Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tilla]

Come to think of it, MoW also has a better vehicle system IMO. And since when has difficulty been a downside?

When a game wants to sell at levels large enough to justify their budgets, being too difficult even on the lowest setting repels more people than it attracts.

But again: they're completely different games that happen to share a similar historic setting.

[head]

I'm hoping that the Essence Engine from DoW 2 has been revamped again. The physics, terrain destruction and deformation of CoH were years ahead of their time, and still haven't been duplicated. DoW 2's engine was a big disappointment in all three of those categories, and if I'm not punching holes into buildings with tanks or pounding a 15-foot deep hole in the ground with artillery I'll be one very sad commander.

It called Men Of War, and it outdid it so bad it hurts.

non the less COH was a really fun game and i still pick it up and play a few skirmish

[nenjin]

That's what I've heard about MoW too, that it takes difficulty to unfun levels. I can take 2 hours to play a map in Company of Heroes because I play defensively and like to advanced meticulously. A map in MoW can take 2 hours because you keep repeatedly getting wiped out. I've heard horror stories from MoW: Vietnam about choppers having infra-vision and chasing squads through the jungles murdering them wholesale.

I've been moments from buying the game several times and then I think back to many reviews of it and think....yeah that just sounds a little too annoying.

Meanwhile, CoH can be pretty difficult on hard but it's mainly because there's just so much to do, so much ground to defend and the AI gets your standard resource cheat. So when the Axis AI has Tier 3 veterans in the first 8 minutes of the game and your squads haven't even gained experience yet.....it gets brutal. I like that in CoH at a game at medium difficulty is winnable but you have to work for it.

[Oliolli]

I think Tilla is right here, one shouldn't compare CoH and MoW. It's like comparing CoD and Red Orchestra.

That's unfair... I really like CoH. It' just that I like MoW even more.

[nenjin]

That's a comparison I can get behind. Red Orchestra's game play is not for your average gamer.

[Tilla]

I'd say it's more ARMA 2 with ACE mod vs CoD

[Oliolli]

Yeah, Men of War can get difficult. I just beat the second US mission in Assault Sqaud on Normal. I killed 1759 enemy soldiers and destroyed 100 enemy vehicles. I lost 357 soldiers and 53 vehicles. NORMAL DIFFICULTY

It was a friggin' war of attrition with finite resources against an enemy with infinite resources. That is why the level took hours to beat.

Regarding those choppers in MoW: Vietnam, the enemy has choppers in only a few missions, and even then they can be shot down quite easily.

[umiman]

I think the simple fact is that Men of War's mechanics are more advanced and thus more engaging once you overcome the difficulty curve.

But Company of Heroes will always have the best damn goddamn campaign.

Well...

The first one...

The rest kinda sucked...

[Oliolli]

the best damn goddamn

Hilarious.

[nenjin]

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/company-of-heroes-2/1224430p1.html

There's some official coverage on CoH 2 from Gamespy. Doesn't really add to anything we don't already know other than "Russia!" and "KABOOM!"

[nenjin]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/11/company-of-heroes-2-is-happening-weve-seen-it/

RPS has gotten to see the game and will be posting their article about it sometime next week.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Men Of War inf only, trumps CoH. It's really not that difficult, the campaign is simply bleh, multiplayer is where it's at, and as far as MOW goes its alot lets spammy

[nenjin]

Here's dat der RPS depth piece I mentioned a while back: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/22/first-look-company-of-heroes-2/#more-108753

It's a meaty read, although it doesn't really tell you anything you can't already guess. Apparently the Skirmish AI and the Campaign AI are now one in the same, so CoH 2 will rely on far fewer scripted events than CoH 1. Relic claims this means the AI will react to your strategy rather than just plow into it.

If there's one thing the article makes clear, is that the level of detail that made CoH so good is back and possibly even doubled down on in CoH 2. There was no mention of physics or destructible terrain though, and that has me slightly worried.

[nenjin]

Here's a (significantly less meaty) article from Gamespy on the game.

[nenjin]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/04/eastern-promises-company-of-heroes-2-interview/#more-110678

A decent sit down by RPS with a couple of the game devs. I really like that they seem to get exactly what I loved about CoH. It wasn't the balance, it wasn't necessarily even the deep tactics, it was the sense of immersion, the scale and how it made your troops feel like more than just faceless bots you pump out of the barracks. The devs take the time to mention some specific parts that relate to terrain destruction, leaving me feeling that the level and precision of destruction we had in CoH will finally be returning.

I especially liked this quote:

When we talk about the sequel, in some ways it’s not new, we’re not taking the game in a completely radical direction, it’s a bunch of really cool new features and a lot more authentic. More environmental destruction, more tactical gameplay. That feels like a Company of Heroes sequel.

Maybe this makes me old fashioned, but I appreciate when a devs doesn't try to re-write half their game because they're doing a sequel. In contrast to "I don't like paying for the same game twice", some games are so good you really just want what you had, plus more. CoH is one of those titles to me.