View Full Version : company of heroes

12-12-2009, 02:16 PM
Anyone play it awesum

12-12-2009, 03:44 PM
Anyone play it awesum

ive heard of it but ive never actually played it, is it really that awesome?

12-12-2009, 04:01 PM
Heard about it as a very good game, but never played it =). I am not fan of future or modernish like time of playing. Fantasy ftw!

Henry Martin
12-12-2009, 04:45 PM
I've played COH. It is a great game, but the only thing I don't like is that you have to capture points to get resources to get more units. I am not a fan of the build/gather resources to get more units. If you have a massive game like the total war series then I don't mind it. One thing I like about it is the units take cover behind objects. I wish more RTSs have the unit automaticly take cover behind objects (if its in the right time period) instead of staying in the open to die.

12-13-2009, 02:36 AM
I've been playing it recently, it's a great game and it has a really good WW2 atmosphere:)

12-13-2009, 02:51 AM
i have played to but want expansion oppsefisng front or something like that
than i can play with britains and they are good defenders

12-13-2009, 06:09 AM
The trouble with CoH is that it can't incorporate aerial combat too well, even if the developers tried to introduce it into an expansion. This was Britain's greatest asset (besides Radar).

12-30-2009, 10:57 AM
I don't know what happened with this game for me but I loved it when it came out. Now I cant get it to work online for some reason I get terrible ping and lose connection all the time it sucks hard.

Joseph Visscher
12-30-2009, 11:08 AM
Great game amazing physics and graphics. but the resource system is a let down, its more of a simulator then a true RTS because it's removed 2 major RTS tactics, Rushing and Turtling. you can only Steamroll to win, if you rush or turtle your dead.

In general I do not like the resource system, I'd rather it be something you build or gather, that does not necessarily make you have to take land to get richer. Some may disagree, but thats what I feel turned me off that game within a month.

12-30-2009, 12:19 PM
Anyone play it awesum

If you say CoH is awesome, then you sure have to try Men of War (http://menofwargame.com/mow/scr.phtml). :D

Josh Warner
01-01-2010, 10:30 PM
If you say CoH is awesome, then you sure have to try Men of War (http://menofwargame.com/mow/scr.phtml). :D

I really didn't like Men of War at all. I quite enjoyed CoH though.

01-01-2010, 11:18 PM
One thing I like about it is the units take cover behind objects. I wish more RTSs have the unit automaticly take cover behind objects (if its in the right time period) instead of staying in the open to die.

Ill haft to disagree or prove a point, the games engines for video games is not strong/big enough for having something like supreme tactics with build orders and such. There's a great example since Dawn of War 2 was a let down because of its lack of maps and respective game play. My onion is that dawn of war 2 was a let down because it lacked creativity and creating custom bases and such to the players rather to take in all these tactics that would **** people up if they didn't understand. You got to put certain things in to concept and not just the focuses of supreme tactics.

01-03-2010, 08:35 AM
i wonder what a rts game combined with the game-play of a fps game would be like, i mean consider using Arma 2 as strategic overview to control everything. I wonder if the game would be more "Real-like" if that were to happen, i mean every single soldier can do a difference if he is at the right place at the right time:D i mean for instance if a soldier at CoH would stand behind a corner with his gun aimed at the place where another soldier emerge, there would be a 50/50 % chance that the soldier who stood ready for the other would die.

I mean there are some small tactics here and there like flanking and sending a tank before you rush in with your squads to take a fortified position. But! What if a single soldier could actually kill 10 soldiers he meet by shooting better or by luck! that would be awesome! i wonder if any games got something like that, and its also annoying that soldiers don't die when hit by a rocket launcher...

CoH got a good strategic defence but the offense part is really bad, i mean i love constructing defences, but i hate attacking since if the other one dont construct defences you die and if he does then you die even worse. Also you cant take care of impregnable fortresses with tanks and infantry alone. Ohh well it is possible if you sacrifice your tanks but then your enemy just need a single machinegunner and all your sacrifices are for nothing, too bad really if they just had the possibility to take control of a single person or had like real fps integrated with the game perhaps a hundred soldiers could take down a single machingunner without flanking him:)

I wonder if my speeches goes to the top of your boring lists if so you Dont really have to read it:)

01-03-2010, 09:32 AM
Chain of Command is what your looking for ;).

Havent played it in a long time but its basically this.

You control 4 soldiers, 5 vs 5 (for instance), (so 20 soldiers vs 20 soldiers). Your troops cant get spread out too much so you have to divide.

But heres the interesting part: shooting at someone faraway gives like 1% chance of killing, if he's just standing far away its like 5%, if he's running tis like 3%.

If your taking cover behind a window and someone passes that window its like 99% chance you kill him. (And less when in between those examples but im sure you get the picture)

There is a good gun but its like 2 for each team (and you can loot em) + some close range weapons.

Added with some tactical grenading (each soldier gets 5 and no looting of nades) and you got a nice game right there.

Its 2d though. (Pretty much anyway) but its free
http://www.chain-hq.com/ is their site.

Got a pretty big learning curve last I remember but most of the experienced fellows are prepared to help a newb out, nice community in that way.