Company of Heroes is better than Starcraft 2

Obviously, this is my opinion but this is what I'm basing it on.

SC2 is too micro intensive. You can't even loop a unit build order or set of orders. I can't play like that. I tried the original online recently (free from Blizzard now minus the ladder). I lose every time. You have to concentrate on maybe up to 4 map location at once and be pinpoint accurate selecting units as you can't fit enough in a group. So broken. This should have been fixed in the sequel.

COH fixes this by having grouped units of up to 6 which can be replenished if at least one survives. It is Relic's patented rts system as I'm sure you all know. These have large shield icons which you can click or if you drag and just get one of their feet that is enough to select him. So your armies can be large and still easy to manage a bit like Total War games.

SC2 fights are just building up resources for ages then destroying each others giant army blobs in a few seconds, along with the ever pervasive ultra micro-ing. This makes for a combat mechanic which favours micro ability over strategy.

Maps are shallow. There are virtually no shot blockers in this game unless you count garrisoned marines. It is all played on a binary cover system as in it doesn't have one so range is the only determining factor in controlling encounters and the only bomb or artillery is the Terran nuke.

COH has cover and artillery.

These issues that carried over into the sequel should have been fixed so you have a twitch rts rather than a strategic one.

Don't get me wrong, you have to be able to micro like a boss to win at CoH at a high rank but you're not microing things which are not relevant to the fight such as putting scv's on mining or gas or building 5 different kinds of upgrade. Also, everyone runs it on fastest. This is basically insane mode.

So in Starcraft 1 and 2, in competitive multiplayer you have a game which is almost unplayable.

PS. I am talking about Company of Heroes 1 and it's expansions, not the dlc riddled broken snooze fest that is it's sequel.

yea I fully agree

getting good at SC2 to an extent feels like getting good at Microsoft Excel, just muscle memory and shortcuts

I like SC and SC2 for single player, but yeah, the game mechanics have built a climate where MP is just a clicks-per-minute bum-rush fest. It's a shame, because I really like it on a basic level and wouldn't go anywhere near calling it "broken" - just abused to the extent that it's now "wrong" to play it strategically. But there are many strategy games that have richer mechanics and encourage base building and strategy on a deeper level.

I actually don't care for a lot of the automation stuff you mentioned, but agree COH is a stronger game

So once you need to get good at it and have high APM you dont like it?

@Enragedhydra: umm, no. Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say "i don't like the fact it requires practice to get good at"? I've played most RTS made, and feel like I'm entitled to love SC but find the multiplayer sub-par

I'd argue that being able to replenish units + the unit veterency system is better because it enforces unit preservation, and makes you care about your units more which increases your involvement in each match.

units in SC2 feel very disposable

otherwise, it ultimately comes down to personal preference. The fast pace and APM required to be good at SC2 ruins the fun IMO. Its way too frantic and stressful for me. COH2 is more about tactics, hard counters and positioning. I also think the Victory Point control mode is more fun and promotes more consistent action through a match compared to SC2's standard base destroying mode.

SC2 certainly has its place as a more 'pure' RTS, but I've grown to far prefer the sub-genre some people refer to as RTT (real time tactics)

@Enragedhydra: I played the original Starcraft at a pretty high level about fifteen years ago

Didn't people play it on standard speed back then or am I imagining that? I think it would actually be a better game if it was locked to standard speed for MP.

yea but all your units are the same in SC2. in CoH you'll have a squad that picked up a couple weapons dropped by enemies, went on an adventure behind enemy lines, gained a bunch of veterancy and somehow live to fight another day. You'll care more about that squad than any of the faceless units in SC2 and feel bad if they die.

as I said it comes down to personal preference. I just strongly prefer how CoH and its ilk does things.

About 50% of the amount of people playing CoH2 online are still playing CoH1 online.

Here is a link to a recent 1v1 match in case anyone wants to know how it plays online.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJsKtwCjaSQ

At the first view, because I did not play both games for long, I say COH2 is much better than SC2. Because it's just a better RTS in general.

But the concern I have with COH2 is the balance. Which could be far from even.

@gmak2442: But the concern I have with COH2 is the balance. Which could be far from even.

That's why CoH1 is still the best rts around. Most of the community moved over to CoH2 and grinned and beared it but about half those people carried on playing the original for it's superlative balance.

I am told the latest CoH2 patch has made it much more balanced but CoH2 games now are SOOOOO SLOOOOW with far less vehicles and plays like WW1 trench warfare wheareas CoH1 is blisteringly fast action for the most part with much more dynamic and varied battles.

But I can't forgive CoH2 for spoiling the vp mechanic and making an area around the vp just needing a unit within an area rather than going right up to it and not being able to fight and taking extra damage whilst capping. This was probably the best feature of CoH (introduced with the first Dawn of War game) as it made for very difficult decisions. Relic listened to the community with that change and the community was a load of frustrated players who just wanted it to be easier without realising how key that mechanic was to making the game exciting. Now VP's are just fought over in long drawn out pitched fights and the game speed has HALVED as a result.

SC2 failed to make ANY changes to the core mechanics laid down in the first because they were so scared of South Koreans turning their nose up. But Relic are thick because SC1 already exists and SC2 does not get new players now as the meta is stale and bar of entry too high. They should have improved the macro mechanics in the sequel to make it a more sophisticated rts.

yes, as an RTS the COH series is far better than Starcraft I feel.

Starcraft has superior base building, but aside from that COH:

- has better squad management

- more tactical and more fun rock/paper/scicors mechanics

- amazing 2v2 and 3v3 teamplay

- I really enjoy its WWII setting

yeah i prefer COH aswell. Sadly they dont make games like that anymore it seems.

Apples are better than bonobo apes.

They’re very different. There’s no base building in the original CoH. And Starcraft 2 is more story focused.

@Starshine_M2A2:

There is base in building in COH, not sure what you mean.

Personally, i just enjoy COH more in multiplayer and i want to point out that COH can be very micro intensiv aswell. There is just a lot more deepth to the strategy in COH which i enjoy more.

Some excamples:

Tanks have weak spots, like Rear armour and top.

Logical realisme: This is my own way to describe thees types of games, simply put. You cant take down tanks with a machine gun, you need anti tank guns or mines.

Cover and a chance for your armies to miss their shots.

This is not to bash on starcraft, i am simply pointing out what makes me enjoy COH more.

However i will say that starcraft will allways have a speciel place in my hearth because it was the game we stayed up all night playing when we were younger.

Starcraft 2 had you micro-manage base building and unit production, but you could leave some of the fighting alone for a little while, especially in the early moments of a game.

Company of Heroes required you to micro-manage not only base-building and unit production, but also every aspect of every fight, down the unit positioning like it was a goddamn 2 years old playing in the backyard.

Company of Heroes was far from being a bad game, but I got out mentally tired after every session I played.

@Anubis2108: Is the base building in later levels then because I didn't see any in the first half of it.

I have great memories of playing CoH 1 with my brother. We used to play 2v2 vs AI on that map with the two bridges at the top and bottom, and the river crossing in the middle. Good memories.

Company of heroes is also an evolution of the RTS genre. But of course, SC2 is still a good game.

I did get suspended. :(

SC2 sucks. The reason is, it is too simplistic strategically. The only factor to determine skirmishes is range. So you outrange, try to scout or throw loads of little dudes at the enemy until someone runs out of dudes. That is Starcraft. I'm talking about multiplayer here, I never even played the single player campaign on CoH. There is a little bit more to CoH and the reason is cover. Also yes it has chance to hit (received accuracy on units effects (more = more bullet dodging) this as well as accuracy from the guy firing combined with relative distance). But cover is where it sets itself apart possibly in the rts genre as a whole, meaning you can hold positions with an inferior force and negating the cover means using mortars or grenades or flames. The depth of complexity in CoH and it's counter system is astounding. CoH is a game which even after 60,000+ of gameplay (and replay watching), I still can't get to to the higher levels. Although, I stopped playing 1v1 because quite literally my heart could not take it. It was so stressful my adrenalin was making my hands shake. If I can control that maybe I'd play 1v1's. But my tactics in 2v2 were long games which meant I didn't rush for middle VP's early on and 7 times out of 10 the ally would quit, calling me a noob, leaving me with the AI which generally played better as it was the hard or expert AI I think. I would generally win from there

But sadly, the sequel took several steps back with it's system of microtransactions and Relic wanting the game out of the door unfinished (which is a more recent trend). So you have a cap circle now which if each team is in, pauses the cap wherever it is I think, suspending it wherever it is, who could both be in cover and thus games are now much longer. Which in 2v2's can equate to crazy long games pushing the average game time way up, which I think is a barrier to entry for newcomers as that is alot of time to invest in one games, ironically, enticing less new players where the mechanic change was designed to make it more inviting I think at least.

I'm sorry, I used to enjoy Starcraft because when it came out in 1995 or something, it was excellent. But I have no interest in managing bloody houses at the same time as fighting KoreanLegend723 on 3 fronts. If they played at normal speed maybe I would have a chance. The stupid thing is, by playing every game on 'insane' speed you are simply excluding everyone from having a chance that don't play that game like a concert pianist needs to practise in order to maintain the required ability, which is pretty much every day.

So balls to SC2 and it's cheezy glowy, smooth graphical style which I hate (put a bit of grime on things, make it feel real) and it's obsession with APM's.

I used to analyse my APM's on CoH to see how low I could get them, because in CoH the less clicks the better as units tend to pause sometimes if you keep clicking actions on them and get stuck and confused. That is the way to play.

PS. A freak skiing accident took out the lead CoH programmer just as CoH2 was getting going into development. Is the the reason CoH2 became a half finished microtransaction nightmare? Coincidence? I'm saying nothing.

Agree with all, but at the end of the day everyone likes what they like u cant really choose...