heys guys just wanna know yor thoughts on the game.......
Poll
Is Company Of Heroes A Good Game?
| excellent! | 67% | 67% - 44 | ||||
| good | 16% | 16% - 11 | ||||
| ok | 6% | 6% - 4 | ||||
| bad | 4% | 4% - 3 | ||||
| just plain crap? | 4% | 4% - 3 | ||||
| Total: 65 | ||||||
Excellent. Very, very excellent.
I'm not a fan of RTS games but even I thought it was good. A bit of rushing around the screen to help troops in peril but that's standard with most RTS games and it doesn't get in the way of the enjoyment.
If you like RTS games you'll enjoy it. If you don't like RTS games you'll still probably enjoy it.
If you like RTS games you'll enjoy it. If you don't like RTS games you'll still probably enjoy it.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
well ive been playing it since the original beta, and pretty much own using any command tree.
Played Closed Beta and it was pretty good.
One of the best rts games
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
It is quite a game.
I recommend getting the original, and not Opposing Fronts one, since OF has a steeper learning curve.
Edit: Of course, you could get the Gold pack which has both games.
I recommend getting the original, and not Opposing Fronts one, since OF has a steeper learning curve.
Edit: Of course, you could get the Gold pack which has both games.
Last edited by DefCon-17 (2008-09-24 21:58:10)
its awesome (im getting OF tmrow )
I think this is one of the greatest PC games ever...
-the graphics are so good and yet are VERY scalable so people with a wide range of systems can still play
-the sounds, often overlooked in RTS's, are great...it may have more unit sounds than any other game I've ever seen, and some are hilarious
-physics engine that would give Newton a boner
-it's a game that focuses on tactics at least as much as overall strategy (there's still strategy, sure, but it's a lot smaller scale than a game like Supreme Commander, and the resources are more concerned with strategic control of points/areas than actually having to focus time on harvesting a resource or produce it through the tedious micromanagement of building a base...)
-singleplayer campaigns are quite decent, and skirmish can be fun, but online multiplayer is really fun in this game
-you get to kill the goddamn Nazi's (or play them if you're into that)
I have heard some people say that it's "too hard", and that's just against normal computer AI in skirmish mode (lol)...that's the only complaint I've heard about it from people I know personally, but they are not really big RTS gamers, so I dismiss that criticism completely.
Seriously I played C&C 3 after playing this game for awhile and was completely unimpressed...Supreme Commander is good, but it's a completely different style...I think this is a great RTS for people who like faster-paced action in their games.
-the graphics are so good and yet are VERY scalable so people with a wide range of systems can still play
-the sounds, often overlooked in RTS's, are great...it may have more unit sounds than any other game I've ever seen, and some are hilarious
-physics engine that would give Newton a boner
-it's a game that focuses on tactics at least as much as overall strategy (there's still strategy, sure, but it's a lot smaller scale than a game like Supreme Commander, and the resources are more concerned with strategic control of points/areas than actually having to focus time on harvesting a resource or produce it through the tedious micromanagement of building a base...)
-singleplayer campaigns are quite decent, and skirmish can be fun, but online multiplayer is really fun in this game
-you get to kill the goddamn Nazi's (or play them if you're into that)
I have heard some people say that it's "too hard", and that's just against normal computer AI in skirmish mode (lol)...that's the only complaint I've heard about it from people I know personally, but they are not really big RTS gamers, so I dismiss that criticism completely.
Seriously I played C&C 3 after playing this game for awhile and was completely unimpressed...Supreme Commander is good, but it's a completely different style...I think this is a great RTS for people who like faster-paced action in their games.
I'm going to go with good. I have a few nitpicks that prevents it from getting excellent.
1) No Japanese or Soviets, even after the expansion.
2) Small number of maps, even after the expansion. I know you can download more, but there's not much to choose from in the defaults.
3) Too much emphasis on off-map rare armor. It's sometimes cheaper to call that shit into battle than use more common pieces of machinery.
4) Few ways to pinpoint enemy artillery as Axis, whereas the British get counter-battery.
5) I know it's a WW2 game, but you should be able to, for variety sake, see how different combos fare against each other. US and Wehrmacht vs British and Panzer Elite, anyone?
6) No free-for-all mode.
7) Limited terrain. As per no Japanese, this game doesn't cover anything in the Pacific, but it should have at least gone into Africa.
1) No Japanese or Soviets, even after the expansion.
2) Small number of maps, even after the expansion. I know you can download more, but there's not much to choose from in the defaults.
3) Too much emphasis on off-map rare armor. It's sometimes cheaper to call that shit into battle than use more common pieces of machinery.
4) Few ways to pinpoint enemy artillery as Axis, whereas the British get counter-battery.
5) I know it's a WW2 game, but you should be able to, for variety sake, see how different combos fare against each other. US and Wehrmacht vs British and Panzer Elite, anyone?
6) No free-for-all mode.
7) Limited terrain. As per no Japanese, this game doesn't cover anything in the Pacific, but it should have at least gone into Africa.
The storyline is about normandyunnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm going to go with good. I have a few nitpicks that prevents it from getting excellent.
7) Limited terrain. As per no Japanese, this game doesn't cover anything in the Pacific, but it should have at least gone into Africa.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Well there is another expansion rumoured that is coming early next year called tales of valour.
Who knows what extra armies they will add.
Who knows what extra armies they will add.
HAHAHA lol.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
-physics engine that would give Newton a boner
Yea its a wicked game, i really like the snipers and how they say different things when their spotter is dead. Little things like that make a game for me
Though obviously I can't really disagree with you on any points because they are facts, you have the perspective of a more traditional RTS player. Much of the reason I like the game is that it holds much historical accuracy in the teams and what they are good at. For example of course powerful, low-quantity tanks benefit Axis, that was one of their primary strengths. Of course Allied artillery rapes, compared to the Axis forces that was a major asset. I like the game a lot and find there to be a lot of depth in each army and especially in each army pairing. (there are at least three valid ways to play U.S./British or P.E./Wehrmacht)unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm going to go with good. I have a few nitpicks that prevents it from getting excellent.
1) No Japanese or Soviets, even after the expansion.
2) Small number of maps, even after the expansion. I know you can download more, but there's not much to choose from in the defaults.
3) Too much emphasis on off-map rare armor. It's sometimes cheaper to call that shit into battle than use more common pieces of machinery.
4) Few ways to pinpoint enemy artillery as Axis, whereas the British get counter-battery.
5) I know it's a WW2 game, but you should be able to, for variety sake, see how different combos fare against each other. US and Wehrmacht vs British and Panzer Elite, anyone?
6) No free-for-all mode.
7) Limited terrain. As per no Japanese, this game doesn't cover anything in the Pacific, but it should have at least gone into Africa.
I'll agree with you there, but historical accuracy devolves when you stop seeing Panzer IV's and have to fight an unlimited tide of...Hetzers. If the waves were be limited as per King Tiger, if in a less-stringent manner. You'd begin to see more conservative tactics employed to preserve these treasures.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Though obviously I can't really disagree with you on any points because they are facts, you have the perspective of a more traditional RTS player. Much of the reason I like the game is that it holds much historical accuracy in the teams and what they are good at. For example of course powerful, low-quantity tanks benefit Axis, that was one of their primary strengths. Of course Allied artillery rapes, compared to the Axis forces that was a major asset. I like the game a lot and find there to be a lot of depth in each army and especially in each army pairing. (there are at least three valid ways to play U.S./British or P.E./Wehrmacht)unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm going to go with good. I have a few nitpicks that prevents it from getting excellent.
1) No Japanese or Soviets, even after the expansion.
2) Small number of maps, even after the expansion. I know you can download more, but there's not much to choose from in the defaults.
3) Too much emphasis on off-map rare armor. It's sometimes cheaper to call that shit into battle than use more common pieces of machinery.
4) Few ways to pinpoint enemy artillery as Axis, whereas the British get counter-battery.
5) I know it's a WW2 game, but you should be able to, for variety sake, see how different combos fare against each other. US and Wehrmacht vs British and Panzer Elite, anyone?
6) No free-for-all mode.
7) Limited terrain. As per no Japanese, this game doesn't cover anything in the Pacific, but it should have at least gone into Africa.
Edit: And not all armies have spectacular units. All the rangers I've ever seen in the late patches are cannon fodder. It reminds me of BF2's F35 hitbox.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-09-25 02:24:55)
Panzer IV Inf Support tanks you mean?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'll agree with you there, but historical accuracy devolves when you stop seeing Panzer IV's and have to fight an unlimited tide of...Hetzers. If the waves were be limited as per King Tiger, if in a less-stringent manner. You'd begin to see more conservative tactics employed to preserve these treasures.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Though obviously I can't really disagree with you on any points because they are facts, you have the perspective of a more traditional RTS player. Much of the reason I like the game is that it holds much historical accuracy in the teams and what they are good at. For example of course powerful, low-quantity tanks benefit Axis, that was one of their primary strengths. Of course Allied artillery rapes, compared to the Axis forces that was a major asset. I like the game a lot and find there to be a lot of depth in each army and especially in each army pairing. (there are at least three valid ways to play U.S./British or P.E./Wehrmacht)unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm going to go with good. I have a few nitpicks that prevents it from getting excellent.
1) No Japanese or Soviets, even after the expansion.
2) Small number of maps, even after the expansion. I know you can download more, but there's not much to choose from in the defaults.
3) Too much emphasis on off-map rare armor. It's sometimes cheaper to call that shit into battle than use more common pieces of machinery.
4) Few ways to pinpoint enemy artillery as Axis, whereas the British get counter-battery.
5) I know it's a WW2 game, but you should be able to, for variety sake, see how different combos fare against each other. US and Wehrmacht vs British and Panzer Elite, anyone?
6) No free-for-all mode.
7) Limited terrain. As per no Japanese, this game doesn't cover anything in the Pacific, but it should have at least gone into Africa.
I suppose that's not completely historically accurate in their numbers, but that's just the section of the army they're fighting. Besides, Hetzers and StuH IVs (I think the only tanks you can call in multiple times on Axis) are really only good early game and in their very specific strong points (ambush and anti-infantry respectively), they are pretty easy to take down. Besides, the first time I see a hetzer I'm not worried about that tank, I'm worried about him getting double schrecks in 3 points.
Besides, those tanks are worth 600 MP each I believe...nothing to sneeze at. If they have that kind of manpower advantage over you then you're doing something wrong.
edit: U.S. Inf has fist of god artillery
One of the best RTS games ever made.
THE best RTS games ever made.
And i read somewhere the Company of Heroes 2 is in the works
And i read somewhere the Company of Heroes 2 is in the works
I bought it for £6 three weeks ago. So far I haven't even played 10 minutes of it. I've heard that the game takes little to no micro so if you like that sort of stuff in RTS, don't bother with MP.
they don't know what they're talking aboutFat_Swinub wrote:
I bought it for £6 three weeks ago. So far I haven't even played 10 minutes of it. I've heard that the game takes little to no micro so if you like that sort of stuff in RTS, don't bother with MP.
You bet your gay ass this is a great game.
Remember Me As A Time Of Day
It is excellent.
Get gold if you can.
Get gold if you can.
No it's true you need hardly any micro compared to other games.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
they don't know what they're talking aboutFat_Swinub wrote:
I bought it for £6 three weeks ago. So far I haven't even played 10 minutes of it. I've heard that the game takes little to no micro so if you like that sort of stuff in RTS, don't bother with MP.
Most of the skill in the game comes from learning all the counters for each unit and learning the maps inside out. On the 2v2 maps there are some houses that are so crucial to control that all 4 players will typically send units to it right at the start.
Seriously, if someone said this they HAD to be joking you...I can't think of a game that has better use of micro, at least from the standpoint of controlling units in an engagement...Fat_Swinub wrote:
I've heard that the game takes little to no micro so if you like that sort of stuff in RTS, don't bother with MP
Little to no micro in terms of base management, however, is relatively true...
Still, I don't think this game is any more simple than a game like Supreme Commander, its just based more on small scale engagements and small scale tactics.
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Last edited by -CARNIFEX-[LOC] (2008-09-25 14:08:56)
Well I played the demo prior and it seemed like you just order your units and they get into cover for you. Unlike say C&C where you need to reverse move units, scout properly to keep up with your opponents tech level, expand and gather more tib and know when to pull out or organise units so they can take out the enemy as fast as possible. In Company of Heroes you simply click the cover and the AI does the rest but that's just my experience from the demo, I haven't played MP at all and I could be completely wrong.