Two new articles

[IskatuMesk]

I've been writing articles on CC for a while now. Here's my two most recent ones.

http://www.campaigncreations.org/forum/ind...hp?topic=1494.0

^ Game design


http://www.campaigncreations.org/forum/ind...hp?topic=1495.0

^ Team management, Project Lead

Some other articles you guys might enjoy.


http://www.campaigncreations.org/forum/index.php?topic=1398.0

^ The concept of immersion.

http://www.campaigncreations.org/forum/index.php?topic=1282.0

^ The Real Time Strategy

[TerranUp16]

For all your Relic bashing you rather fail to credit Company of Heroes' factional diversity and versatility and decided lack of concrete rock/paper/scissors in favor of allowing superior tactics to dominate.  They may be in a perpetual act of balancing the game, but there is still no set strategy that will dominate every time against any opponent- there is, currently, ALWAYS a counter (and generally it requires a little bit of tactical innovation but then again that's what CoH is all about and if you haven't picked that up then you haven't REALLY played the game- and the fallacy of not doing that is rather apparent by those who bash StarCraft as they have the same issue of not playing the game enough and not having delved deeply enough into it).

CoH also doesn't have the same stated issues about vehicles being micro-able and infantry not.  Try using Rangers, Airborne, or Stormtroopers to start with and then go and make that claim... While I agree that squads in DoW were not fully-realized, in CoH the situation is very different indeed.

As for DoW 2, it's an RTT though trending towards an RPS.  As for there not being any tactics, don't play 1v1 and try heroes like the Warp Spider and Ravenner Alpha and you'll be pleasantly surprised.  The game is designed for 3v3 with an early emphasis on heroes and the tactics they bring to the table and a late emphasis on strategic map control and co-op tactics.  Like CoH, it is a deeper game once you actually give it a chance and pry beneath its surface.  However, it still lacks the depth of CoH and is meant more for "quick fun" per se.

On a side note, for a really good example of a game that managed to lever hard counters amazingly well, check-out Act of War: Direct Action.  Brings as beefy a hand to the hard counter style of unit design as World in Conflict does (meh, WiC is pretty much AoW with the economic bread and butter stripped out) but partially because it is so over the top with that it tends to create interesting tactical/strategic situations.  It also is a shining example of successful factional diversity.

Other than the above, I agree w/aiming for skill-based balance and leveraging factional diversity in a positive manner unlike SupCom and Age of Empires as you argued for in your "Edge of Reason, Infinite Balance" article.

[IskatuMesk]

I haven't played CoH that much (it didn't really come off as anything better than DoW though) so I decided to leave my comments on it out of the article. But I have played DoW1 extensively and utterly destroyed otherwise decent community players in it so I consider my knowledge of it very good. I've also spoken to guys who despise starcraft but love dawn of war 2 and harvested their opinions on what makes it good ect.

DoW, CoH ect are RTT and not RTS' indeed. I pointed that out. DoW 2 seems to be dying out pretty quickly in multiplayer from what I've heard.

What really hurts games like dawn of war and CoH is the de-emphasis on macro, base management, and economy. Dawn of War was actually pretty fun until DC came out and started really screwing with the balance. Soulstorm is just a big mess.

When you take out key elements of an RTS and leave players behind with a very rigid balancing system that leaves a lot to be desired in terms of depth and flexibility it kills the replayability and the evolution of the game. I can see why a lot of people like CoH but I never heard about many of them playing it for a long time, and that's why.

Also I didn't really find CoH all that diverse; at least not nearly on the scale of Starcraft where every race plays very, very differently.

Never heard of AoW before.

[Curcuit Broken]

Dude, send the bottom article to BlizzardActivision. Maybe someone there will read it and save the franchise? [/Hope]

[IskatuMesk]

I'm assuming you never read the replies to that article.

[Curcuit Broken]

Whoa there are replies!?

*scrolls down*

Perhaps we need to...... Spam this via Email!

[TerranUp16]

CoH's depth is more subtle.  Initial forays seem to indicate a relatively pure RTT with minimal factional differences and a resource system that is largely optional.  Play a bit more, and you find that the factional differences are actually huge (particularly when factoring in the Opposing Fronts expansion and its addition of the British and Panzer Elite which are blatantly different).  The Allies on the whole have more adept infantry and can typically last relatively late into the game by exclusively utilizing infantry.  Also, harassment for the Allies is nearly always infantry-based (particularly for an American player using Airborne or a British player using Commandos).  Axis Stormtroopers (Wehrmacht Blitzkrieg Company) are some of the only Axis infantry that truly "last" late into the game and that are effective without armor support.  Otherwise, the Axis relies more heavily on harassing with armor and rolling armor out early.  Subtle differences, but in practice they are huge and the variance of all the infantry and vehicles on both sides expands upon those differences quite rapidly.

Economically, it still often boils down to combat prowess and skill which is where CoH attains the major part of its RTT status from but economic choices in CoH are rather persistent.  Nearly every engagement begs the question of whether or not to use some Munitions to toss a grenade and also of whether or not to retreat.  Retreating in CoH is often a simple affair compared to retreating in StarCraft, but its economic impacts are often major and immediate.  Retreating, while effective at preserving squads, gives-up territory.  The effects of battles in CoH are rarely immediate or decisive as they often are in StarCraft- the impact of giving-up a couple of points and some ground may at first seem trivial but can often dictate the outcome of the game.  There is still and is always tactical wiggle room for skill, but land/points are very important and the decisions made about how much "effort" to put into acquiring certain points and what points to abandon and where to dig in and etc are all major components of a CoH game.

It's the subtleties like the above, along with the micromanagement of 1-2 squads of Airborne to take down a Tiger, suppressing multiple squads of enemy infantry and getting one of your own squads close enough to toss a perfectly-placed grenade, etc... that grant CoH both its tactical and strategic depth.

[Magic]

Definitely and absolutely play more COH. It is an amazing game, for its portrayal of WW2 and simply the strategy involved. WW2 strategy games for me were usually boring, slow and with predictable units but COH is very different. I've never played an RTS game like it and more should be like it. It combines realism with fun units, yet it's balanced very well.

You mass infantry squads, I'll counter with MG turrets in buikdings and mortars. Maybe a sniper but they're expensive.
You mass tanks (Wasting a -lot- of resources - play some skirmishes and you'll see), I'll come back with 47mm AT guns and paratroopers with recoiless rifles.

But of course there's much more to it than that. Micromanagement, amusing unit responses that you just know could be from real life ("We're airbourne - we're MEANT to be surrounded!", "Drive! DRIVE OR WERE DEAD!").

It's an RTS that reworks dozens of aspects, not just a mere few.

Anyhow, I'll stop trying to persuade you...

[TerranUp16]

Just annoys me 'cause I've run into this problem with Whiplash/Mantidz irl and he actually got CoH but only bothered playing against the AI (the pre-2.4 AI, btw) and just goes on about how CoH is nothing compared to SC and I just sit there and have to go, "Wtf..." as I am a fan of both games and have played both enough to see their merits and to know that both require a great deal of play-time before you recognize their true greatness.  I astounds me that an SC player is unable and unwilling to do that for a game like CoH... I don't know, maybe DoW has tainted people prejudices and opinions on the matter...

[IskatuMesk]

It will never reach SC in terms of depth and competitive support. AFAIK there isn't even any leagues that really give CoH much credit. So I can't just find some random pro game and study it and say, "Hey, there's a lot going on here". Course I might be wrong; if you have any VOD's of high-level CoH play I'd love to see them.

I've read a lot of discussions on CoH, in its favor and against it. What I really find annoying about it is the de-emphasis on base management and squads. I really liked the vehicle combat because of the positional damage, though. I'm generally not fond of ground control games (I preferred to play DoW on Annihilation, only playing normal gametypes vs people in real matchups, usually I found that I simply won too easily with ground control/victory points and it took a lot out of the game, whereas cracking the base and destroying the enemy outright should be the focus).

Oh, and I really don't like "spells". Like, being able to just summon tanks wherever or bomb this or that place.

[TerranUp16]

Oh, and I really don't like "spells". Like, being able to just summon tanks wherever or bomb this or that place.

In most games those are on timers.   In CoH they cost resources- valuable resources- and generally more resources than if you built them through your base structures for units that you can get that way as well but others are more restricted.  Calling in Stormtroopers and Airborne happens instantly, but the "ability" still has a timer so it's like having a build time but whereas getting squads and etc through buildings is like a do...while loop, getting them through the abilities is more like a standard while loop.  And for the ones where you can get them another way, you sacrifice resources for time.  And for the artillery and aircraft ones, those require munitions so their usage is VERY SPARING and generally at the cost of being able to use more direct, squad-level abilities like 'nades and such.  And, ofc, being able to use those at all comes from being able to capture and hold munitions points.

[Magic]

It will never reach SC in terms of depth and competitive support. AFAIK there isn't even any leagues that really give CoH much credit. So I can't just find some random pro game and study it and say, "Hey, there's a lot going on here". Course I might be wrong; if you have any VOD's of high-level CoH play I'd love to see them.

A friend has sent me a few but I've not had the time to watch them. One was meant to be epic - some huge 2V2 that lasted for over an hour, with every special unit being used only to be countered and stuff. I'll see if I can get one sometime or find one on Youtube.

I've read a lot of discussions on CoH, in its favor and against it. What I really find annoying about it is the de-emphasis on base management and squads.

Why? RTS games have been moving towards that for years, with C&C Generals, WC3 and COH (Yes I know you hate them but tough) and I think it's vital for bringing the actual combat to the fore.

Base management to me is generally boring. I remember it in Dune 2 when you spent 90% of the time building concrete slabs and factories. As I'm sure we all know, some RTS games just resort to you turtling then teching and massing units before steam rolling over the map, which is very hard to do in COH.

That said, with buildings in COH you can still build certain fortifications like MG nests and howitzer's across the map provided you control them. Brits can even build trenches (Good defenses for infantry against everything except fire) and even move their HQ vehicles to set up in other zones too.

I really liked the vehicle combat because of the positional damage, though. I'm generally not fond of ground control games (I preferred to play DoW on Annihilation, only playing normal gametypes vs people in real matchups, usually I found that I simply won too easily with ground control/victory points and it took a lot out of the game, whereas cracking the base and destroying the enemy outright should be the focus).

COH has both as well...?

Oh, and I really don't like "spells". Like, being able to just summon tanks wherever or bomb this or that place.

Why? That's practically how it 'worked' in WW2 - requests were sent for special units or to launch a type of attack in one place. I'd call them abilities over spells anyhow.

Some of them are relatively contrived (German propaganda forcing a squad of infantry to retreat) but they fit the game more than adequately and none of them are overpowered.

In most games those are on timers.   In CoH they cost resources- valuable resources- and generally more resources than if you built them through your base structures for units that you can get that way as well but others are more restricted.  Calling in Stormtroopers and Airborne happens instantly, but the "ability" still has a timer so it's like having a build time but whereas getting squads and etc through buildings is like a do...while loop, getting them through the abilities is more like a standard while loop.  And for the ones where you can get them another way, you sacrifice resources for time.  And for the artillery and aircraft ones, those require munitions so their usage is VERY SPARING and generally at the cost of being able to use more direct, squad-level abilities like 'nades and such.  And, ofc, being able to use those at all comes from being able to capture and hold munitions points.

Agreed. In the 1v1 skirmishes I sometimes do against the AI then I usually build up ~300 munitions which affords me one missile attack as German (Terror doctrine). It has to be used precisely. They aren't free cooldown abilities like in C&C Generals that you can spam whenever.


Hopefully Tales of Valor is waiting for him at home, I can't wait...

[Magic]

Here you go. Each is the first part of a multiplayer game and not related to the other.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAQIHTE7zc4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAQIHTE7zc4</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1YakMVD1sM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1YakMVD1sM</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn7oArZKY64" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn7oArZKY64</a>

[IskatuMesk]

I'll watch those videos when I get some free time. Thanks!

Why? RTS games have been moving towards that for years, with C&C Generals, WC3 and COH (Yes I know you hate them but tough) and I think it's vital for bringing the actual combat to the fore.

Games like Generals are also failures in competitive gameplay. Starcraft has outlived them all and even today, right now, continues to evolve. An RTS isn't an RTS when you start pulling out the key elements that make it what it is, and all of the hardcore players who think that way have stuck to SC. It's true, SC is in decline now, but that is largely attributed to SC2, in which a lot of the foreign leagues are hoping to kick-start their popularity (the skill difference between Korean and Foreign players is colossal) and draw in new blood with a new game. However, I have doubts sc2 will reach Sc1's lifespan.

Base management to me is generally boring. I remember it in Dune 2 when you spent 90% of the time building concrete slabs and factories. As I'm sure we all know, some RTS games just resort to you turtling then teching and massing units before steam rolling over the map, which is very hard to do in COH.

An understandable point, but again the games you mentioned like Dune all have very little replay value because they are very poorly made and balanced. Dune is a hard-counter based game just like C&C and so its rigid metagame and lack of depth are serious killers and stunt competitive play grossly.

The whole "turtle and then teching and massing units before steam rolling over the map" doesn't happen in Starcraft when you face a half-decent opponent, and Starcraft is one of the most macro and economic demanding games out there.

COH has both as well...? huh

Victory points remove the need to engage your opponent's base at all.

Why? That's practically how it 'worked' in WW2 - requests were sent for special units or to launch a type of attack in one place. I'd call them abilities over spells anyhow.

Simply put, I don't like spells/abilities you can just buy and target anywhere on the map. I find they remove the element of terrain value since they have unlimited range and can just be casted instantly. This is one instance where I find realism effects the game negatively IMO.


Me, I love base management. I don't think the game should be a chore, but I think that resource collection and construction are huge elements of an RTS and should never be degraded or removed from it. Otherwise the game becomes an RTT. I consider CoH, Dawn of war, ect. to be RTT and not real RTS' because of this.

[TerranUp16]

Magic meant if you don't like playing with Victory Points then play Annihilation... Anyway, bases are far from irrelevant even in Victory Point mode.  Numerous times I've won by managing to get behind enemy lines and to leverage a devastating assault on the enemy base while they were trying to hold the victory points and had invested heavily around those instead of their base.  Even if you don't annihilate the enemy base, it's often effective to mount a raid anyway to get them to back-off.  Remove the need?  Yes.  Remove the want?  Not necessarily.  And this is before considering that base is a rather nebulous word when applied to CoH- particularly when you factor in the British.

I'm with you for Generals being a competitive failure though that is mostly due to poor balancing... Of course, the economic system didn't help (build as many Black Markets/Supply Drop Zones/Hackers as you want and then just spam super weapons and/or units).  Act of War fixed those major issues and then added additional depth beyond that hence its high standing imo.

As for the abilities, calling in new units (except for Airborne but then again it's tough to argue against that if you support SC2 considering some of what it's implementing) is locational and everything else at least requires LoS (which in CoH is often easier said than done) and once again resources are still a major factor in being able to bring those forth (and, furthermore, bringing those out is in aversion to utilizing those same resources for more direct and generally more reliable purposes which are no different than the Yamato Cannon and the like in terms of their deployment).  Finally, while in Generals such abilities can wreak havoc on their own, in CoH all of those abilities are essentially useless without some kind of follow-up.  They open up tactical opportunities but those opportunities need to be exploited to be of any use (and if they aren't exploited then the resources used to bring those opportunities about are wasted).

And I still maintain that resource management in CoH is every bit as huge as it is in StarCraft, perhaps even more so given how tough it often is to push the frontlines forward to get at something you need.  It cuts-out the workers which, you could make an argument that worker raids and such are rendered ineffective, but such is replaced by having the resources directly on the fields of battle.  It simply calls for a different way of conceptualizing the depth of the resource system.

As for base-building, CoH minimizes factory and support building (very rare to see two of a Barracks in CoH whereas that is essentially vital in StarCraft) in favor of emphasizing defensive structures and/or tactical use of mobile units to serve defensive purposes thereby creating frontlines and such.  Of course, American Howitzers and British 25 Pounders are examples of how CoH still manages to assign significance to structures but it does so, in keeping with its overall aim, in such a way that there is a more direct reason for defending those structures.

No one is arguing that CoH isn't a hybrid RTT/RTS (same for DoW though personally I place DoW 2 firmly as an RTT just like I do WiC) but if you don't consider them to be "real RTS games" then I don't much see the point in scolding Relic as you do in your article because in actuality Relic is completely beyond the scope of your article.  And ultimately that's my point, is that while I personally love CoH, I'm not on a crusade to convert everyone who likes StarCraft to liking CoH (though some respect would be nice).  But I do take a bit of umbrage at Relic (and by way of such, CoH) getting shoved into hostile crosshairs when it effectively is a civilian.  Supreme Commander, Generals, C&C 3, RA3 (ugh), Battle for Middle Earth 2 (the original is probably more RTT/RTS than pure RTS), Act of War (not saying that you should flame Act of War but imo it's a combatant), Age of Empires, Universe at War, etc... are all acceptable targets for your article.  However, DoW 2 and CoH (and, imo, Sins of a Solar Empire as well) are beyond the scope of your article and its effective commentary.

[IskatuMesk]

That's why I didn't mention CoH in my article; but relic (mostly its fans though) tries to pass of DoW as some kind of super amazing RTS when it really isn't. That article was mostly aimed at that crowd. Some people aren't so stupid and realize the genres are significantly different, but the people who try to pass these games off as RTS' need to be shot. So, I shot them.

Sins I consider an RTS for sure. It's a mesh of homeworld and C:FW but lacks the elements that made the two good in their own rights.

Watching the first set of videos Magic linked, I don't think that it's high level play, as it's clear the player spends a lot of time just waiting around for stuff to open. Base management is extremely minimal and almost non-existent with the player very rarely ever moving to his base (which he would need to do less if he used hotkeys). Also, infantry combat almost involves no micro at all, even less than in DoW which you at least usually have enough numbers running around to warrant telling your guys what to attack. I'll watch the other videos and comment as I see fit.

The reason I chose not to really go into CoH in the article is because it's even more straying away from RTS that DoW does. DoW has significantly more base management and is still trying to be an RTS, but also trying to be an RTT. So, you're singing to the choir, here.

Almost every 1v1 I've ever played is victory points; it's the common setup I imagine. So it would be considered the competitive standard, am I correct?

BfME2... dear lord. I'm not even going there.

[TerranUp16]

xD I liked BFME 1 a lot better, lol.  BFME 2 is definitely up there as being one of the worst RTS games I have ever played.

Other thing with CoH is that 1v1 isn't particularly as important or standardized as it is in SC.  As far as "competitive standard" (shrug).  Victory Points have a tendency of opening a game up more and making it more lively as it doesn't allow for nearly as much hunkering down as the most important pieces of land to control are on contested ground.  It also shortens the length of the games, as CoH Annihilation can take quite a very long time between good players.

For SoaSE, it's an RTS but why it's beyond the scope of the article I feel is that its primary purpose is to put a real-time face on what ultimately is a TBS game, and that is the yardstick I measure it by.  Also, for combat, Entrenchment did wonders.  On the surface, it sounds like it would inspire more turtling but it actually encourages more activity in games as better defenses free-up players' fleets to go on the offensive more often and good tactics and strategy are much more important now (space stations also add a nice wrench into the logistical side of things as well).  I think it will really start to come into its own with the next XP which is going to target diplomacy.

[IskatuMesk]

I've played entrenchment regularly. I actually own it. Shocking, huh?

Sins is a decent game, but it could sure have used a year or more in solid development. No moving turrets, damage that isn't synced to weapons at all, ect... it's really incomplete, but the micro expansions should help it out. Entrenchment definitely helped it out a LOT.

What did this AI update do for CoH? I might look at trying it again if the AI is a lot better than it was before (first try and I just steamrolled it with tigers...).

[TerranUp16]

Non-rotating turrets is annoying but I've never really figured out if that's part of their aim to make the game run well on low-end systems or just lack of dev time (even if it were the latter I'd have thought they'd have put in the effort by now...).

For CoH, the AI update improved the AI's usage of special abilities mostly but in CoH that makes a big difference (particularly for the Panzer Elite's infantry).

[IskatuMesk]

I wonder if anyone's made an AI mod. In order to get a challenge out of DoW, I had to take advantage of my beta testing position for Dawn of Skirmish and write my own insane scripts to use vehicle rushes and stuff.

[Magic]

By the way TU16: If you haven't bought TOV yet, then please hesitate. The new 'campaigns' are simply 3 short maps apiece (Of 3 in total). They're interesting but are over very quickly. Only one map is used apiece, similarly to Dawn of War 2. I've done the Tiger Ace and Paratrooper campaigns, only the regular Wehrmacht one is left, but I can't believe how short they are, especially compared to OF.

Let's take the Tiger Ace one as an example - the first level has you assaulting a town but it's a complete steamroll (The Brit Fireflies lose 98% of their health in one shot), then next you have to escape after the tank is disabled (A neat 5 man squad affair as you flee the village while the Brits are now digging in) and afterwards you return with another Tiger Ace and a regular Tiger. You get a medal if you capture the village (5 victory points) in 20 minutes. I did it in 9.

There is a cool tech tree but I had 3/4 of the Tiger Ace one by the end of the first level.

I haven't tried the new multiplayer options, they look fun but it appears there's only one map for each. The whole expansion pack feels like a newbie's guide to COH or possibly the equivalent of DLC content.

[TerranUp16]

I bought ToV the day it came out on Impulse (Impulse FTW).  Anyway, I've played through the first two campaigns (Tiger Ace and Causeway) and am halfway through the Falaise Pocket.

The first mission of the Tiger Ace campaign is excessively easy but upon further evaluation, imo, it is purposefully so.  Relic wanted you to feel the power of the Tiger and its devastating impact and that more or less sets-up the second two missions.  The second Tiger Ace mission I liked a lot- I had my three-man squad pick-up an LMG-42 and my two-man squad pick-up a Panzershreck to between those and then the artillery it was a tactical fiesta xD  The final mission brought it all together as you faced tougher opposition but had two Tigers and having that second Tiger allowed for some *real* tactics as opposed to the first mission which, to get the most out of it, you needed to play it like an isometric Crysis... Anyway, having infantry support really helped the last mission finally take-on an interesting and believable feel with you in a specific role and with troopers' lives depending on your support.

The Causeway I liked a lot once again because of the two very different infantry squads you commanded so there were always a lot of tactical options available.  The Falaise Pocket thus far is the toughest... The first mission has you defending Panzers against American attack waves (you need to keep the Americans from spotting the Panzers and calling in air support) and it gets frustrating mostly because you don't have quite enough time to prepare and your preparation is split between "waking" Axis forces from disparate houses and crap and actually preparing.  You only have enough population to really fend-off one front of attack (on Xpert) and there are three fronts that the Allies attack from, sequentially (though the order is randomized) and they switch between those quickly so I had to restart dozens of times from previous saves to try and react quickly enough to those shifts.

The second Falaise Pocket mission seems to be another defense one where the Panzers are out but now those outposts you awoke the last mission are under attack and it is just a brutal, wave after wave after wave after wave assault.  I haven't gotten to the third mission yet.  On Xpert, the Falaise Pocket missions are tough.

Anyway, by extension I haven't gotten to the Operations yet either nor have I gotten to try out the new units.  Annoyingly, ToV seems to have an issue w/nVidia's current drivers and has a penchant for crashing them.  Luckily, in Vista, that just means the game crashes because the driver auto-recovers.  I shudder for anyone playing on XP.

However, what I'm hearing is that the new swap-in units are having a mostly positive impact.  The Hellcat is very useful against the Panzer Elite and the GW is proving interesting as well.  The Operations I've heard mixed opinions on but they are basically just like WC3 custom maps.  Also, it seems like Relic will update those via patches w/new maps so only having one map for each atm isn't an issue.

I don't really think it's CoH for noobs or even particularly DLC content- there's plenty of content provided (many XP's get away with half a campaign and a single new unit per a side but ToV gives a good account on the campaign side and the swap-in units make a difference- even if you don't use them, playing against or with someone who does still changes the game a bit).  It's just more that Relic took ToV as a chance to experiment.  Instead of having the balance issues they had with DoW thanks to all the expansions and requisite inclusion of additional units, they are testing out swap-in units instead.  They are also testing out a different way of handling campaigns and also the viability of expanding MP mode options.  It's a test entry whose results will shape future XP's (Relic has stated that they want to continue expanding on CoH w/stand-alone XP's like Opposing Fronts rather than releasing a few XP's and then a sequel as instead of making a giant leap between CoH 1 and CoH 2 they want to make small, iterative leaps with XP's instead).

[Curcuit Broken]

Just throwing my 2 cents in.

I decided to play a skirmish one day on one of DoW Vanilla's original maps (Which was displayed as one of the two maps available in it's demo), and it brought back memories of the day when Dawn of War was still coming out.

I spent 10 hours downloading that demo on Dial Up.

I had a lingering memory of the Firewarrior Campaign in my head, and all I could imagine was the ferocity of gunfights that the game was going to make us focus on with it's 'Cover system' which I've never heard of in any RTS games previously.

Long story short. What the hell happened to the devs? I played an old skirmish and fell in love with the idea of the game again, but then all the maps developed for DC were total fucking poop.





wait just one more

The Company of Heroes first expansion complemented the old armies well.

I've never had SO MANY TIGER TANKS. The Bergetiger can revive Tiger and King Tiger husks, even after you've purchased or summed a new Tiger (King Tigers don't respawn).

I'm not sure how Tales of Valor works, but your reviews make it seem like the Devs kind of slacked off. (They just lose the steam to make fluffy content after the first expansion.)

[IskatuMesk]

After watching all of the videos magic posted, I have the following to say.

It's pretty clear to me that there is a huge difference in general skill level between upper-end CoH and upper-end SC which is I think what really separates these two games apart, even moreso than being an RTT and an RTS. In CoH, you can spend significant amounts of time just doing nothing or waiting for something to happen; in SC, after the first minute, you're ALWAYS doing something. Always. Another thing that sets the two apart is the aforementioned huge drop in micro necessity for CoH; micro is very simple, in part because of extremely simple terrain, in part because of squad mechanics, and in part because of the counter system. There's also firing accuracy and stuff like that but I don't feel like making a terranup blog.

I think the reason for this is because CoH was never designed to be a very demanding game. The fact that it's team-based says it all right there; the individual skills of the players don't mean as much as their co-operation as a team. The one guy in the third video was probably the strongest player out of all of the videos but even then he was getting seriously screwed at points by bad co-ordination.

CoH is more of a casual game, which isn't to say SC is an exclusively hardcore game, otherwise there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of players still playing it.

But RTT is naturally a casual genre anyway because it doesn't really demand the player to be a master of multitasking or micro.

That's what I believe the defining differences to be at the core level.

[TerranUp16]

Not really sure I'd say it's casual... CoH places more emphasis on thinking rather than constant execution.  It's like comparing Red Orchestra to Unreal Tournament.  CoH isn't a "sport" per se like StarCraft is where athleticism w/the mouse/keyboard will help you much.  Certainly, for minute-to-minute gameplay, StarCraft *is* more exciting for that precise reason, just as UT is more exciting than Red Orchestra.  But like Red Orchestra, CoH brings a different experience to the table and a different skill emphasis.

On a side note, got to play Operation Stonewall at the LAN yesterday.  In some respects, I was rather impressed.  It's not just a slapshod capitalization on custom survival maps as all custom CoH survival maps I have played focus on giving the player tons of resources, high population caps, and a lot of units.  It's very much a meat grinder.

Stonewall though, it's a different beast.  It's still survival and there are still a lot of units involved.  But it stays true to the foundations of Tales of Valor (whether you agree with those foundations or not) about doing more with less.  There were three of us and two of us started going for armor and the last of us went with infantry.  The first few waves are fodder, but after that you are faced with larger forces than sheer brute force or defensive positioning can deal with.  I started with two Armored Cars and worked my way up to wielding two Armored Cars and two M10 Wolverines.  A fairly effective force but even with the Armored Cars being fully-upgraded, very vulnerable to infantry.  I generally found that to really deal with waves, it was necessary to micromanage the positioning of my vehicles precisely and to use alternate routes to flank the enemy and really, despite it being a "survival" mode, there is little hunkering down to be done.  The mode still enforces the usage of tactics and it works well.  By the end, my Armored Cars and M10's had been wiped-out but I had managed to amass three Pershings.  Seems like overkill, but against and equal amount of Tigers and Panthers on top of that... it takes a lot of acute tactical decisions and maneuvers to survive.  By the end, only my Pershings remained of all our forces and while my Pershings survived, they all were within one shot of death.  A matter of attack-moving to the enemy force, it was not.