In 2006, when real-time strategy games (RTS) were gradually slipping into the trough, it was not an overstatement to describe Relic's Company of Heroes as coming out of nowhere.
Unique squad combat mode, concise and clear cover damage reduction mechanism, fresh and interesting battlefield "capture" system, shocking terrain destruction effect, and can play encirclement and interspersion, stick to the line, saturation strike, long-distance attack, armed behind enemy lines, etc., etc., abandoning traditional resource adoption, and instead directly linking resource supply with territorial occupation map design...
You know, any of these ideas was enough to shock RTS in those years, and "Company of Heroes" can combine these many characteristics in one, which shows that its innovation is thorough, the concept is radical, and it is difficult to distinguish for a while, whether this "mine" is a big savior who injects fresh blood into a small circle, or a gravedigger who intends to bury traditional RTS games.
But it doesn't matter, players don't care about the minutiae of the concept. They are simply intoxicated with the unique and fresh gameplay of "Company of Heroes", the picture performance beyond the times, the hardware optimization that is more close to the people, and the World War II theme of the fire at that time, enjoying the divine soldier falling from the sky on the eve of Normandy and the horses of Pokakee Village, and are happy to watch the squad soldiers go forward on guard, and once they meet the enemy, they rush to the tactical position to start counterattacking; Listen to them tell jokes about conscription and complain about the embarrassment of walking, until this rare ease attracts Stuka with six bursts; Use them to build fortifications, form a defensive line, jam a large number of enemy troops in a certain bridgehead position, and then summon a 152 mm caliber Grim Reaper to crush the enemy into powder ...
All in all, "Company of Heroes" is such a "good game" in public perception, and it is close to perfection after enriching the factions and classes through the two DLCs of "Resistance Frontline" and "Medal of Courage", so that after 2013, a considerable number of players still choose to "hold on to the incomplete", firmly believing that "Company of Heroes" is still the best RTS work on the market.
And most of the remaining players have become loyal fans of the sequel "Company of Heroes 2".
Pretty normal, isn't it? When the picture quality and concept of "Company of Heroes" can no longer dominate the top, it is not natural for players to choose to vote with their feet and devote themselves to newer and better games.
Outrageous, isn't it? Compared with "Company of Heroes", this sequel has richer camps and mechanics (Soviet faction, Eastern Front battlefield, and ice, blizzard and snow mechanics), details and performance are more realistic (mainly reflected in the unit field of view and explosion effect), the map design is also encouraging players to "move", so it is more ornamental and competitive, participating in battles and skirmishes can also get treasure chests of different quality, and open a variety of rewards... It seems that it is better than the previous game, but it just can't calm the thoughts of those old players.
T34-85 to 14 population ... It is difficult to hit the steel torrent of the Soviets under population constraints
I believe there must be some relatively obscure scientific theory that can explain all this, but sorry, I can only give a particularly subjective answer based on my own experience. I personally don't like the realistic but narrow vision of the units in Company of Heroes 2, its population limit of only 100, its explosion performance of directly blowing people into blood mist (rather than corpses), and the extreme subtraction that deletes almost all the "passes" - this does greatly increase the richness of the tactics chosen by the two sides of the battle, but it also completely erases the small joy of casual players guarding the road and bullying computer AI.
In addition, Relic's smear of the Soviet Union is also enough to trigger the physiological disgust of some players, and its "battle of wits and courage" with the Chinese patch is also quite a good impression of defeated players. Although these fragmentary feelings do not have a clear theme, they seem to contain Relic's malice towards ordinary players, and it seems that after switching to a long-term updated service game, casual players are not so important whether they are happy or not.
It's just a bit of personal opinion, it's not representative, and it seems to be contrary to mainstream view. At least from the evaluation of Steam, the competitive and long-term operation of "Company of Heroes 2" has been recognized by most players, and its reputation has been locked in the scope of "special praise" for a long time. Because of this, when Relic announced "Company of Heroes 3" and soon launched the player test, I really didn't slow down, thinking that "Company of Heroes 2" is well operated, there is no need to start from scratch and give up so many years of careful polishing, right? Could it be that Relic has found something big killer that is enough to shake the industry, and wants to replicate the shock of 2006's "Company of Heroes"?
It's really possible. With a free-to-action campaign map, strategic and real-time combat modes that interact and switch freely, a simple and practical pause command mode, and a mixed weapon squad with more detailed action and functions, there is no reason to underestimate Relic's determination and courage to forge ahead this time when these long-awaited new features converge on the battlefields of North Africa and Italy as they did more than a decade ago.
Not only that, but once you enter the battle, you will also find:
The brothers of the sappers do not have to fight hard in the main base, they can enter the battle without distraction at the first time, outsourcing the task of expanding the base to the brotherly units that are walking around the headquarters;
The personnel carrier truck has been epically enhanced, not only can transport people and replenish troops like the previous game, but also can carry heavy weapons that can only serve as fixed gun positions in the previous game, and quickly deliver them wherever they are needed;
The tank is no longer just a ruthless and lonely breakthrough machine, it can carry infantry brothers to the battlefield as shown in many movies, and it can also turn into a giant shield to resist the fire tongue of the bunker that kills people;
And the special forces finally have a bit of the combat literacy that a "ranger" should have, and understand that they should carry two more heavy weapons on their bodies in order to adapt to the rapidly changing battlefield ...
With the blessing of many details, "Company of Heroes 3" has almost been reborn compared to the previous work, but the problem is:
The mutual influence and free switching between strategy mode and real-time combat mode is the masterpiece of the Total War series, CA has been deeply cultivated here for dozens of years, iterating countless works, and its subtlety of design is by no means Relic can fully grasp and use for himself;
My personal favorites of truck trolls, tank crews, weapon switching, and even the "tank recovery" I didn't mention are all old settings of the Man of War series, and now the developer of the latter, 1C, is committed to the challenge of integrating first-person shooters more into the battlefield of RTS games, and has clearly left Relic behind in terms of innovation and technology;
As for the pause command, automatic architecture, these settings are not so much innovation, but rather a classic reproduction of some classic RTS designs. They do give the game a richer tactical choice, but they are also an unabashed reminder that Relic is no longer the brave he once was, and the Muses have quietly abandoned them.
So it is not difficult to find that although "Company of Heroes 3" is still creative, it is not as dazzling as the original (it can even be said that there is no novelty), which is not enough to cover up the "informal" under Relic's "striving for innovation":
First and foremost, Relic provoked the wrath of the crowd for perfunctory.
In this latest work of the Company of Heroes, which has always delighted players with details, you will see the airborne elite of the 82nd Division rushing to the battlefield with the bolted M1A1, hearing that our soldiers carrying enemy equipment immediately changed their accents, found that reinforcements were often stuck in strange places and could not move, stared at the game and the windy Chinese translator fell into deep thought, unable to figure out whether the translation in this half-day and a half was careless or intentional.
Fixed in the latest release
On top of that, you'll find plenty of unit skill icons from previous games in the game – no big deal, and can be seen as a tribute to their predecessors. But the problem is that, firstly, there are many new icons with a calm style and high resolution in "Company of Heroes 3", and secondly, the old version of the icons is not only blurry but also has many obvious errors, combined with the problems mentioned above, it seems to be enough to prove that this game is definitely not polished and should not be rushed to the shelves at the end of February.
This is called Sherman, comrade? This hasn't been fixed yet
Secondly, Relic still hasn't returned the coolness of casual players in Company of Heroes 3.
The map design of Company of Heroes 3 follows the basic design of obtaining corresponding resources (manpower, fuel, ammo, victory points) in the occupied area, almost completely inheriting the overall idea of "making the opposing sides move" in Company of Heroes 2. Therefore, at least in the current official maps, instead of arranging for the "bridgehead" that casual players like to see to appear again, Relic has greatly weakened the structural strength of the houses on the battlefield, reduced the suppression effect of heavy machine guns and imposed stricter restrictions on their field of vision, seemingly forcing players accustomed to using "fortressization" against AI to a corner- Or maybe Relic is simply recreating the relatively less intense WWII battlefields of 1941 (and the Italian house of tofu scum).
Don't think about it, houses in Italy can't withstand such a toss
Finally, and most tragically, Company of Heroes 3, which abandoned detail and casual players, also failed to balance the camps.
I remember that when the game was first released, players found that this flamethrower not only had a long range and fierce firepower, but also ignored the cover and ignored the armor, with continuous damage and miraculous effects on the enemies of houses and trenches, so as long as the scale was formed, it was that people blocked the killing Buddha and the Buddha could bravely blacken it even if they encountered tanks, and then found that they still couldn't beat it;
And after a few days, it turned out that anti-tank guns did not reduce the efficiency of squad members in fighting infantry ... Pulling up a few teams of anti-tank gun infantry all the way down is still the effect of people blocking and killing, but this time even the tanks have no confidence to sanction the infantry, and if they risk a second more, they may be taken away immediately by a salvo.
These "problems" are still complaining on everyone's forums, and it is clear that after slashing at the German bunker, Relic has never been able to find a way to limit these strange tactics that work well; From the overall performance of Company of Heroes 2, Relic is likely to still oscillate between the characteristics of the faction and the balance of the battle, and in the end, it will not be able to give an answer that will satisfy most players.
Although the above three points are not much, they cover almost all aspects of the player experience, and also well explain the rationality of the current game bad review rate of more than 35%; But to be fair, is "Company of Heroes 3" with many flaws really so unbearable that it has to give a bad review?
Not really!
In southern Italy, we either followed the footsteps of the Allies, or corrected the mistakes made by the Allies, balanced the relationship between the British and American troops and the local guerrillas, and witnessed the rookies who landed one by one to become invincible after a hundred battles, and finally recovered Rome to a perfect end;
In North Benghazi, we turned sides in a relatively traditional campaign model to win the hunt for the desert fox, but regardless of righteousness, justice or not, the "fox and mouse battle" is inevitably destroying the precious oasis in the human forbidden zone. Where is the glory of civilization under this rolling yellow sand, only thousands of broken bones;
In the relatively free battle mode, I think Relic's unprecedented enhancement of trucks has solved the problem of players' supply embarrassment in sports battles under the premise of taking into account the realism - after all, putting such a car on the front line that can upgrade air defense, transform into artillery or professional ambulances, and capture weapons and recover resources is absolutely beneficial and harmless;
And in multiplayer battles... I don't really know much about this, so I won't make any comments.
In terms of personal experience, although the innovation of "Company of Heroes 3" in this era is no longer amazing, it is still a good game that is comfortable and interesting to play, as long as Relic is willing to continue the long-term service spirit of the previous game, even if it only corrects those low-level mistakes that should not exist, it can slowly win back the reputation of players;
Not only that, compared with the battle of the gods in the late World War II of the previous work, the arsenals of each faction in the background of "Company of Heroes 3" are completely in a state of dancing demons. If Relic can stop worrying about balance (or come up with ideas to solve possible balance problems) and send these weird guys into battle, there is no doubt that these guys will greatly enhance the richness of the game's units - for many non-competitive players, this is undoubtedly the core charm of RTS games.
Since there is the Anzac ... Isn't this arranged?
And most importantly, Relic's long-term operation is undoubtedly a commitment to players, promising that they will be committed to the balance of the game, that they will continue to enrich the game content, and that they will continue to carry out the ideas used in the new game to the end - even if those innovations have little effect and are completely worth the loss, but only by taking this difficult first step, "Company of Heroes 3" can accelerate to leave the shackles of past glory and usher in the next peak of the series.
Admittedly, as things stand, getting Hero Company back to the top is by no means an overnight success. It may be that in the next generation, or even the next generation of works, many of the ideas that use Company of Heroes 3 can really be digested and absorbed by Relic and derive their own things;
But at the price of a triple-A work, witness and support the beginning of the rebirth of the legendary IP Nirvana... Rationally, it doesn't seem to be very cost-effective. So at least before Relic is willing to fix the error details, I personally recommend that everyone calm down and wait for the right discount before considering whether to start, at least don't let Relic have the illusion that players support them, so they can be taken at will.