>>2460143
Because if they didn't improve why would you buy the new one?

>>2460143
They did. It has the best gameplay in the franchise; it's just that you are too childish and emotionally stunted to accept that.

>>2460143
See how the most prominent person on the cover is a woman? There's your answer.

>game playing it safe to the point people complain that it's not innovative enough
>basically same exact fucking thing as always except more QoL, more greed, and different units
>random retard anon: "IT'S NOT WHAT WE GREW UP WITH!!!!!! :(((("
Yeah because you aren't a baby anymore and can't see the world and its products with the same eyes

>>2460501
this. they made a game when the industry was at its peak level of infection and it shows

I came back to play CoH2 after five years or so and found they changed so much shit around. Can't call in vehicles from off map anymore, any of the commanders you pick just unlock them from one of the regular buildings. They nerfed all the Shermans (except the Russian lend-lease one) to have the same rates of fire as everything else, so now you're generally left with an inferior medium tank that has slightly less piercing and armor. AT grenades don't always snare vehicles anymore so sometimes tanks just run through your line with zero fucks given and mortars don't seem to auto-attack anymore and require you to manually use their ability.

There's still a few cool things left in like a Vet 2 T-70 being able to see across the entire map in recon mode or the Americans being able to jump in and out of vehicles, but it mostly feels like they took the unique aspects of each side and sanded down the corners on them. Like Pathfinders don't execute low HP targets anymore and Obersoldaten don't have an accuracy bonus against things in cover now.

>>2460143
>This isn't what we grew up with
they don't care about you, you're already a customer
they want the new modern audience and infinite sales
they deserve everything that happened and will happen to them

>>2462147
All must be made lame and gay, such is the way of "balance"

>>2462147
Congrats you managed to miss the call-in meta entirely.

>>2463159
Call in meta was unironically better just because it gave everyone a last ditch option to drag a match back. Now getting fuel starved is an instant loss.

>>2463163
I disagree because it wildly favored wehrmacht. Nobody else got the same levels of quality and metaness in their call-in commander options. Every game you knew a 251 clown car would be zooming after you followed by a puma then some flavor of panzer IV chassis. All instantly available, no build time required, it's a shame it took them so long to just make them building build options.

>>2462147
As >>2463153 said compshitters constantly whining that they had an 0.005% less winrate as team A than team B and other stupid crap like that led to devs basically gutting the best parts of the game. It's really just more reason why RTS devs need to ignore sweatys since most of them are essentially just basement dwelling dorks trying to compensate for sucking at competitive stuff in real life.

File: why to build normal grenadiers.webm (2.87 MB, 924x520)

2.87 MB WEBM

>>2463190
I'd disagree, but not because of the call in system itself, just that Ostheer's non-doctrinal units were good enough that call ins were mostly a side benefit. It was the Soviet side that felt defined by call in tanks since the T-34/76 used to cost 5 fuel less than a P4 and have slightly less armor and pen, invariably leading to a shot bouncing in the middle of a tank duel and losing it. It also favored Soviets' tempo more than Ostheer.

Besides, the 251 was available in the M3 for the Soviets and both were easily countered so long as your main force was comprised of grens/conscripts with AT grenades/fausts. It was against assault infantry heavy armies they dominated early on.

>>2463235
I mean the bigger issue is the 251 came loaded with pgrens which could be anti-infantry until you need them to become AT. The M3 with flame engineers is good, but I don't think you're usually going to want more than one and it's hard countered by german light tanks which come out not long after it hits the field itself. The advantage of the call-in during meta was you could just wait to see what your opponent went for then counter-pick with your commander.

Enemy goes M3? Great, I'll take the call in Puma. Enemy goes for early T70? Hold off and pick a better lategame commander or get a stug. Building a building is a big commitment and holding your commander pick was too strong because you could just bring 2 call-in commanders and then a strong one like tiger.

>>2460143
Now that I think about it why hasn’t there been an RTS/RTT in the vein of COH but for medieval warfare? Ancestors: Legacy is the closest we have and that’s a pile of indie dogshit. I guess BFME as well but that’s fantasy.

>>2463288
Because cover mechanics aren't a thing until WW2.

>>2463289
>taking cover from arrow and spear volleys
>taking cover inside wooden towers to protect infantry

Not to mention that you don’t need to have it exactly the same. BFME had cavalry capable of knocking over almost all types of infantry except pikemen who were a hard counter. There’s a mechanic to play with right there.

>>2463293
Shields are not cover mechanics.
Sieges are not cover mechanics.
Trenches in WW1 are not cover mechanics either.

You can't make a game with CoH's cover system of any of these conflicts. There are already RTS from all these eras without cover mechanics if you wish to play those.

>>2462147
>>2463153
>>2463207
>People who don't play [game] crying that [game] is totally ruined now by balance changes while [game]'s fanbase can't stop championing [game] as the best in the series
I have "fags that can't stop complaining about things they're not actually interested about" fatigue

>>2463320
>Shields are not cover mechanics.

Nobody was talking about shields.

>Sieges are not cover mechanics.

Nobody was talking about sieges either. Read what was actually written.

>Trenches in WW1 are not cover mechanics either.

The fuck? Trenches are quite literally the most obvious application of COH style cover ever. In fact the game literally lets you build trenches to use as garrison/cover for infantry.

>You can't make a game with CoH's cover system of any of these conflicts.

I wasn't even talking about applying COH systems 1-to-1 to them you goof. Read what I actually wrote for God's sake. Or maybe you're just deliberately acting dense.

He has a point but he redditspace'd his post

>>2463423
Read the post I replied to if you are confused.

>>2463423
The thing that makes CoH unique is the cover system. If you want to make a CoH game it has to be WW2 or later. Do you need me to explain it in even more detail?

You can't make a WW1 game because why would you get out of your trench? You...understand the concept of how attacking and defending works, right?

>>2463450
>You can't make a WW1 game because why would you get out of your trench?
nta but there are trenches in coh already and there are reasons to get out of those trenches

>>2463450
>why would you get out of your trench?
Gas.

>>2463450
Cover system is not what makes COH unique. Cover system isn’t even exclusive to COH, it was already in DOW. Suppression, terrain control, push and pull tactical game design is what makes COH unique. I repeatedly tried to explain to you that I am not asking for COH with swords but a medieval game in the same vein of a tactical RTS with interesting mechanics and not just a city builder like AOE. You instead got hung up on “muh cover” and started saying stupid shit about trenches somehow not counting and how COH in WW1 is impossible even though there are mods doing that exact thing as though you are some kind of heavily autistic teenager.

>>2463447
I made that post. Reading comprehension.

>>2463450
>You can't make a WW1 game because why would you get out of your trench?
because a scary dude is blowing his whistle reeaaally hard next to you bursting your eardrums

Despite all the complaining, I still enjoyed CoH2 multiplayer. Game heavily favored axis though. You could take a nap in the middle of a match and feel fine.

>>2463254
That webm was made back when the M3 could be the literal first thing you built after your engineers built the barracks it came from. It's different now though since you can't immediately build into it like pre-2018.

It was still hard countered by simply building a single grenadier or conscript though because if you immobilized the vehicle it most likely would die to small arms fire. Panzergrenadiers were great in it, but the flamethrower was picked because it was perfectly accurate from the back of the truck (rifles lost 50% of their accuracy in the chariot) and was good for chasing down squads on long retreats. Worse of course in a stand up fight, but you're usually relying on the enemy to be unable to counter it anyway.

>>2463329
I have like 4000 hours in the game prior to 2017, probably more than you and almost certainly higher ranked. I'll complain about shit if I want to complain about shit.

>>2463683
CoH2 baseline only favored Axis late. Soviets were far stronger out of the gate and most of their equipment worked well without support until late game. Most matches were Axis trying to preserve their units without getting boxed in to make it to a Panzer IV or Stug while the Soviets were attempting to spread out and cover the map to secure a tempo advantage.

I liked the style because it put games on a clock where the Soviets had to start rolling out tanks to overwhelm the Ostheer before they could consolidate and hit critical mass. You couldn't afford to go tit for tat with the Germans and just push them back, you had to get out and chase down and kill squads because once grens got their MG42 and veteran status, you weren't going to wrest back the fight. The only way to win was to early on wipe them out before they could build vet.

>>2463635
Yeah but this is a videogame. If the game forces my troops out of cover arbitrarily why would I play it?

>>2463742
Soviets have always struggled with conscripts being total shit late and penals being incredibly costly compared to their counterparts. The one time they buffed conscripts they had to revert it like a week later because it was absurd.

File: waste of my life.png (354 KB, 696x331)

354 KB PNG

>>2463742
I agree up until they released WFA. CoH2 was at its peak just before it honestly and as soon as OKW and USA hit the field the game got significantly worse. The Brits were broken on release even though (I closed beta tested them) we told the devs how bust they were and still took minimal chances to change them, now they're the worst out of all of them.

It really sucks the meta is locked behind relic and hasn't been handed off to some community team since coh2 is just in general better than coh1 due to the way LOS works and more palatable than the vomit and gameplay of coh3.

The tone of Coh3 is by far the most obtuse thing about it. The voice lines, colors grading, music....just everything about it screams "le reddit" and "we're heckin heros" that they just cant seem to shake. All my former friends are Relic glazers that sucked off hard enough to part of the community balance team former streamers and such and sadly they all ask Relic to just double down to "fix" the game rather than moving on to a new game.

RIP CoH - Maybe Quinn Duffy will make something new thats similar at BlackBird with all the former Relic people that moved over.

>>2463791
Best time for CoH2 was the Elbe Day update just before WFA, agree fully on that. Though I think the release of extra sides made balance impossible; OKW is so different than Ostheer it would be impossible to leave Soviets as they were and expect them to compete against them, and the USF was all of Soviet strengths and weaknesses amplified. Ostheer was going to get crushed early game every time if they weren't buffed.

I like the new factions, I think they're fun and have neat mechanics, but I do think the game would've been better without them.

>>2463791
>we are heroes
Yeah that was the point of the franchise. You know, Company of Heroes? The obvious Saving Private Ryan inspiration and tone from 1? They just went back to it after the edgy cringefest that was 2.

Sorry, zoomer, but 2 is a shit anomaly.

>>2463740
>The coh 2 playerbase liked the changes and they kept the game alive after new content dried up
>But they didn't ask me??? I'm very important!!! I had high rank you know????
okay bud

>>2463791
>The voice lines
Best in the series
>colors grading
Long fixed
>music
just fine
>just everything about it screams "le reddit"
CoH1 had literal memes in it like referencing Opra's "you get a car"
>All my former friends are Relic glazers
All of your former friends play the game, you stopped long ago but still hang around demanding that a game serie you don't play must cater to you
>Waste of my life.png
Yeah still wasting time getting mad at something you're not actually interested in

>>2460143
>us riflemen in coh3
>sticky bomb ability
>icon is that of the british no. 74 anti-tank grenade

It's a minor thing but it pisses me off so much because it's emblematic of how lazy nu-Relic is. The sticky bomb ability in COH1 was explicitly based off the improvised sock bomb scene in Saving Private Ryan (appropriate since the entire series was inspired by Band of Brothers) and the icon in the game reflected that. Here it's an icon for something that US forces never used and wasn't from the movie/TV show either. Honestly I think they should just get rid of the bazooka squads and replace the riflemen's sticky bomb ability with a bazooka upgrade at this point. COH3 suffers from having way too many infantry types.

File: 1645689239607.jpg (62 KB, 720x960)

62 KB JPG

>>2463939
>Honestly I think they should just get rid of the bazooka squads and replace the riflemen's sticky bomb ability with a bazooka upgrade at this point.
USF mains when evil relic forces them to builds something other than riflemen to counter tanks

>>2464041
Oh sure it's the US players that are the problem here and not Axis players spamming grenadiers with dual LMG and panzerschreck upgrades. But sure let's keep the redundant bazooka squads since it's not like they stop people from blobbing if they want to anyway.

>>2463828
>Lets have shitters that only play 4v4 talk about game balance
lol

>>2464202
Who are you quoting?

>>2463782
Every single game in existence has arbitrary made up rules. Why would you play any video games, ever? Why are you even here?

>>2463939
>waaaah why are americans using british weapons waaaaah I'm going to ignore they fought together in italy waaaaah
>I'm so asshurt, I think relic should buff allies again waaaaah

Typical amerimutt

>>2464346
>why are americans using british weapons

Yes, why? They never used No. 74 sticky grenade. Their version of the sticky bomb is supposed to be inspired by the improvised explosives scene from Saving Private Ryan.

>I'm going to ignore they fought together in italy

So I guess it's totally fine to replace their Garands and carbines with Lee-Enfields and STENs, right?

>I'm so asshurt, I think relic should buff allies again waaaaah

It has nothing to do with buffing and everything to do with streamlining units. Which I explained previously and what you'd know if you were smart enough to wipe your tears away before typing up this response like a raging monkey.

>>2464338
Because they are fun. That's my point. If I have to suicide my men into an enemy trench why am I playing this game? Do you understand english?

>>2464807
Ok let me explain very carefully mr. ESL.

Company of Heroes is a well-liked game because it has an interesting negative and positive cover mechanic. When you move your infantry up against a wall you get a bonus to the nits defense and evasion from gunfire.

Let me explain why you would not make a CoH style game before WW1.

You would not make such a game because nobody used squad based tactics or had repeating firearms before this time period.

Now, why wouldn't you make a WW1 game with CoH mechanics?

Because Both sides sit in fortified positions until they are given the command to attack en masse. This is an engagement far larger than CoH demonstrates and again, would be nonsensical because modern people understand that massed attacks across no man's land were foolish wastes. CoH promotes unit preservation which is antithetical to WW1 tactics.

Do you understand now why you can't utilize CoH's primary mechanic in WW1?

>>2464821
>Company of Heroes is a well-liked game because it has an interesting negative and positive cover mechanic.
Negative cover was a thing in only one game and it was removed because people hated it. Also no, cover is not what makes COH well-liked, it's not even unique to COH.
>why you would not make a CoH style game before WW1
Oh so it's now BEFORE WW1? Way to concede your retardation and think that nobody would notice.
>You would not make such a game because nobody used squad based tactics or had repeating firearms before this time period.
Somebody needs to read up on 19th century military history.
>Because Both sides sit in fortified positions until they are given the command to attack en masse. This is an engagement far larger than CoH demonstrates and again, would be nonsensical because modern people understand that massed attacks across no man's land were foolish wastes. CoH promotes unit preservation which is antithetical to WW1 tactics.
Is your entire knowledge of WW1 from Horrible Histories memes or something? You do realize that WW1 warfare wasn't just sitting in trenches until you got told to charge to your death?
>Do you understand now why you can't utilize CoH's primary mechanic in WW1?
So is it during WW1 or before WW1? Also no because you didn't explain anything. If anything you just made it more obvious how stupid your point is.

>>2464911
Read the start of this chain, the person was complaining why there is no slinger/spear thrower CoH game. I'm done with your retarded tourist troll ass. Can't argue with anyone anymore because they just pretend to be retarded like that's MY problem.

>>2465051
>Read the start of this chain

I did. In fact I started this chain.

>the person was complaining why there is no slinger/spear thrower CoH game

No, I asked why there was no interest in making a medieval-flavored game with a similar focus on tactics and complex mechanics LIKE Company of Heroes and that BFME and Ancestors: Legacy were the closest we seemed to have and that's it. In fact I repeatedly explained this to your stupid, illiterate ass at which point you disappear for a few comments, hope that people forget how dumb you made yourself look and then come back again repeating the same talking points that I previously debunked as though nothing had happened.

>>2462147
But there hasn't been any changes in 5 years

>>2465263
Honestly the concept of CoH could easily be applied to any asymmetric style combat. Could do cold war, Korea, Star wars, Vietnam even.

Quinn Duffy for what its worth (lead game designer) pointed the same fact out. Its easy to build a game around it and make it work. Its the tranny dev team and now private equity to lead us to the end of CoH.

Star wars galactic civil war is easy, Vietnam is easy. WW2 is sort of done and tried, what else you you really add besides making a more competent coh game with more layers?

https://youtu.be/6m27kb3qTBE

>>2463461
If somebody tried using gas, the go-to answer was to stay in the trench and use a gas mask, you tard

>>2470529
You do realize there were gases in WW1 that rendered masks useless?

>>2470749
name 2

>>2470777
nta but DA, DC, DM, PS and worst of all HS ie mustard-gas. Their effect in bypassing the gas mask goes from causing a vomit reaction to bypassing the standard filters to burning and blistering skin even thru standard issue woolen or cloth uniforms in case of sulfuric agents. Apply yourself, faggot.

>>2470806
Mustard gas doesn't go through masks and soldiers were issued clothing which stopped it too you stupid retard.

>>2470811
Sure they were. Get fucked, baitbitch.

How do I play Wermacht? It feels impossible to push anywhere with grenadiers

>>2470959
Against what and in what format?

File: ikanimo.png (336 KB, 1920x861)

336 KB PNG

>>2470812

>>2471097
Why are you talking to yourself?

why are you talking to yourself?