MoW and CoH 2 Reflections (Questions for MoW Players)
#1
10 years ago
Arcaster
Senior LieutenantPosts: 72 ✭✭
in Other Games
Let me preface by saying I'm a veteran CoH player and I love the original as well as CoH 2 greatly. This is not a pound-for-pound comparison thread but a reflection thread.
vCoH was, for me as an RTS player, the most realistic, pound-for-pound best war and strategy experience thanks to great graphics, excellent mechanics, and strategic gameplay. Let's not kid ourselves though; the best feature was the sound (British voice acting, anyone?). CoH 2 has continued this trend for me.
Now Men of War has been around for a long time now, but I recently got into Assault Squad, maybe a couple of months ago. That combined with the German Soldiers Mod has been an incredible, different experience. Incredible range on tanks, already using their version of the TrueSight system (i.e., realistic FoW), and unforgiving mechanics (one-shot tanks, great damage/penetration system, ambushes that wreck infantry). Now Assault Squad 2 is around the corner!
This isn't about one being better than the other. After reading through MoW forums, a lot of those players consider CoH 2 to be "arcade", which is a little discouraging to me. Obviously CoH 2 isn't true-to-life, and I assume this is a lot of the reason for the Blitzkrieg Mod for vCoH (which I also play and love).
My questions for the MoW players are:
1) What is it about CoH 2 that makes you play it along with/instead of MoW?
2) What features in MoW would you like to see in CoH 2? And what features from CoH 2 in MoW?
3) Do you feel CoH 2 is arcade?
4) With the TrueSight system, would you enjoy CoH 2 if all units had full-map range (maybe with reworked penetration/accuracy at longer ranges)?
5) Any other thoughts?
This isn't a "one is better than the other" argument, but I always would like to avoid "they're too different to compare". I know they're different, and they're both great games, but I can't help but feel like I would like CoH 2 a lot more if it kept some of the arcade features (tank combat simpler and slower) while adding some more intense features (infantry combat over much faster at minimum range, infantry combat over great distances, tank combat over greater distances).
So my answers:
1) CoH 2's slower and more forgiving pace let's me break from the intensity of MoW's punishing gameplay. I'm great at CoH 2 1v1, but I'm still really green in MoW. I find CoH 2 to be just as intense and adrenaline-pounding, but the time to react is much appreciated.
2) I'd like the TrueSight system to really be utilized by extending the range of vehicles and infantry greatly. Tanks shooting across the map as long as there isn't anything in the way sounds incredibly fun and tactical to me. Infantry fighting at longer ranges and more constant combat instead of running up to point-blank range sounds much more intense. I would also like to see something slightly closer to CoH 2's infantry combat mechanics in MoW as many of the units seem to have amazing accuracy at some decent ranges.
3) I never even had the thought cross my mind when I started vCoH, but, after playing MoW for some time, I get that feeling a lot, particularly with tanks and how the Flametrack can take two hits from an SU-85 (or 4 or 5 before the vet system was reworked as a vet 2 FT could withstand a nuclear device).
4) Absolutely.
I would really appreciate input from others.
vCoH was, for me as an RTS player, the most realistic, pound-for-pound best war and strategy experience thanks to great graphics, excellent mechanics, and strategic gameplay. Let's not kid ourselves though; the best feature was the sound (British voice acting, anyone?). CoH 2 has continued this trend for me.
Now Men of War has been around for a long time now, but I recently got into Assault Squad, maybe a couple of months ago. That combined with the German Soldiers Mod has been an incredible, different experience. Incredible range on tanks, already using their version of the TrueSight system (i.e., realistic FoW), and unforgiving mechanics (one-shot tanks, great damage/penetration system, ambushes that wreck infantry). Now Assault Squad 2 is around the corner!
This isn't about one being better than the other. After reading through MoW forums, a lot of those players consider CoH 2 to be "arcade", which is a little discouraging to me. Obviously CoH 2 isn't true-to-life, and I assume this is a lot of the reason for the Blitzkrieg Mod for vCoH (which I also play and love).
My questions for the MoW players are:
1) What is it about CoH 2 that makes you play it along with/instead of MoW?
2) What features in MoW would you like to see in CoH 2? And what features from CoH 2 in MoW?
3) Do you feel CoH 2 is arcade?
4) With the TrueSight system, would you enjoy CoH 2 if all units had full-map range (maybe with reworked penetration/accuracy at longer ranges)?
5) Any other thoughts?
This isn't a "one is better than the other" argument, but I always would like to avoid "they're too different to compare". I know they're different, and they're both great games, but I can't help but feel like I would like CoH 2 a lot more if it kept some of the arcade features (tank combat simpler and slower) while adding some more intense features (infantry combat over much faster at minimum range, infantry combat over great distances, tank combat over greater distances).
So my answers:
1) CoH 2's slower and more forgiving pace let's me break from the intensity of MoW's punishing gameplay. I'm great at CoH 2 1v1, but I'm still really green in MoW. I find CoH 2 to be just as intense and adrenaline-pounding, but the time to react is much appreciated.
2) I'd like the TrueSight system to really be utilized by extending the range of vehicles and infantry greatly. Tanks shooting across the map as long as there isn't anything in the way sounds incredibly fun and tactical to me. Infantry fighting at longer ranges and more constant combat instead of running up to point-blank range sounds much more intense. I would also like to see something slightly closer to CoH 2's infantry combat mechanics in MoW as many of the units seem to have amazing accuracy at some decent ranges.
3) I never even had the thought cross my mind when I started vCoH, but, after playing MoW for some time, I get that feeling a lot, particularly with tanks and how the Flametrack can take two hits from an SU-85 (or 4 or 5 before the vet system was reworked as a vet 2 FT could withstand a nuclear device).
4) Absolutely.
I would really appreciate input from others.
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
These two games are like day and night.
The setting and unit names are two things in common, but thats it, everything else is drastically different for these two games, you can't compare them directly in any other way then as WW2 RTS games, you also can't ask for features like that as, again, the games are completely different.
You could ask "what do you like in Spamcraft2 and what would you like implemented here" and it would make just as much sense.
Its impossible to compare them in any other way then saying you like one over another and why.
Wow, you can absolutely compare these two games. I'm just getting opinions from players of both and questioning the idea of a hybrid between them. You can compare anything, and even apples and oranges can be compared, though these are the same exact genre (WW2, RTS) so they're both apples..
if it was possible to make a hybrid game, it would take :
no inventory for each individual infantryman/squad system might remain as is. in CoH/2 - they could have ammunition bar like health which would go down with more ammo being fired, Possibly if cut out of supply - sector, these would start to drop.
buildable bases
engine that allows more units and bigger maps - greater units ranges, weaker bullets over distance as well as squad stances.
way superior vision system that allows bigger things to be seen at greater ranges compared to crawling infantry in craters
frontal, side and rear armor, also depending on angles - again MoW system being years ahead (Relic claimed frontal and rear armor would eventually 'even out' which didnt happen - you can guess why late game is a problem) Armor system makes for a much easier to counter most armor pieces, but you have to get used to not opening fire when spotting target at max range if its armor is worth anything.
- remove-rework most vet abilities/bonuses
anyway unit ranges are very map-dependant.
lots of different things, some good some bad ...
bad being the 1 shot from a counter and your unit you saved up for 20 minutes or lucky shot/bad AI turret facing, the fuel, ammunition micromanagement - resupplying being manual.
Direct control on vehicles being fun
problem with the complex sighting system was that you had to keep manual control to utilize turret sight that was a very good thing for long range spotting, (apart from sniper/officer binoculars) the AI couldnt be given orders- keep you turret rotating from here to here and such,most of the time exposing its weak turret side armor and bam there goes your tank.