't be retreating much in CoH anyway, you need to micro highly vulnerable halftracks near the frontlines. One of the biggest things I hate about CoH is that reinforcements affect your unit caps, it's just more annoying micromanagement. I'll take the streamlined action of DoW (and hopefully the rumored DoW2, as CoH's engine is great) anyday. I want to focus on the larger tactical decisions, like should I flank the enemy base with stealth/teleporting units, not whether I can get them safely home when they are wounded. That's why it's a much closer experience to something like Total War.

Anyway, I understand trying to get somebody to play a new RTS is like trying to get somebody to play a new fighting game. But at least now I know why you are so bewildered that I'm not too into CoH. Whereas you saw it as something massively innovative and different (and a lot of people agree with you, I'm not saying there's nothing innovative about it) I saw it as a less interesting and more micromanagement-focused sequel to Dawn of War. Ah well.

[Digital Geist]

Originally Posted by DeadScreenSky

You have it exactly backwards. CoH is focused on smallish battles that are entirely gun based and with severely limited side variety, while Dawn of War features melee and ranged combat on a larger scale, with less micromanagement, and considerably greater unit variation. It's just more fun to play a RTS where certain sides have entirely different economic models, morale, ways they use cover and commanders, etc. I don't want to have to nurse a bunch of small fragile squads from near instant death hard-counter enemies, I want to wage war!

And it's hardly that units don't have to retreat or be coordinated properly in Dawn of War, either. I take it you don't have time to watch the replay I posted, but both commanders are forced to retreat fairly often. It's just nearly always for good tactical reasons (including morale, which CoH took from DoW), not because of some need to micromanage reinforcements. Realistically you shouldn't be retreating much in CoH anyway, you need to micro highly vulnerable halftracks near the frontlines. One of the biggest things I hate about CoH is that reinforcements affect your unit caps, it's just more annoying micromanagement. I'll take the streamlined action of DoW (and hopefully the rumored DoW2, as CoH's engine is great) anyday. I want to focus on the larger tactical decisions, like should I flank the enemy base with stealth/teleporting units, not whether I can get them safely home when they are wounded. That's why it's a much closer experience to something like Total War.

Anyway, I understand trying to get somebody to play a new RTS is like trying to get somebody to play a new fighting game. But at least now I know why you are so bewildered that I'm not too into CoH. Whereas you saw it as something massively innovative and different (and a lot of people agree with you, I'm not saying there's nothing innovative about it) I saw it as a less interesting and more micromanagement-focused sequel to Dawn of War. Ah well.

Great, now I'm wondering if I'll like CoH now, too.
Since it seems we are lining up RTS wise, I guess I'll have to try Rise of Nations now as well. Dammit!

[drawkcaBLovesScarlett]

Originally Posted by DeadScreenSky

You have it exactly backwards. CoH is focused on smallish battles that are entirely gun based and with severely limited side variety, while Dawn of War features melee and ranged combat on a larger scale, with less micromanagement, and considerably greater unit variation. It's just more fun to play a RTS where certain sides have entirely different economic models, morale, ways they use cover and commanders, etc. I don't want to have to nurse a bunch of small fragile squads from near instant death hard-counter enemies, I want to wage war!

And it's hardly that units don't have to retreat or be coordinated properly in Dawn of War, either. I take it you don't have time to watch the replay I posted, but both commanders are forced to retreat fairly often. It's just nearly always for good tactical reasons (including morale, which CoH took from DoW), not because of some need to micromanage reinforcements. Realistically you shouldn't be retreating much in CoH anyway, you need to micro highly vulnerable halftracks near the frontlines. One of the biggest things I hate about CoH is that reinforcements affect your unit caps, it's just more annoying micromanagement. I'll take the streamlined action of DoW (and hopefully the rumored DoW2, as CoH's engine is great) anyday. I want to focus on the larger tactical decisions, like should I flank the enemy base with stealth/teleporting units, not whether I can get them safely home when they are wounded. That's why it's a much closer experience to something like Total War.

Anyway, I understand trying to get somebody to play a new RTS is like trying to get somebody to play a new fighting game. But at least now I know why you are so bewildered that I'm not too into CoH. Whereas you saw it as something massively innovative and different (and a lot of people agree with you, I'm not saying there's nothing innovative about it) I saw it as a less interesting and more micromanagement-focused sequel to Dawn of War. Ah well.

You really don't get where I'm coming from. I want small scale battles, I prefer small scale battles. I never said anything about unit variety either. I couldn't care less that all the battes are ranged. After playing many, many other RTS games, I couldn't give a damn if there aren't any melee units.

I'm sorry, I'm calling you out on the micromanagement/unit cap BS. Unless you are absolutely destroying your opponent in MP, unit cap is an absolute non factor in this game. I'll agree with you that it annoyingly impacts the campaign, but it's an absolute non-factor in MP and like any RTS worth it's grain of salt, MP is where the gameplay should really shine. Retreating is also a tactical decision in CoH. If you out-thought your opponent, you won't need to retreat in the first place, and if you do win the engagement you need to compare the disadvantages/advantages of keeping a beat up unit at the front. And what the hell is this "worry if they make it home safely" stuff? You issue the retreat order, they get an insane defense bonus and beeline home. Unless I fouled up, my units make it home safely, and if they didn't, it was my own damn fault.

Futhermore, there is no instant death in CoH, ever. There's hard counters and soft counters. You make it sound like units die instantly, which is absolutely false.

And no, I still don't totally understand why you don't like CoH. I think you want the game to be a game you already played before, and you're letting that fact get in the way of judging CoH by it's own merit. I don't think you've spent enough time playing CoH. I can't comment on anything you've said about DoW, but I've played more than enough CoH to know the better part of what you said is about that game is false.

Originally Posted by Digital Geist

Great, now I'm wondering if I'll like CoH now, too.
Since it seems we are lining up RTS wise, I guess I'll have to try Rise of Nations now as well. Dammit!

Here's an idea: try the CoH demo. Yeah, those exist and they let you make up your own mind about a game.

[Digital Geist]

Originally Posted by drawkcaB

Here's an idea: try the CoH demo. Yeah, those exist and they let you make up your own mind about a game.

I said I was wondering if I'll like it. I have no pre-conceived bias against or for it. He and I have similar taste, I was wondering if we would line up yet again. K?

Anyway, I will try it, when I find some time to actually play a game. Classes take a lot out of a person, you see.

[drawkcaBLovesScarlett]

Originally Posted by Digital Geist

I said I was wondering if I'll like it. I have no pre-conceived bias against or for it. He and I have similar taste, I was wondering if we would line up yet again. K?

Anyway, I will try it, when I find some time to actually play a game. Classes take a lot out of a person, you see.

Didn't mean to sound like a jerk, honestly. However, your statement did suggest bias. It doesn't seem like you're suggesting that you were wondering if you would like it, but rather if you should even try since DSS doesn't like CoH. This is further suggested by the fact you were ready to dismiss CoH and jump to Rise of Nations, a favorite of DSS, in the very next sentence (not that you shouldn't try it either, it's quite good and I have a friend back home that loved it).

I would suggest you stop reading anything in this thread, and try the CoH demo. I understand that past history is always a strong influence, but always try things out anyway. Listen to those you agree with and those you don't. If I only listened to people who have the same tastes as I used to, I'd think playing a fake plastic guitar is the stupidest idea ever. Case in point, I just finished the Dark Crusade demo tutorial and plan on starting the two included missions tomorrow.

If you don't like the CoH demo, then that's that, but at least you tried it.

I sympathize with your class/time struggle. I'm only a few years out of University myself. If it's any consolation, after the first few months out on the job market, you'll have much more gaming time, oddly enough.

[DeadScreenSky]

Originally Posted by Digital Geist

Great, now I'm wondering if I'll like CoH now, too.
Since it seems we are lining up RTS wise, I guess I'll have to try Rise of Nations now as well. Dammit!

I certainly don't hate it or anything, and I was pretty thrilled for the first few hours (at least once I figured out how to play ). I just got sick of it pretty quickly, probably mostly because I already have a bunch of other RTSes I love. It doesn't help that the game still needs a lot of balancing and polish work, not really as much an issue for RTSs that are years old obviously. (Though it still feels pretty glitchy for something that has seen as many patches as it has. I mostly play Allies but I also know the Axis basically suck right now when it comes to balance, too.)

And yeah, Rise of Nations is still my favorite RTS. I wish every other RTS would copy its various innovations, but so far that's pretty rare. I'm sure you'll love it. Rise of Legends is pretty cool too, but not as awesome.

Originally Posted by drawkcaB

You really don't get where I'm coming from. I want small scale battles, I prefer small scale battles. I never said anything about unit variety either. I couldn't care less that all the battes are ranged. After playing many, many other RTS games, I couldn't give a damn if there aren't any melee units.

I guess your Total War comparison confused the hell out of me then.

I'm sorry, I'm calling you out on the micromanagement/unit cap BS. Unless you are absolutely destroying your opponent in MP, unit cap is an absolute non factor in this game. I'll agree with you that it annoyingly impacts the campaign, but it's an absolute non-factor in MP and like any RTS worth it's grain of salt, MP is where the gameplay should really shine. Retreating is also a tactical decision in CoH. If you out-thought your opponent, you won't need to retreat in the first place, and if you do win the engagement you need to compare the disadvantages/advantages of keeping a beat up unit at the front. And what the hell is this "worry if they make it home safely" stuff? You issue the retreat order, they get an insane defense bonus and beeline home. Unless I fouled up, my units make it home safely, and if they didn't, it was my own damn fault.

Except I'm finishing up the campaign right now, so complaining about the stupid unit cap is perfectly reasonable. In fact I was close to beating the last mission when the game exited to Windows on me. *sigh*

Of course retreating can be a tactical decision (though the full run back to HQ annoys the **** out of me), but you are going to get wounded and lose men even in battles that go your way. That means often at least individual squads need to go back to HQ (though like I said, micromanaging a halftrack helps prevent that - once I figured that out I did end up liking the game a bit more). It just slows down the game too much for my tastes.

And if enemy emplacements/troops are inbetween your retreating troops and your HQ then the defensive bonus doesn't do ****. I'm saying it makes flanking tactics difficult.

Futhermore, there is no instant death in CoH, ever. There's hard counters and soft counters. You make it sound like units die instantly, which is absolutely false.

You certainly can have units die instantly, like if you wander into a sniper's path or get hit by artillery. Single shots to the rear of a vehicle (like from a hidden or previously not their armor unit) can also kill you instantly, or at the least cripple you so much that you can't survive. I'm obviously not as experienced as you are in CoH, but I'm not a moron.

I don't care if it has soft counters, my argument is that it relies too much on hard counters. In earlier versions of Dawn of War (which I didn't really like until Dark Crusade, FYI) the game relied heavily on hard counters. That can work great in fighting games, but I find it stifling in a RTS. Relic eventually toned them down because they felt they were bad for gameplay.

(And actually playing the latest version of CoH it does seem like some of it has been toned down from earlier patches too. I'd have to check the patch notes to be sure, but there were a couple situations where guys I figured were dead survived longer than they should have.)

And no, I still don't totally understand why you don't like CoH. I think you want the game to be a game you already played before, and you're letting that fact get in the way of judging CoH by it's own merit. I don't think you've spent enough time playing CoH. I can't comment on anything you've said about DoW, but I've played more than enough CoH to know the better part of what you said is about that game is false.

How do you know what I'm saying is false when you haven't even played the games I'm comparing it too?

And I like new stuff in games, though I've certainly admitted the WWII theme is a gross turn-off. The problem is that CoH is derived so extensively from DoW that its problems are magnified in comparison. Of course you aren't going to understand my complaints about this because you don't play Dark Crusade period.