>>1845507
Because to even call it tactics is too generous. It is not strategy by any means. Real, true, genuine strategy means working at a grand level. Games like HoI4 are strategy games. Games like CoH are children playing with plastic soldiers.

>>1845511

Manage your resources perfectly, adjust your playstyle according to the enemy, their movements or their commanders, create a perfect synergy between your soldiers, all this if it's not strategy what is it? And i'm obviously talking about 1 V 1, not 2 V2 4 V 4 wich is obviously retarded

>best RTS
>a fucking seesaw
lol, lmao

>>1845507
I want you to imagine a scrawny indianm dude, sickly, he's perspiring, his greasy hair is full of dandruff and alive with fleas. He crouches in the gutter of a busy street as hot wet shit spurts from his arsehole spraying the road and his feet. A disheveled dog is already tucking in.

That dogs dinner is Company of heroes.

loved CoH 1 even if the expansion ruined it a bit. CoH 2 was dogshit and barely felt like CoH. Wasn't interested in the new one but got it for like ten dollars from a CD key site and it's actually pretty good. Way better than 2 anyway.

2 has some really oppressive time-to-kills which filters a lot of people. The campaign was a bit lousy, but I still enjoy multiplayer even if it bogged down with constant screenhacks and chinamen.

>>1845507
coh3 is the best one

>>1845507
i like compstomps in coh2. building sandbags with US riflemen and giving them bazookas is fun.

coh2 is perfect for me. considered jumping over to 3 just to get a breath of fresh air, but I couldn't stomach how terrible the sfx are

Used to be pretty into 1, never tried the others but heard they weren't that interesting

Does 1 still have a playerbase? Is it just the ultral33t crowd or does an idiot still stand a chance?

File: zelda.jpg (15 KB, 191x263)

15 KB JPG

>Real, true, genuine strategy means working at a grand level. Games like HoI4 are strategy games.

>unpopular
This nigga retarded.
But it doesn't matter anyway because Men of War 2 is better.

>>1846029
They recently made all the explosions huge and screen-shakey to appease idiot babies like you.

>>1846068
that's nice to hear, did they fix the sounds as well?

>>1846072
it sounds much better than 2 that's for sure, which had a mix like a nu metal album. has 1's cleaness but with some added impact to appease CoH 2 casuals who just want to see things go boom.

i think the only people still playing 2 now are chinamen and vatniks.

>>1845511
What a cock sucker, no surprise at all that is a paradox dog

>>1845511
HoI4 is a visual novel where you click the "invade Poland" button to get +100% buffs towards Poland and then you right click on Warsaw and then a funny event has Hitler trip on a banana peel and himmler takes over

>>1846289
lmao

>>1845507
>why is it so unpopular?
It's popular for an RTS, but RTS games are not that popular

>>1845511

i fucking loved playing with those ppastif green GIs vs grey nazis. if i wanted to play color inside the lines i'd jizz on you're mums face.

>>1846072
Yeah they did replace some SFXs
Could still use some work here and there desu but it's much better

I just inherently dislike any kind of ticket/victory point/whatever they are calling it systems.
It's really fucking gay.

>>1845507
i fucking hate the economy in this game, you get punished for winning. I want to be able to snowball until crushing my opponent is trivial

>>1846807
>you get punished for winning
No you don't

>>1846807
If you're talking about how upkeep slows your manpower gain, then it's a system designed exactly to punish sitting on your ass when you have the advantage

>>1846811
>>1846815
If I reach a point where I have carved myself out a numerical advantage, I should be able to keep that advantage with new manpower income. It's designed to be very forgiving for the person losing and I dont like that

>>1847036
COH is possibly the least forgiving multiplayer RTS experience, where losing 1/2 units early can easily cost you the entire game in 1v1. Bronze III please leave.

>>1847043
You just retreat the unit and then its basically invulnerable. You need to retreat your units multiple times before your opponent can build up enough XP to yield any real advantage besides a loss of map control, and even with veteran units you can still lose if you mess up because the guy with the horde of brand new units with his 5x manpower income can beat you with superior micro. I despise a game that values macro so little

>>1847043
>COH is possibly the least forgiving multiplayer RTS experience
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

>>1847036
>Waste manpower on infantry that you can't keep safe and therefore it's bleeding your manpower dry
>"Bro I should have more manpower because I'm using more manpower??? Duh??"
You'd make a fine soviet officer, anon.

Fuel is the winning resource that rewards you for map control and that allows you to mass game winning units.
Manpower is a general "upkeep" resource that you have to spend on all your units to recruit anything, as a literal upkeep and as a reinforcement cost
If you waste your manpower on a lot of non critical units you haven't "carved yourself a numerical advantage", you have bottlenecked your economy by wasting your general resource on chaff.
It's not as forgiving as you think because the side with less numbers will have to spend more manpower reinforcing since they'll have higher casualties fighting a superior force, you can actually cause a manpower bottleneck if you make the enemy "bleed" manpower by being aggressive.
But if you play CoH3 you can actually have both a numerical advantage and a manpower advantage because USF is broken and has infinite manpower when going med tent and captain upgrades and strength in steel.

>>1846068
faggots like you are the reason the genre is dead
i bet you also use mods in aoe2 to turn all the trees into green boxes so you can sweat more efficiently

>>1847102
If you can't appreciate an RTS game for the gameplay then you were never an RTS player, but a manbaby who likes slapping computer-animated action figures together.

RTS is a niche genre. CoH is a lesser known title (in comparison to Starcraft or good ol' AOE) in a small pond of player count to begin with.

It doesn't help that CoH suffers inner schism currently where CoH3 still fails to impress the prior game's player pool, further diluting the numbers.

>/v/ thread
>mostly just anons larping as video essayists

>>1847046
>You just retreat the unit and then its basically invulnerable
punishing late/unprotected retreats is a big part of the game's risk/reward.
>You need to retreat your units multiple times before your opponent can build up enough XP to yield any real advantage
constantly bleeding and retreating will starve you of manpower very quickly, and more importantly you cede map control which exponentially exacerbates the advantage. Map control is the core mechanic to this series.
>can beat you with superior micro
CoH has barely any micro to speak of, they all boil down to looking at the unit being attacked with a grenade or barrage, or maybe if you're high level making sure an AT gun is in range. The primary strain on your mind in CoH is how you distribute that attention across the map, flanks, ninja-capping, sneak attacks, minelaying, etc. Those arn't tasks that benefit from micro, they benefit from mindfulness and planning - the thing /vst/ bitches that RTS games don't have. I really don't get why people shit on CoH.

File: sturms.gif (3.66 MB, 438x288)

3.66 MB GIF

>>1847505
>CoH has barely any micro to speak of
Maybe compared to something like starcraft but it's very easy to lose units if you're not paying attention
But idk what anon is talking about infantry micro is more about keeping your units alive than anything else, if you do have a giant number's advantage you don't even micro you just move your blob forward

>>1845507
What? COH2 was fairly popular. It fills the gap between real time tactics and real time strategy, AND sufficiently casual enough compared to other military RTT games
It's just that this fairly unique in design choice means it literally competes with itself . COH3 came out in an extremely rough launch and had to compete with COH2 over time to gain recognition

>>1847036

Nope. The manpower rate increase from losing a squad or vehicle is so negligible compared to the loss of initial investment, veterancy and map presence that it's a mere consolation prize. It can keep you in the game but it is by no means truly forgiving.
Snowballing in CoH is all about veterancy and army comp. If you have most units vetted and they have had to replace some of theirs with fresh units, AND forgo having some key units to maintain their damaged ones, you're going to gutter stomp them unless they play smart.

>>1847046
wtf are you on? Upkeep in no way results in that scenario, do you even fucking play the game?
The upkeep difference will never be that stark unless you're a dumb retard who makes a killer play and then just goes back to his base without even trying to consolidate or cap territory.
EVEN then, a 'horde' of new units will get it's shit slapped by vets, and for them to beat you with superior micro in this scenario means you deserved to lose, lmao

>>1847043
>COH is possibly the least forgiving multiplayer RTS experience
it really isn't most rts have no comeback mechanics whatsoever

>>1845507
>mp faggotry
Not even once.

>>1847103
Sure thing, why even have graphic at all? Best gameplay would be just comparing spreadsheets.

>"wtf bro this generally better looking sequel that also plays better has mediocre explosions??? No I can't turtle against the easy AI now ughhh I just can't ughhhhh the graphics are just not good enough it's just like a spreadsheet now I'm not coping at all!!!"
You don't play RTS games and you never did

>>1847654
Struck a nerve?

coh2 players need every explosion sound to be a nuke to be satisfied.

People who argue about graphics for 2 or 3 is missing the bigger picture of CoH3 balance in serious need of community touch. It is not a secret that relic gets a new team to do every installation to the series and they make mistakes that would otherwise have been avoided had old devs stayed on board.

A scathing remark by Inca and Rei, recent community tournament champions for the 2v2 cup says a lot about how 3 is still very much in its infancy for multiplayer balance.

"7) General thoughts about the state of 2v2s, including these tourney rules or not.

Inca: It's a shitshow, but that's the whole game. So many broken things just cancel each other out. NPC blob is a major blob[rem], it has to go.
Coastals are cancer to play against, so much effort to shut it down, and it's not fun. The wizard is not fun.
Camo DAK; how is that fair? Why do I get rewarded for blobbing the entire army?
The least abusive faction is brits, what do they have? Matilda, one AT gun with incendiary shuts it down. I've seen this complaint, you can't go matilda vs that, you need indirect, and usually, you'll just die.
And rifles need to be changed, something needs to happen.
Flak needs to be changed too.
Forward reinforcement also needs to be changed, it's extremely dumb and not fun. For the love of god, remove their vet 1. There is no reason for 45 seconds of combat buffs after healing.

Rei: I fully agree with what Inca said. But in tournament format, it was fun to play and I enjoyed it. Because I didn't face double infantry assault. And I can handle everything else."

>>1845812
Ardennes Assult is a fun little campaign. Too bad that it ends right when you have unlocked all the cool shit

>>1847764
Balance in itself is not terrible.
The LV meta can be total cancer if one player goes full spam in 1v1, especially with US armored, and there's some not necessarily unbalanced things that are not fun to play against (infantry assault, loiters, bunker artillery cover, wizard) and could use a rework, but really it's a mindset thing, ladder warriors and "pro" streamers playing 40 games a day are always going to exaggerate how bad the balance is.
Saying that the balance is "in it's infancy" is just wrong imo, currently all factions are competitive at all stages of the game in both 1v1 and team games.
The worst matchup is late game DAK vs Brits in 1v1, that's a struggle if you don't go incendiary ATguns, but it's not an automatic loss.

>>1847794
The issue, and why it makes people so mad, isn't that faction win rates are way off, but that the problems are on a game design level. It's not "x is too strong" but rather "x is brainless and unfun to play as or against but it's the defining playstyle of that faction and the only way to achieve their theoretical win rate"
It would be like in StarCraft if 4 pool was literally the only way to play zerg and had a 50% wr. A game designer sees a problem there, a stat monkey doesn't. Coh3 is designed by the latter and it's been an extremely frustrating uphill battle to communicate the former to them.

Fingers crossed for this upcoming patch

>>1847588
>if you're not paying attention
I'm not sure what would reduce the micro in this instance then, automatic retreat/chase behavior? You can already reinforce automatically, buildings can be placed automatically, queue up capture/move commands, use attack move to ensure a unit always engages an enemy unit, and use hold fire to keep them from alerting your opponent. I don't consider the bare minimum of directly controlling a unit so it doesn't walk into a MG to be micro-intensive compared to anything which isn't a turn based game.

>>1847764
Eh the balance is rough but far superior to post-DLC 1 and 2. Launching with 4 factions was the right call. There are still plenty of cancer strats, some affect all levels of play, some are mainly for shitters. I'm more scared by the heavy armor teaser, it makes me think they'll slowly turn this game into coh2 to appease certain people.

>>1847900

3 not going for the same loadout system of 2 was honestly such a relief to hear. Although it's a little annoying afterwards when I figured out you could only take 3 battlegroups in automatch just like in 2 with the commander system. Granted, battelgroups are more fleshed out but it reeks of the same vibe given some battlegroups are sold much like a DLC in its pricing.

CoH2 Post DLC era is primarily community patching and honestly it had a lot of rough edges that still needs looking at. Relic pulling the plug on it was really weird since it crushed a lot of good will that would have had more core players give Coh3 a more favorable look.

I absolutely see the same thought that relic is trying to turn 3 back into 2 in a few ways. I'm not as uncomfortable about it as you are but at this point I just figured they should've just fixed Coh2 then. Would have required less effort and not dilute the player pool like it has now.

>>1847921
Yeah the paid shit is disgusting, but the battlegroup system itself is a fine compromise between 1 and 2. Bulletins were moronic, glad those were completely removed.

Lots of hand wringing about CoH 2's playerbase but they are all useless poors. The game has been given out for free twice. Those subhumans are not going to move over, it's best to let them rot.

>>1847968
Weird take but okay.
I'm sure some of them just aren't moving over because the game doesn't look particularly convincing as a purchase.

I myself own both games and alternate between the two. Depends on if the group I'm in only has people who owns 3 or have both 2 and 3. Rarely does someone only own 2 and not 3 though, but that's anecdotal to the group I'm in.

>>1848021
That's nice, sweetie. I didn't bother reading most of your post by the way, cause this is a retarded opinion:
>I'm sure some of them just aren't moving over because the game doesn't look particularly convincing as a purchase.

3 is better than 2 in every way. The only way you'd think that is if you were fucking poor.

File: Probably+the+one+that+has(...).jpg (11 KB, 229x326)

11 KB JPG

>>1848024

>>1845507
AT gun crewmember must’ve been one of the manliest jobs in war.

>>1845507
>Played COH, loved it
>Played DOW, loved it
>Played Iron Harvest, loved it
What else is there to enjoy?

>>1848021
He's not totally wrong if you check the player stats most of CoH2's playerbase is from China and Russia.

>>1848161
I don't doubt that there's more Chinese and Russian players in 2 for sure. How do you check player region on population though? I just like to see for myself how much the ratio is.

>>1848161
Nvm I figured it out.
Isn't the frontpage region tracking of CoH2stats just the total player tracking overall since the site has been up? Just by going off of automatch played in the last week, the numbers wouldn't add up. Most you can get from that page is that throughout CoH2's tracking in the years, there has been a big chunk of Chinese and Russian players. Whether it remains that case is not clear.

I'd still deduce that 2 has more Russian and Chinese players but 3 doesn't have a stat page I am awage of to verify.

>>1848156
Men of War 2

>>1845511
>acting this smug
>over paradox game of all things
normally you would see posts this shit on /v/

>>1848156
Have you tried out Last Train Home?
It's a pretty fun campaign. Not really the same game but you're still shooting communists.

>>1848407
it's really painfully repetitive and easy
i liked the idea but the execution falls flat imo and your train doesn't feature enough
there should have been more to using trains during missions than just off map artillery

>>1848605
It does feel like that at times. Scouts feel like easy mode too since most infantry and light vehicles are knocked out immediately. I was hoping the game had more options in terms of loud or quiet but it's honestly all quiet if you want to get ahead.

>>1848156
Gates of Hell Ostfront if you are ok with micro

>>1848654
Okay with micro is an understatement. Ostfront is the game where unit AIs don't work so you have to manually designate each target for each of your infantry at all times or they just won't shoot. The autistic granularity is great in theory but in practice rather than managing the fuel and ammo and shot types on your tanks and field guns you're babying Heinz Flebbel who can't figure out which side of is Gewer points towards the enemy unless you remind him each and every time he needs to cock the bolt.

>PPios will be tankier
>Pgrens will have higher DPS at medium range
>Krad will give combined arms
DAK bros it's our time

>>1845511
>map painter calls anyone anything
the lmao

>>1846807
my nigger, there's no other game where a game is over as soon as the enemy has a tank while you don't. You don't know fear until a T-70 kills your AT and proceed to solo your entire base.

>>1849035
It is absolutely joever if the AT could be so out of position to be knocked out by a T-70.

>>1849029
Source? Why does it seem that for this game specifically folks are always talking about specific patch changes like a week before the update, when there's no patch notes posted anywhere?

>>1848024
Bruh, you are desperate enough to play a downgrade, down syndrome version of CoH 2. Which was the autistic little brother of CoH, just because you hate Russians? Lmao, this board has bigger cretins than Reddit. I bet you'd eat fresh Pajeet shit if it was shat in England and not in Russia.

do you turn the camera towards the enemy?

>>1849168
Yes. I also change the pitch so I can see farther. It's a huge advantage to be able to keep your mortar and its target on screen at the same time.

>>1849140
>Source?
The dev stream
>Why does it seem that for this game specifically folks are always talking about specific patch changes like a week before the update, when there's no patch notes posted anywhere?
Because of the dev stream

>>1849132
happens all the time in 1v1s

File: YOUNGMAN.png (962 KB, 674x611)

962 KB PNG

>>1848031
That's one way of putting it

>>1849235
There was a dev stream? Where was that even announced?

>>1848031
yeah they all went deaf

>>1849254
Sure but it shouldn't happen is what I mean. If a weapon crew is so out of position it isn't getting supported, it's more likely an outplayed/misplay. Not to excuse how good T-70 is but that thing has been nerfed so much that any more tweaks would make it obsolete. Although...I'm not against a price reduction alongside it's lethality nerf.

They always stream before a patch

>>1848722
this is EXACTLY how i remember ass squad 2 and the reason why i am not reinstalling it

>>1848722
this game is so complex even the fucking AI can't play it, hence why it's a glorified tower defense game except you play as the attacker.

who wants to play?

Me,

I started playing coop comp stomp maps, it surprisingly fun, everyone is nice to each other and you get to play build which are outside the pvp meta. There actually a lot of skill curating all the parameters of the match such that it is challenging , and possible to win.

>>1850379
sounds comfy

>>1848722
Yeah the AI is braindead, you get used to it and just accept you are going to lose units to their own stupidity. Its not like its particularly hard outside that though.

>>1845511
Excellent bait.

>>1848722
I enjoy Call to arms instead. Game works.

>>1850532
>modern setting
yikes!

>>1850818
it's WWII setting.

>>1850938
Call to Arms is modern.
Call to Arms - Gates of Hell: Ostfront is WWII

patch tomorrow

Patch now:
https://community.companyofheroes.com/coh-franchise-home/company-of-heroes-3/blogs/142-update-1-8-patch-notes

>>1852496
that's it, i am uninstalling
fuck this shit game

>>1852516
What exactly are you crying about

>>1852589
I'm calling it. Probably just mad that rifles get 1.5 pen so light vehicles don't get early free wins.

>reinstall
>play a game
>win, have fun
>play another game
>crash about 5m in
>try another game
>10 minute timeout
>uninstall again
I

File: Pepe 1.jpg (62 KB, 1100x1007)

62 KB JPG

>>1845507
I prefer Blitzkrieg desu

>>1852787
I remember trying Blitkrieg and felt infantry were utterly useless.

You guys liking the patch? I haven't had a chance to try it out yet

>>1853223
I don't think it achieved the desired effect.
Now instead of racing to t2 and pushing out 2-3x of my best light vehicle I just grab one and quick tech to t3. There's nothing in t2 except light vehicles for the most part, so there's no reason to stay in t2 for more than a minute now.

I don't even side tech Stuarts as UK because I know I'm not going to face more than 1 or 2 vehicles, which soft AT can easily handle.

The infantry changes were good, though.

>>1853015
you just have to support them.

>>1853251
I kind of understand what they were going for since LV spam was kind of shit, but I also liked the overall focus on them over heavy tanks as it makes matches in 3 more fast paced and unpredictable (more sudden flanks, getting overrun by mobile units) overall. Hopefully they can find a middle ground.

>>1853445
The issue is just that nobody but Wehr actually has anything to spend resources on at that stage of the game except light vehicles or callins. LVs weren't necessarily being spammed because LVs were innately too strong. It's just that if you're going to spend enough resources in your intermediate tier to delay teching, you literally only have 1 or 2 things to build. That's a roster design problem.

Like what is US doing with a motorpool other than buying Chaffees and Greyhounds. That's literally all the building produces. The game probably needs more intermediate infantry with soft-AT to serve as a resource sink for players that want to go heavy into that stage of the game to press an advantage without literally just printing 3-4 copies of the same unit.

>>1845507
I was considering buying CoH 2 since it's on sale rn, but apparently like 80% of the game is locked behind DLC?
Is CoH 1 the same situation?

>>1854164
CoH1 is a complete package on steam I'm pretty sure, it had 2 expansions and no dlcs
CoH2 has lots of DLCs but if you're only interested in the single player then you need the main game and Ardennes assault, everything else is for mp or are dogshit theatres of war scenarios which I aren't worth playing.

>>1854164
You only buy the DLC for factions.
Western Front is USF and OKW faction (America and different flavor of bad guy)
Then there is the solo UKF(Bri*ish) DLC. Both of these are for only PVP so unless you like to matchmake it's not relevant.

Other than that, the other DLC is probably the sheer number of commanders, which are basically mini-doctrines which just grants a set line of options to compliment playstyle. These are mostly side-grades ever since community patch made it so that the default commanders are usually the stronger/reliable picks so people didn't live in a P2W world.

Ignore all cosmetic DLC because nobody cares what color of gay you put on your gopnik armor.

What the hell did they do to Wehr pgrens? The DPS increase is very small on paper but they do so much damage now.
Or is it just me?

>play italian coastal
>never manage to build my ebin bunker wall anyway

>>1858955
Even if you pick the simcity battlegroup you still have to actually play the game. You really shouldn't expect the enemy team to let you have more than 1 or 2 mutually supporting bunkers to anchor your army around. If you invest in more you're just rewarding the brit player that grabs 2 Bishops to counter you.

File: autism.png (780 KB, 1128x547)

780 KB PNG

>>1857461
Nothing's changed. They still shred at mid/close range. That's their shtick. Though some doctrines let them mark targets for even more damage.

>>1854164
Barring sales, you can get the basegame + DLCs for dirt cheap on G2A and similar sites. COH1 Panzer Elite / UK factions are locked behind DLCs iirc.

>>1859535
Both expansions are included with coh1 steam version.

>>1857461
Apparently it was a big that massively increased their lethality, and got hotfixed the other day.

File: relic.png (237 KB, 767x446)

237 KB PNG

>>1859540
You sure about that? Both Opposing Fronts and Tales of Valor are still individual, unless you're talking about something else.

>>1859548
>You sure about that?
no

>>1859548
Surprised they haven't given it the dawn of war treatment yet.