>>2415715 The universal hotkey layout, the ability for infantry to go over certain obstacles, manual reverse on vehicles, able to reinforce multiple squads at once, manual setting of MG team fire arcs in buildings.
Those are the ones I can think of.
That said, there's enough things that CoH1 did a lot better that CoH2 can sometimes feel like a sidegrade. CoH1 has a better campaign (only the main one), the field barracks, a better support power system and -debatably- better sound and atmosphere. That's kind of it.
>>2415697 Absolutely, and had they leaned even further with the "blizzard-tech", I'd have put it first. Alas, Relic acquiesced to the compniggers, and we all know how that ended.
>>2415701 >>2415742 You are missing TrueSight and zone of control for control points (debatable, but it is one of the few things I prefer in Coh 2)
Make no mistake, I think all of those things you mentioned are really nice, but I don't think their lack in CoH makes it bad to play. It's a bit inconvenient, that's all. And I'm very sorry, but the doctrine system is FAR superior to the commander system.
>>2415743 >Gameplay Only if we're talking about multiplayer. There's no way in hell you can consider 2's and ESPECIALLY 3's campaign better than 1's. The Theater of War and the Ardennes Assault made up for the insanely bad base campaign in 2, but neither the strategic campaign nor the main campaign of 3 can in any sense of the word be considered good, or fun.
>>2415748 Eh, I still find the commander system better. You can pick 3 you like out of what, 7+? A bunch of commanders are certainly boring, like scopes on tanks but most are gamechanging with tons of cool options which can change the game from the start like assault squad, ostruppen, light truck etc. There's nothing wrong with CoH1 doctrines, but commanders simply ass more fun and variety.
>>2415762 Alright, I admit that I haven't played skirmish in CoH 2 like, at all. I don't know why, I thought that commanders had to be picked BEFORE the match, and I was writing a huge-ass post about how picking your doctrine after the match had started gave it a strategic depth that the commander system didn't have and yadda-yadda.
So just before posting I decided to open CoH 2 to take a look at the commanders, and it is then that I found the truth. Man, have I made a fool of myself.
Anyways, after taking a good look at the commanders I'm forced to admit that the system is, in fact, more versatile and varied. You win this fight, anon.
>>2415768 You have to slot in 3 before the match but then you can pick between them in the game, so you can hold it and counter-pick your opponent to a degree. The big complaint that is half-valid about commanders is they were paid content when the game came out, but they have given most/all of them away, had sales and are earnable for free by playing so I don't really credit it these days.
>>2415768 >>2415775 anon here>>2415742 I still prefer doctrines in general because they just feel more fleshed out with greater emphasis on the abilities. CoH2 has so many more abilities but there is so much overlap and redundancy I wish the devs had built out the commanders into proper power trees like some mods do. We could have had something a bit more similar to Command & Conquer's extensive support powers. I feel like most players just end up choosing like >Soviets Whatever has Guards/Shocks/T34-85 to beef out your otherwise fragile line. Unless you want to meme around with static arty like ML-20 or B4 >Wehrmacht Whatever has Tigers/Asgrens/G43s for very killy Pzgrens and lategame punch. Unless again, you want the static LFH18 or Pak 43 I don't have the DLCs for the US/OKW/UK, so I can't speak to their factions.
>>2415748 >There's no way in hell you can consider 2's and ESPECIALLY 3's campaign better than 1's If I were in charge of Coh3 I'd make the new battlegroups farmable with merit and instead gate some new singleplayer content behind DLC. Like, I know it's extra work, but there's no way the devtools are so bad they can't make some quick basic scenarios to entice the PvE players: >Free French wave defence where at the end you counterattack with chars >New commando infiltration mission >Tiger ace with OP abilities where you have to clear a level alone >Sturmtiger town siege with a time limit Just something to showcase where the battlegroups shine and give compstompers the fantasy it promises
>>2415748 2's campaign is FUCKED because all the multiplayer patch changes apply to it in some schizo way so none of the weapons do appropriate damage anymore. The base campaign was inferior to 1, but the US ardennes campaign was superior, just a little.
>>2415865 >because all the multiplayer patch changes apply to it in some schizo way There's a couple of bugs I've noticed mostly with tech changes but >so none of the weapons do appropriate damage anymore I'm pretty sure campaign units are "frozen" in their launch state so that devs don't have to rebalance the campaigns when they change something else. If you play the soviet campaign you will still see some CoH1 leftovers like tanks taking crit damages instead of dying when at low health for example.
>>2415846 >>2415775 Basically they didn't learn a fucking thing going into DoW3 and when they "overhauled" the unlocks system in 2 they just made it criminally slow to unlock anything "by earning it in game"
Nothing can really replace panzer elite in my book. Other factions just can't compete. They have the best specialized trees and best tech. You can literally do anything you want
>>2415865 Relic does this thing where the singleplayer and multiplayer balance are on their own versions. Multiplayer patches don't apply to singleplayer. However, this also means that good balance never applies to singleplayer.
>>2417721 For me it's 3. DAK is my favorite because it's all about speed and punishing bad positioning. CoH3's wehr is not bad either, their tech is split in the middle is limiting but they have good units in general and fun doctrines.
CoH3 was made by low IQ people, women, and fags. That's why it sucks. Because the new generation of developers are bad at their job. They are stupid at game design. And they are assholes just like the small minority of fans that defend their dogshit game.
Do people defend Coh3 because they are all new to the series and this is the version they know? I don't get it. Coh was one of the most fun RTS to watch and play. Then Coh3 dropped and the community was full of nazis in 2023 who began this culture of toxic positivity. Half the youtube casters quit. The entire community is a shell of it's former self.
>>2417816 Because the developers are stupid. They fired the people who worked on hard on their early games and sometime after or during Coh2 they, being a canadian company, hired idiots because of DEI. Just like every game in the industry. The developers are bad. The OGs who made all the good games in the 00s and early 2010s were ousted from the industry.
>>2417794 CoH1 is good but it's only better than CoH3 if you never played any CoH at any level besides skirmishes and campaign. >"but muh 3 years old launch day screenshot of low setting tigers!!!!" Yeah cool bro but if you actually played PvP you'd know that CoH3 is just better in almost every way that matters and also the only one that's playable nowadays.
Really, it's just CoH with a very slightly different gameplay (less different than most CoH1 mods I'd argue) but with many QoL and an active playerbase
>>2415768 >>2415775 Well the good thing is most of the meta commander is you get it from the start. Soviet with Motor Guards and Defensive Wehr with Jaeger Armor and Mechanized USF with Airborne and Infantry OKW with Spec Ops and Breakthrough UKF with Royal Engineer and Royal Artillery
>>2415775 >3 or so bucks for commanders that you can buy individually We didn't know how good we had it, 3 has a better commander system imo but it sucks to be forced to buy commanders in a bundle when most people probably don't play all factions or are interested in all commanders.
>>2415775 >>2419001 Commanders are 4 bucks. And the idea that they've "given them away for free" is laughably false both in practice and in the fact you'd have to play thousands of hours to get them anyway.
Ironically, early adopters of the game suffered most, because the complete edition that includes all commanders, and you can't even buy anymore, came out years after the fact.
>>2419327 They have literally had events where the commander was free. You just claimed them, no playing required. I understand some people have CoH2DS but it really isn't an issue.
>>2419339 Literally never happened. The base game they've given away a few times, there are a couple of newsletter commanders, but that's it. They've done "free weekend" type shit with commanders, but they remove them when it's over.
>game has been out for 3 years >game is still being patched What's the point of buying a game if you are just beta testing a game that is incomplete. You are all paying for a beta test. Games are not meant to be balanced after they release. That should come from testing.
>>2421289 It's fucking retarded. Game is set in Africa and Italy and you can't even play the Italians. You get some kind of bastardized German faction instead
>>2421739 You have been brain washed to expect this notion of serious competitive RTS. Company of Heroes 1 was great because it never tried to be serious. Company of heroes 3 fails because it tries to be some e-sports bullshit. You have virgins crying about balance when that should not be the priority. Games should be made to be fun and then left alone. You develop meta around what is good or not. You don't change the game to change the meta.
>>2421742 I haven't been brainwashed by anything. Starcraft and warcraft 3 are timeless classics because there's no microtransaction jewry going on. Because there's no microtransaction jewry a long lasting competitive community could emerge that keeps the game alive for 20+ years. CoH will never have that. People will still play CoH1 artillery compstomp grinds way past the inevitable end of service for CoH2 and 3
>>2421771 Red Alert 2 one of the most beloved RTS games of all time.. the most efficient way to win is to spam tier 1 tanks and screen with attack dogs. Same argument. Game is still great.... that's just how it goes. Games don't need the rules to constantly change like it's the NFL.
>>2421742 >Company of heroes 3 fails because it tries to be some e-sports bullshit People who don't play games desperately want this to be true but in reality CoH3 is constantly being balanced for team games and there's a lot of content which has become unviable in compfag-tier 1v1 because team game abuse got it nerfed.
>>2421833 because CoH3 is for casuals. It's for playing team games and being in your safe space. It's a game about your units never wiping because they don't want to hurt your feelings.
>>2422072 The DLC for CoH2 is bad but so is CoH3. The difference is Sega made it a AAA game. Coh3 is not a AAA game. CoH2 has depth Coh3 can't touch. CoH2 has soviets. CoH2 has better path finding and unit control and abilities. CoH2 has more complexity.
People defending COH2 commanders are what I like to call suckers. They got suckered into buying these mini P2W items and now must endlessly defend them as a good design decision in order to be able to tell themselves they didn't buy into a P2W fomo scheme.