CoH 2: Official

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[PonySlaystation]

base building. the end.

Base building isn't that different from building a company in EIR. It's just a way to select which units to use in battle.

As far as I know there is no persistency other than cosmetic stuff in multiplayer. And I am just assuming cosmetic upgrades will exist because they existed in DoW2

But the only persistency in EIR is veterancy and most players don't care about that or they only benefit heavy tanks and artillery.

[DarkSoldierX]

But the only persistency in EIR is veterancy and most players don't care about that or they only benefit heavy tanks and artillery.

You sort of forgot the whole doctrine selection part.

[PonySlaystation]

Permanent doctrine buffs only cause balance issues and limit user creativity. I don't think that's why people play EIR. I think it's because of the improved gameplay.

[Baine]

People play EIR because the focus is on unit micro and not base building/different sector(mun, fuel etc) capping. And no, you can't compare sector capping in EiR with sector capping in CoH(2).

[PonySlaystation]

I don't see why not. They share many similarities. Albeit the sectors will probably be smaller in COH2. It's the same concept. That you focus your units in one sector to clear the enemy from it and capture it. Which is somewhat different from how it works in COH.

The system to capture points in COH is the main thing that makes EIR more focused around combat. The second thing being tiered units and rushing for tanks. Which I imagine will be of less importance in COH2 because AT weaponry will be available at earlier stages.

[tank130]

Permanent doctrine buffs only cause balance issues and limit user creativity. I don't think that's why people play EIR. I think it's because of the improved gameplay.

Really....... so based on that argument, we should remove doctrines and the community would be happy. Interesting thought. It would sure free up the RGD coding department !!

Good luck selling that......

[PonySlaystation]

I merely pointed out it's flaws to show that it's not necessarily a better system. A lot of players do claim that the gameplay is most interesting after a wipe because then you aren't forced to play with a pre-set line up of units dictated by doctrinal buffs.

[brn4meplz]

You still need that progression to link a person emotionally with their Company.

The gameplay differences between CoH/2 and EiR are magnitudes apart. saying theres no base building is just the easiest way to put it.

CoH progresses in a mostly linear fashion. in EiR you can go forwards or backwards on the unit scale at any point.

[Spartan_Marine88]

You still need that progression to link a person emotionally with their Company.

Its the difference between dieing in Diablo 2 on a lvl 50 barbarian. Versus dieing on a lvl 50 barbarian on hardcore. If you could instant get the lvl 50 you wouldn't give two shits about it, without needing to work a bit for what you get there is no attachment no reward or pride. And a loss of anything prized just wouldn't matter.

[Unkn0wn]

I merely pointed out it's flaws to show that it's not necessarily a better system. A lot of players do claim that the gameplay is most interesting after a wipe because then you aren't forced to play with a pre-set line up of units dictated by doctrinal buffs.

A lot of players just like the change of pace and gameplay from months of playing with 'full doctrines'. Not to mention the fresh start in the vet department. Ideally wars would only last a month or so, at which point there is a restart, not enough time to get bored of the 'lategame'.

The doctrine system has merit, but if EIR ever gets a sequel for COH 2 we should seriously look into a more dynamic approach. Vet should be the cornerstone of your company's strength scaling (with fresh accounts getting a small vet modifier), all kinds of unlocks (cost for buffs and just new units/weapons) should be there to distinguish your company from others and other smaller stat buffs should be largely temporarily and tied to the warmap. Active warmap effects could be displayed at the start of the game, as a result you'd get a far more transparent and skill based match up system. (No large imbalances due to doctrine tier choices). There also technically wouldn't be a real endgame, since vet and warmap effects (or cards) are ever-changing. This combined with the ability to re-spec upgrades at a small penalty would allow much larger gameplay variety.

And the biggest benefit of all is that it would require considerably less RGD coding work and no endless doctrine reworks, just a fixed set of mirror matched warmap bonus effects for both sides, a wide variety of easy to balance unlocks for every doctrine and a properly balanced 5-level vet system.

How do you know that COH2 won't better than EIR? I mean EIR is an improvement over COH. But COH2 is an even bigger improvement over COH.

This is a silly comparison. If COH 2 is going to be anything like COH 1, which we can only assume since Relic would be downright silly to drastically alter COH 1's widely celebrated gameplay, then EIR is going to remain vastly different from COH 2 the same way it does from COH 1. The difference in gameplay is more than just the difference between having or not having base-building and some persistent factors.

Anyway, we still have to see if COH 2 is actually going to be moddable. If it is, then surely we should do our very best to try and deliver EIR 2 as fast as possible. I'm certainly very excited about the prospect of a possible sequel to this fantastic mod.

[EliteGren]

Wanna bet OMG will also keep their own mod if Coh 2 is moddable? I sense a nasty fight for players incoming, with all their awesome sauce promoting compared to EIRs kinda sad attempt

[aeroblade56]

Wanna bet OMG will also keep their own mod if Coh 2 is moddable? I sense a nasty fight for players incoming, with all their awesome sauce promoting compared to EIRs kinda sad attempt

truth.

not to mention omg has some funny units 

[Jodomar]

Honestly the game was more like the later close combat games where you got units and they where based on what was available in that area historically then that would be pretty cool. Like O man I can get a super powerful tiger and things of that nature. I like the random aspect to you might be getting a pleasant surprise or facing a horribly nasty unit.

[RikiRude]

Base building isn't that different from building a company in EIR. It's just a way to select which units to use in battle.

But the only persistency in EIR is veterancy and most players don't care about that or they only benefit heavy tanks and artillery.

you have to be kidding me. when you play a game in vcoh its all about denying your enemy resources, and using a specific building order to produce the right counters for what your enemy is building.

in eirr its all about building your company and what you do with that company in battle. sure this leads us to spam companies that you cant adapt to while in game, but in game your focus is on the fight, not going back and making sure you built this, upgraded that, and all that other malarkey.

[aeroblade56]

i once built a entire company out of rifles stickies and nades. no atgs at all or tanks.


it was terrible think my kdr that game was like 0.17.

[Smokaz]

You can play very well as americans and still have a atrocious K/D, it's just how rifle companies work. Thats how they get the work done.

[PonySlaystation]

when you play a game in vcoh its all about denying your enemy resources, and using a specific building order to produce the right counters for what your enemy is building.

And when you play a game in EIR it's all about denying the enemy territory (resouces in vcoh) and using specific units to produce the right counters for what you enemy has. See how similar it is?

Also you have to consider the fact that base building will be improved in COH2.

[Unkn0wn]

The territory aspect is far less important than it is in vCOH, I honestly can't believe you would argue it's even remotely similar. Ideally EIR games are all about the flow of combat and micro, the territory system is only there to visually represent your grasp on the playing field and to provide an incentive for dynamic combat. (Without it users could just sit at their spawn until one side is annihilated) Unlike in vCOH, territory doesn't alter the troops you can field, it merely alters the amount of troops you can field, and it does so quite subtly for the biggest part of any game. Yes sometimes there can be a frantic focus on capturing territory to stay in the game, but these instances are rather a symptom of poor map design than an actual desired side-effect of the MCP system.

Honestly, if you're suggesting that EIR and vCOH gameplay is in any way similar, you probably haven't played a whole lot of vCOH multiplayer. I suggest you do, then come and tell us gameplay is similar. There's just so many differences, large and small, which result in what feels like an entirely different game.

[3rdCondor]

EIR territory seems more like something that had to be included in order to provide an end to the match, besides sheer deathmatch.

[Spartan_Marine88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BprB15p8Amc

It does look pretty sexy. I must say im excited!